[Nhcoll-l] no-data archaeological material

[Barker, Alex W.]

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 at 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<mailto: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<tel:(412)%20665-2608>
hardingd at carnegiemnh.org<mailto:hardingd at carnegiemnh.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20171005/e05360f6/attachment.html