[Nhcoll-l] no-data archaeological material

Thu Oct 5 17:30:04 EDT 2017

Deborah,

Do other local (smaller and less funded) institutions need teaching kits?
Could they be used by local high school or elementary teachers for
educational purposes? Just a few options.

Patti

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:19 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 <(412)%20665-2608>
>
> hardingd at carnegiemnh.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nhcoll-l mailing list
> Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
> Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
> mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
> natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
> society. See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.spnhc.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=LpYc_Z_iN1KRw0hheb3x6-8MJUMu482qfHowpGYJqwc&m=_r9kaRu5UeUqFciBp07Dx5vasDRgZ928mxqqorjjKds&s=jurw9PQNUM09ve0FxE_y4P9cF1a61g-fBulYGF0MWKQ&e=  for membership information.
> Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
>
>

-- 
Patti Wood Finkle
Director of Museums
~Tate Geological Museum
~Werner Wildlife Museum
Casper College
307-268-3026

Correspondence sent to or from this email address is subject to the Wyoming
Public Records Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20171005/bd040d06/attachment.html 