Nicholas Bell correctly points out that collections which have lost their
full archaeological provenience *can* still be used for a variety of
purposes--if only to explore the issue of collectors and collecting! Most
systematic collections do come with some information (i.e., stone tools from
a specific county, state, or region). How many of us use artifacts with
'no-provenience' for our type collections? Simply saying that a systematic
collection is worthless because it does not come with full archaeological
provenience is just as 'wrong' as a museum would be to support
collecting/looting of archaeological sites... Obviously, any collection
offered to a museum has to be carefully considered for its value and
appropriateness!
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]