Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:24:30 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
List Members:
In part, Buhr wrote, "I am reminded of an intense excavation of an ancient
Maya site in Belize some years ago: large crew, large excavation area, no
artifacts of significance recovered....a colleague visited the site ... and
found the one wonderful artifact to represent the season's effort...."
What is a non-significant artifact? How sad it is to sum up a season's
work based on one "wonderful artifact." Is it the artifact that is
important or the information that it imparts? If I were to sum up my
career by the number of "wonderful artifacts" I have identified and/or
recovered, I would be sadly disappointed. But my career has been based on
interpreting human behavior most often from non-signficant artifacts that
are so typical and common to all historic sites. I would venture to guess
that curated collections are full of non-significant artifacts, artifacts
that have a story to tell.
With respect.....ww
|
|
|