Dear Jim,
Please do put the notes up in multiple fora. I have already started
collecting the most interesting comments as ammunition for the time the ax
starts to fall..
Best,
Alice
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, James Morris <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a really interesting thread. I will be chairing the discussions on
> animal bone retention at the LAARC workshop Sylvia posted about. The work
> is covering all material types including human remains, pottery metal work
> etc. Concurrent discussions will be running so it will be interesting to
> see what comes out of each group.
>
> All the discussion groups will be covering the same questions. These
> include:
>
> - What attributes characterise a significant collection worthy of
> retention? Examples may include****
> - How important is it that sites are from well excavated, secure
> contexts?****
> - How important is site documentation?****
> - Should collections with unusual elements (e.g. rare species,
> unusual imports) be given special weight?****
> - Are type sites (e.g. production, dating) more significant than
> other collections?****
> - Is size an important criteria?****
> - Are collections from areas in which few archaeological remains
> have been recovered more important than those of equivalent size and date
> from areas of more intensive activity?****
> - Is it preferable to keep samples from many collections, or retain
> whole collections at the expense of others?****
> - What safeguards should be put in place prior to discard to minimise
> the loss of information (e.g. additional study, publication)?****
> - How are collections currently used and how can the retention policy
> account for the future needs of researchers and enquirers?
> - If discard takes place, what should happen to the discard
> (university, handling collections etc)?
>
>
> I will attempt to incorporate the points that have been raised on zooarch
> as I believe this is an issue we urgently need to engage with as a
> community. My general take on the matter is that in an ideal world all
> archaeology material should be keep in well funded, accessible, museum
> resource centres. But we don't live in an ideal world. Therefore if
> decisions on retention are going to be made, and it looks they have to be,
> its better that we help inform those decisions rather than have them made
> without our input.
>
> I will be writing up the notes from the sessions and I will be happy to
> post them on zooarch.
>
> All the best
>
> Jim
>
> Dr James Morris MIFA****
>
> Lecturer in Archaeology****
>
> School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences****
>
> University of Central Lancashire****
>
> Preston****
>
> PR1 2HE
>
> *( *01772 894150
>
> *8 *www.uclan.ac.uk/archaeology****
>
> [image: Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CC6990.705D94D0]
> http://www.facebook.com/uclanarchaeology****
>
> http://uclan.academia.edu/JamesMorris
>
> On 23 Oct 2013, at 10:05, David Orton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I think we can all agree that complete retention is the ideal, but also
> that circumstances beyond our control will sometimes prevent it being
> attained. Even where storage is not currently a problem, it inevitably will
> become one at some point. For that reason the original question is
> extremely pertinent and I'm glad it's being discussed. I should mention
> that I've never been in the position of having to make decisions about
> storage - for which I'm extremely grateful - but that I have spent a lot of
> time working with museum collections in several countries, both for
> conventional zooarchaeology and when sampling for various biomolecular
> analyses, and hence have a few thoughts on the matter.
>
> There are, of course, an infinite number of strategies that might be
> adopted when it comes to selecting which bones to hang onto with all the
> tenacity one can muster, and which regretfully to let go. As I see it
> though, there are two broad approaches - both of which have already been
> touched upon in this debate.
>
> Firstly, there is the view that contextual integrity is sacred. Most of us
> would probably agree that unstratified bones and mixed or unsecure contexts
> would be the first to go, when pressed, but a context-based approach would
> go beyond this to argue for the retention of all bones from certain
> contexts and (only if absolutely necessary, of course) the wholesale
> discard of others. Perhaps one would retain material from the contexts
> deemed most secure or useful - pits, house floors, etc. - or alternatively
> one might attempt a stratified sample across different types of deposit.
> But in either case, the idea is that throwing away any of the bones from a
> given context renders the remaining material compromised. In my view this
> is clearly the correct strategy for unstudied assemblages, but I'm not so
> sure once detailed study has been conducted. In an ideal world we would
> obviously want to retain the possibility of re-analysis by future
> zooarchaeologists, which would surely rely upon uncompromised context-level
> assemblages, but this has to be weighed against the (perhaps more likely)
> scenario that future study will involve selective sampling of particular
> species and elements for biomolecular and/or morphometric analysis, rather
> than replication of the basic zooarchaeology.
>
> This brings me on to the second, specimen-focused approach: retention of a
> sample of the bones most likely to be useful for specialist analyses. This
> might imply discard of unidentified specimens, or in a more extreme case
> selective retention of specimens based on a stratified sample of taxa,
> elements, and contexts/phases. The downside is obviously that the
> assemblage loses any value for conventional zooarchaeology; the upside is
> that the potential for things like aDNA, dental microwear, GMM, and stable
> isotopic analysis is maintained as much as possible - although our ability
> to predict which samples will be useful in future is of course limited.
> Good specimens for 14C dating (e.g. well preserved, articulated specimens
> of ruminants from secure contexts) might also be selectively retained. One
> can imagine a researcher's frustration when discovering that that one key
> specimen of an exotic species, mentioned in the report as coming from unit
> 18943, has in fact been thrown away because 18943 wasn't considered a
> particularly important unit. As Alice has pointed out, poor recovery in the
> field will in any case already have undermined the statistical reliability
> of many zooarchaeological assemblages. In such cases, a strong argument
> could be made for cutting one's loses and focusing a sampling strategy at
> the specimen rather than context level.
>
> There are various other considerations that complicate this dilemma.
> Firstly, we must obviously acknowledge that 'studied' is not an absolute
> term, potentially implying anything from a quick once-over and diagnostic
> zone count to an intensive and wide-ranging analysis over many years
> (perhaps as someone's PhD, for example). Taphonomy, in particular, is an
> area of huge variation in terms of just what is recorded - there is always
> scope for a future analyst to revisit a collection in order to try out some
> additional taphonomic indicators. Indeed this fairly frequently occurs, and
> unlike most other forms of after-the-fact specialist analysis it often
> relies upon the integrity of the bone collection from each context studied,
> favouring the context-focused approach to retention.
> A second complication is perhaps a minor issue at present, but likely to
> become more important quite rapidly: the use of proteomics-based
> identification techniques such as ZooMS. The existence of this technology
> suddenly means that 'unidentified' specimens are not necessarily
> unidentifiable, and thus also rather undermines the specimen-focused
> approach. Indeed, the prospect has been raised of obtaining a faunal
> spectrum from a mass of unidentified specimens - particularly things like
> fish rays - and for this to be of any statistical value, context-level
> integrity of the assemblage would be crucial.
>
> Personally, I would argue that while every case is obviously different,
> the ideal strategy in a given situation (short of complete retention,
> obviously) is likely to entail a combination of these approaches: retention
> of everything from a sample of contexts, and of a sample of "good"
> specimens from the remainder. Such a strategy could get very complicated
> very fast, however, making it absolutely imperative that a detailed
> explanation be lodged in the archive (with back-ups elsewhere) where it
> cannot be missed by any visiting researcher. I know this should be obvious,
> but my experience is that past retention strategies are often anything but
> transparent.
>
> Finally, the - regrettable - fact that this discussion is necessary also
> underlines the value of publishing one's raw data (something that I've
> personally been woefully remiss about, but intend to work on). Inadequate
> as it may be, there is a very real chance that one's database will someday
> represent the only record of at least part of each assemblage. If the
> database dies with the analyst then there will be no record at all.
>
> Best,
> David
>
>
> Dear All,
> I have been fighting the destruction of the collections at my museum
> for 10 years. Unfortunately, now in Hungary, even that holy grail of
> archaeology, pottery, is being discarded after analysis. Once thing,
> however, gives me pause though is in all this discussion of 'sampling'.
> Once in the stores, the assemblages do not automatically become 'good
> samples' of anything if the initial retrieval from the site during
> excavation did not involve screening or flotation. The so-called
> carefully 'hand-gathered' materials may still faintly resemble the
> original bone assemblage in the ground. However, in Hungary most rescue
> operations do NOT employ any of these methods. So, what really do the
> faunal assemblages here represent?
> The barbarians have breached the gates in Hungary (and in many other
> places I suspect). Simply there is no money for new facilities - there may
> not even be land to re-bury the finds, although I like the idea of using an
> engraved stone to identify the finds in case someone wants to retrieve
> them. As a pragmatist facing a situation where there is an absence of a
> good financial background for archaeology in general - surely it is better
> to strive to the next to the last drop of blood to keep bone assemblages
> (and all other kinds of archaeological assemblages) intact in stores but
> have a sensible back-up plan when the gun is placed to our heads?
>
> Alice
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Umberto Albarella <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I think that many of the comments that have been posted in response to
>> Rob's email highlight a point that I have tried to make for many years -
>> the concept of 'preservation by record' is a fraud. Although I fully
>> accept that limited storage space represents a genuine problem and that
>> difficult decisions may have to be taken regarding the keeping of
>> archaeological material, we should not delude ourselves by claiming that,
>> having the material been studied, its potential has been exhausted. Not
>> only new techniques and methods emerge all the time but, even if we
>> consider a more or less standard zooarchaeological analysis, the concept
>> that different researchers will provide the same results is misguided. One
>> of the beauties of zooarchaeology is that it is a highly creative field and
>> our approach to the material will reflect our interests, research questions
>> and methods. Not everything will be recorded, not all aspects will be fully
>> explored and new avenues of investigation are left for other researchers to
>> explore. Far from being a limitation of our work this provides endless
>> opportunities, which are going to be suppressed by the disposal of the
>> material.
>>
>> If a museum can no longer keep an assemblage, the possibility that
>> academic departments could inherit it - to use it for teaching purposes -
>> should be considered. There may also be opportunities for the assemblage to
>> be maintained in its original conditions so that is will remain available
>> for further study.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Umberto
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 October 2013 09:55, Robert Symmons <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>> Like much of the country, museums here in Sussex are suffering from an
>>> acute lack of storage space. In an attempt to alleviate this problem Sussex
>>> Museums Group (in consultation with the planning authority, local
>>> specialists and commercial units) is keen to limit the volume of material
>>> that is entering museum stores from developer-funded excavations. We are
>>> facing the prospect of making some very difficult decisions and I do not
>>> ask the following question lightly:
>>>
>>> What animal bone from developer-funded excavations could justifiably be
>>> disposed of following analysis, rather than being deposited at a museum?
>>>
>>> Of course we understand that the answer is not as simple as the
>>> question, but we hope to synthesise specialist opinion into some guidance
>>> that can be rolled out across the county. Sadly, keeping everything is not
>>> an option at this stage.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> Rob Symmons
>>> Secretary, Sussex Museums Group.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Umberto Albarella
>> Department of Archaeology
>> University of Sheffield
>> Northgate House
>> West Street
>> Sheffield S1 4ET
>> United Kingdom
>> Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943<%28%2B%29%2044%20%280%29%20114%2022%2022%20943>
>> Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 25 109
>> http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/people/albarella
>> For MSc in Osteoarchaeology see:
>>
>> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/postgraduate/masters/courses-available/osteoarchaeology
>> For Zooarchaeology short course see:
>> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/zooarchaeology-lab/short-course
>> For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
>> http://agj.group.shef.ac.uk/
>>
>> "only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
>> and the last fish been caught we will realise we cannot eat money"
>>
>
>
>
