[Nhcoll-l] no-data archaeological material

[Peter Rauch]

Alec,

I think you actually did identify an anthropological/archeological value
and use for those "artifacts with no data".

One option might be to make the problem the topic—to display the objects as
a jumbled group, with didactic labels talking about the scale of collecting
and the impact of indiscriminate collecting and looting on the
archaeological record.

Those objects have stories to tell. In the context of the science and art
of anthropology/archeology, the sorts of stories you suggest as an option,
emerge from those objects. (I wouldn't "jumble" them --that itself might be
an arbitrary imputation, unless you use the "jumble" as a metaphor for
illustrating the inability to order the artifacts in any more rational way.
;>)

What more powerful source of material than those , and what more
appropriate context of presentation than a museum, is there to tell the
story of [all those reasons you cited below] the "artifact with no data"?

Peter

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Barker, Alex W. <barkeraw at missouri.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
>
>
> The short version is that artifacts with neither provenience nor
> provenance (the former representing archaeological context, the latter
> origin, ownership and chain of custody) have limited value in archaeology,
> regardless of whether one views archaeology through a disciplinary or
> museum lens.
>
>
>
> Most archaeological organizations restrict or prohibit the publication of
> unprovenienced/ unprovenanced objects, both to avoid encouraging looting
> (often the reason such objects lack any context) and because any scholarly
> conclusions drawn from those objects are circular—they’re both based on and
> perpetuate assumptions about what the context of the object would
> necessarily be if only we actually knew it.
>
>
>
> One can say, for example, that a given chipped stone tool is in the shape
> of a Middle Woodland Snyders point, but without context one can’t say
> whether it was made in a Midwestern village two thousand years ago or in
> basement last Tuesday.  That matters, not only in the sense of authenticity
> but in the sense that it adds a spurious exemplar that actually interferes
> with any opportunity to learn anything new and previously unknown.
>
>
>
> So yes, we can reliably say they’re “artifacts,” but not of what*,* from
> when or by whom.  Without some reliable context the objects are mute and
> can only tell the stories we arbitrarily impute to them.  There are some
> categories of artifacts which can be securely dated and attributed—but
> ground stone tools are not generally among them.
>
>
>
> One option might be to make the problem the topic—to display the objects
> as a jumbled group, with didactic labels talking about the scale of
> collecting and the impact of indiscriminate collecting and looting on the
> archaeological record.  But I recognize that’s a partial and not entirely
> satisfying solution.
>
>
>
> Alec
>
>
>
> *From:* nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces@
> mailman.yale.edu] *On Behalf Of *Peter Rauch
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:11 AM
> *To:* Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Nhcoll-l] no-data archaeological material
>
>
>
> What is an "artifact with no data"?
>
> Why is it being called an "artifact"? That seems to imply that the
> "artifact" itself is informing the observer (that it is an "artifact").
>
> Why would one be fretting about what to do with "artifacts with no data"
> if those "artifacts" are not informing the observer in _any_ intellectually
> useful way(s) other than that the "artifacts" have no data?
>
>
>
> There seems to be more to this issue of "no data" than simply "no data".
> What is it?
>
>
>
> I know there are many valued reasons regarding the need to have "data"
> accompanying collection specimens. What I'm asking here is not about how to
> dispose of "artifacts with no data", but why are artifacts with no data of
> no value as "artifacts"?  Are they indeed useless --of no use whatsoever--
> to an academic institution for informing Society? E.g., will no
> self-respecting anthropologist even bother to ponder what stories a
> dataless "artifact" can tell?
>
>
>
> Are those artifacts themselves containers of self-identifying "data"
> (e.g., what is the material of which they are constituted, and are those
> materials signatures of where those artifacts may have originated, and do
> those origins suggest anything else informative about the artifact)?
>
>
>
> If cost of storage and maintenance in the storage collection were not a
> factor, would there be a tendency to retain those "artifacts with no data",
> or to discard them anyway? I.e., how is the cost factor influencing the
> decision to rate these "artifacts" of absolutely no redeeming value?
>
>
>
> If these "artifacts with no data" were arrayed in front of ten
> anthropologists generally knowledgeable about such objects (when
> accompanied by "data", at least), would none of those anthropologists
> recognize those "artifacts with no data" as artifacts of anthropogenic
> origin? If they would recognize them as from human manufacture, then don't
> those "artifacts" speak something useful to Anthropology? What?  BTW, past
> curators DID deal with them --they made a decision to retain them, to not
> discard them; perhaps that was simply because they had the storage space,
> but it may be too that they believed that tomorrow might bring some new
> thinking to the "artifact" table? Would a museum with no "artifacts with no
> data" tell some naive future anthropologist that "Anthropology museums do
> not and have never housed dataless artifacts"?
>
>
>
> Just wondering what an "artifact with no data" actually is, and why a
> museum would have some (can't figure out what to do with them).....
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Harding, Deborah <HardingD at carnegiemnh.org>
> wrote:
>
> The Section of Anthropology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, is in the
> last 3 months of a 3-year NEH grant to rehouse its 1.5 million
> archaeological specimens. As we get down to the last few boxes to go into
> our wonderful new cabinets, we’ve run into the problem of what should be
> done with artifacts having no data. Most of them are ground stone tools,
> and most come from early 20th century donations. Ethically, we can’t just
> rebury them, and we can’t sell them. Past curators didn’t want to deal with
> them, but now we have to.
>
>
>
> We’ve already got educational loan kits using no-data material, and the
> system will handle maybe one or two more kits. That’s maybe 40 items off
> the list. Have other institutions come up with solutions to the problem?
> Any suggestions would be appreciated. [We’ve already rejected paving our
> driveways or building patios.]
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> *Deborah G Harding*
>
> Collection Manager
>
> Section of Anthropology
>
> Carnegie Museum of Natural History
>
> 412-665-2608 <%28412%29%20665-2608>
>
> hardingd at carnegiemnh.org
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20171005/5a363064/attachment.html