Dear James and Zooarchers: I do hope to attend the London retention workshop as well, having built some retention/disposal guidelines at the request of a curator for a regional museum group, which have gone forward for consideration. This does not mean I approve of disposal in any way, because
-all selection criteria impose a bias, disrupting the association of types and sizes present in the excavated material.
-discarding anything always risks discarding material that future techniques require for development or use
-going through the stacks of material to decide what needs to be discarded requires time
and effort that has to be
paid for, money that could be saved by just archiving everything
If museums are for storing a people's cultural memory, then discarding items from museums means the loss of those memories; it's cultural Alzheimer's Disease.
A correction: the London workshop does NOT cover all material types:
1) it does not cover marine shell. Analysis of marine shell is at the same stage as analysis of faunal remains in the 1970s; a large array of techniques from palaeontology, biometry, biochemistry and geochronology are beginning to be routinely applied after adaptation to answer archaeological questions, while many others are being developed. Archaeomalacologists are in the Catch-22 situation of vertebrate zooarchaeologists forty years ago: there is little
appreciation of shells' research potential (and their full potential is rapidly expanding), so they are not researched, so they are not excavated representatively or retained, so they seem to have little research potential, so they are not researched,.....
So we shell specialists are being asked to select and discard material without any sound notion about it's archaeological potential, even in the near future. (Actually, we aren't being asked at all, for this workshop.)
2) it does not cover objects suitable for display. If the crisis really is about space, dispose of the poorer examples of the things that take up the most space, like statues, or suits of armour, or slabs of frescoed wall, or cases of illuminated manuscripts. (If the problem is a lack of capital to construct more storage, selling these would generate the needed capital.)
Those dusty old dioramas, uninformed by recent archaeological research but too expensive to re-do, could go as well.
Failure to include these two materials in the workshop speaks volumes about the underlying true cause of this crisis: museums are ceasing to be suitable or safe places for archaeological material. Museums are turning into art galleries: their curators and directorial committee members like pretty or interesting stuff (jewel-encrusted gold reliquaries, dinosaurs, . . . you know what I mean), and they measure their success by the number of ordinary folk they get in their museum to look at their pretty or interesting stuff. The grubby broken ordinary things, that all materials specialists use to reconstruct the real lives of the real people in the past who made and appreciated that pretty and interesting stuff in the first place, are
'back-stage' things that the 'front of house' museum staff find at least a little disgusting.
Perhaps we should abandon the museums and work together, and with the field archaeologists, to construct archaeological collections depositories separate from museums and galleries, supported by the money that went to support the archaeological functions of museums and galleries.
Another (hopefully thought-provoking) rant from
Greg Campbell
The Naive Chemist
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
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