In a message dated 10/27/2006 11:19:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Which  raises a bigger question (at least in my mind) ...  Has there 
been  any recent discussion on HISTARCH or elsewhere relative to the  
curation/non-curation of historic archaeological materials?  I guess  
I am most concerned about the high-volume, but (potentially) less  
significant artifacts (e.g., nails, bricks, unidentifiable ferrous  
lumps, window glass, twentieth century bottle glass, etc.).

Anybody  like to talk about these as curation policies or issues, or 
point me  towards such a discussion?



Mark,
 
This always comes down to "it is not my research interest, so pitch it in  
the dumpster!" when it comes to historical archaeology. Federal and state  
agencies trip over their shoelaces to get rid of collections. I have heard the  
State of California, Department of Transportation recently discarded a huge  
historical archaeology collection. But any area specialist will always intervene  
and demand his/her part of the collection be spared (eg. ceramics, or  
insulators, or roof tile, etc.). Speaking as a tax-payer and one who believes  the 
meaning of sample recovery as a trade-off to allow complete destruction of  the 
rest of the archaeology, I believe the lead agency is obligated to  paying for 
permanent conservation and curation of the sample collections  (permanent, as 
in perpetuity). If you can't preserve it, then you need to move  your freeway 
to avoid it. Destruction after sampling is the worst form of  betrayal of 
public trust.
 
Ron May
Legacy 206, Inc.