In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> Ron May writes
>Erica,
>
>Yes, museum collections are used constantly to evaluate the significance of
>newly discovered sites. Also, they are used to develop research designs. I am
>not aware of too many thesis projects simply using old collections, though.

Erica asked about the UK - here museum collections are not 'used
constantly', per se in this way.  Objects which have moved from private
ownership or excavation into museum collections (should) have found
their way onto the Sites and Monuments record, and thus alert developer-
funded and academic (i.e. university or avocational) researchers to
their presence. However, it would be quite unusual for the archaeologist
to move from the paper/digital record to the object itself for further
information and understanding.

Doctoral theses which re-evaluate previously excavated or studied sites
are in the minority, as are object-focussed theses.

The close working between University College and the Museum of London's
Archaeology Research Centre is also unusual: I've met third year
archaeology undergraduates who haven't been to a museum since they left
school (if one excludes Tate Modern and the Guggenheim!).  The young
people themselves _are_ encouraged to excavate or work in museums before
or during their studies, but find it very difficult to find museum
placements, because they have such a short time to offer, they are too
resource-intensive.

Avocational archaeologists, however, seem to be interlaced with the
museum world - volunteering on finds work, interpreting collections and
working front-of-house in volunteer run museums, alongside their
fieldwork.

Cheers,

Pat

Pat Reynolds
writing this with two of her hats on:
Surrey Museums Development Officer
Research student, University of York
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now,
                    but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)