> [log in to unmask] Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:20:38 +1000
> From: Iain Stuart <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: The finds problem
> Following on from the points made be others, I was
wondering what use the
> collections of artefacts are if nobody is researching
them.
>
> Alisdair Brooks is the only dedicated artefact researcher
I know of in
> Australia (although I had a brick collection that I was
researching once).
>
> yours
>
> Iain Stuart
This issue was the focus of some discussion at the ASHA
(Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology) conference
in Wellington, New Zealand this past weekend.
Deakin University (Melbourne) and Heritage Victoria (the
state heritage body) are currently engaging in an industry
linkage project whereby PhD student Ilka Schacht is aiming
to produce a model for assessing the significance of
historic artefact collections held in Australia.
Ilka's paper probably caused more discussion than any other.
My specific concern - and Iain's post probably makes my
biases clear - is that the very reason why some older
collections are less significant is that the excavators were
unable to recognise what was significant in the first place.
A illustrative parable....
Some recent research of mine (publication imminent) has
demonstrated a strong connection between the US Civil War
and the appearance of American Market ceramics in Australia.
The most widespread examples are Berlin Swirl pattern white
granite plates, all of which feature makers' marks with a
TPQ of 1861 or 1862.
Yet while these white granite vessels are relatively common
within specific (unculled) Australian assemblages excavated
in the '90s and '00s, they are exceedingly rare in the
(usually culled) assemblages that I've looked dating from
the '80s (and I think a couple were from the '70s - not sure
without digging through a large pile of files).
Thus the question has to be raised as to whether the lack of
the relevant vessels in the earlier collections is a genuine
lack, or simply caused by inexperienced researchers
disproportionately throwing out uncoloured rim
relief-moulded white granite because only the more obviously
decorated pieces were considered 'diagnostic'. It is in any
case a largely moot point as it's impossible to do any
comparative analysis based on the relative occurrence of any
artefact type in these older assemblages as the 'diagnostic'
sample isn't a representative sample.
This potentially opens up a whole can of worms over such
issues as culling, random sampling, etc., which is not my
intent. Though I suppose there's no point in denying that
I'm against culling in principle (while by no means wishing
to ignore the challenges of time, money, and
developer/museum pressure that storage usually entails)
I only want to highlight a challenge that we'll increasingly
face in Australia and New Zealand as standards in artefact
research continue to improve: namely that as more and more
archaeologists become interested in Australasia's material
culture record, they'll increasingly find what I found...
that the research potential of the older collections has
been compromised by past discard practices that have the
potential for causing some embarrassment.
So we're in danger of having a situation where, just as
researchers are turning their attention to the research
importance of curated assemblages, we can't use some of
those collections because the original researcher didn't
fully appreciate that importance.
There are no easy answers here. But I would like to note in
summary that
1) Researchers in Australia and New Zealand (particularly
students) are increasingly realising the importance of using
previously excavated collections for research purposes.
2) While culling without the generation of a complete
artefact record still occasionally occurs in Australia/NZ,
this practice has been dying out for a decade.
3) The real issue is thus no longer the potential
significance of a complete curated assemblage, but rather
the research significance of older assemblages where the
significance was in fact compromised by an ironically
circular inability to recognise just what elements of that
assemblage were in fact significant.
This is, however, all part and parcel of the improvement of
material culture identification and analysis in
Australia/NZ. While standards have improved immeasurably
over the last decade, and this is a genuinely exciting time
to be involved in this type of research (when you can
actually convince someone to pay you...), we are all facing
challenges caused by the practices of the past.
Alasdair
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Alasdair Brooks
Material Culture Specialist / Lab Archaeologist
SHA Newsletter Current Research Editor for Australia/NZ
1/62 Gooch Street
Thornbury, Vic 3071
Australia
03 9416 8484
0429 198 532
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
