Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:47:43 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The question posed a couple of weeks ago about the curation of
artifacts from historical archeological sites prompted me to ask
Doreen Cooper, at Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, what
they had been doing about culling their artifact collections. I had
done quite a bit of work at Klondike in the late 1970s and early
1980s, and had wrestled with the question myself. A few days ago, I
posted Doreen's reply to help the original inquirer decide what to
cull and what to keep.
Apparently Doreen's reply and my sending it on has caused some alarm
amongst archeologists who work with collections and curators in the
National Park Service. I'd like to set the record straight.
Neither Doreen nor I were talking about artifacts that had been
catalogued into a park's collection. Once an item has been catalogued,
the NPS curates, maintains, and cares for that item. We were
responding only to a question about decisions made during or
immediately after field investigations on what to cull before
artifacts were catalogued into a collection and curated.
When we in the National Park Service speak of cataloguing, we refer to
a specific process that sets up a system of accountability and
ownership of items in a park's collection. A park will usually have
many types of items in its collection, only some of which come from
archeological investigations. Because the artifacts from a historical
archeological project can generate enormous collections, some culling
policy is usually (rightfully) developed to make sure we keep what has
to be kept, and dispose of those items that have very limited future
research potential and are very difficult to curate. Undiagnostic
"tin" can fragments come to mind immediately.
In all cases, Doreen (and I as well, when I was doing field work)
recorded salient characteristics of artifacts before they were
disposed of. Disposal was taken care of in a way that did not
compromise either future research at the site, or future archeological
endeavors at the place of disposal. The descriptions were entered into
a database that noted that the artifact had been disposed of before
the collection was catalogued. The database is archived and curated as
part of the documentation of the project.
I hope this clarifies NPS policy on cataloguing and culling of
artifacts. NPS does not ordinarilly cull items from catalogued
collections.
|
|
|