[Nhcoll-l] no-data archaeological material

Thu Oct 5 13:21:47 EDT 2017

Hi Peter,

The term, artifact, has traditionally been used for decades by archaeologists to describe objects recovered from an archaeological site. The object can be a whole artifact (bead), part of an artifact (potsherds), residue from artifact production (lithic debitage), ecofacts (pollen samples), or a whole range of other types of artifacts.

An artifact can be an isolated find such as a projectile point found on the surface and not in association with an archaeological site, or an artifact removed from the surface of an archaeological site, or artifacts removed by excavation or “digging” of an archaeological site.

An artifact with no data is an object that has lost information on where it is from. Often these will be artifacts removed by the public from any of the contexts above.  Frequently they, or their children, no longer remember from where the artifact(s) originated, so the artifacts have no provenience, or no locational or context data associated with them.

If it’s a Clovis point then the artifact has some research value because they are so rare. If it’s a plain ware potsherd or animal bone, the use is minimal.  Why? Because an archaeologist can recover thousands of artifacts and ecofacts (pollen samples, cooked faunal bone, flotation samples) from one site.  Why would a researcher spend their time on common artifacts with no provenience data when they can research artifacts with a lot of locational data?

When a private donor says “my grandfather collected these in the 1920s while on a vacation, but I have no idea where on Earth he was”, a museum has to weigh this against several factors.  Is it rare: can it be used for research, exhibit or education purposes; will it take up much storage space.

If it’s a mano, metate, pestle, or mortar (implements used to grind up something, i.e. corn, pigments) then we get into a big quandary when there is “no data” associated with them. Manos and metates are very common in archaeological sites.  Metates can be very big and heavy (50lbs or more) and take up much storage space.  They are commonly offered to us by the public who doesn’t know what to do with them.  In our case, we direct them to certain local Tribes because cultural traditional practitioners have use for complete manos and metates, but not broken ones.

Sincerely-Elaine

Elaine Hughes
Collections Director
Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA)
3101 North Fort Valley Road
Flagstaff, AZ  86001
928-774-5211x228
Fax: 928-779-1527
[cid:image001.png at 01D1F3C6.19A12380]
Founded in 1928, MNA is an AAM accredited institution.
The mission of the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) is to inspire a sense of love and responsibility for the beauty and diversity of the Colorado Plateau through collecting, studying, interpreting, and preserving the region’s natural and cultural heritage.

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 9:11 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/20171005/2c1b1245/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2324 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20171005/2c1b1245/attachment.png 