Paul Barford writes:
>John Hooker writes:
>> A focused and specialized private collection is ALWAYS better than any
>> public collection.
>Well, of course this is totally untrue in the case of the example discussed
>in the post to which you are answering. The study of the pottery fabrics,
>forms, imports, spatial differentiation of the pottery over time in even a
>single medieval town requires considerably more than a few
>tastefully-restored pots in a glass case in a collector's study or living
>room, but hundreds (literally) of boxes of grotty bodysherds and broken bits
>linked to an extensive cataloguing system.
Is this not an "assemblage"? -- I'm not totally familiar with
archaeological nomenclature. I am talking about a "collection". something
that is built up over years, follows one or more themes and comes from a
variety of sources. Collections can be be public or private. Samples from
public collections are displayed in museum cases for the piblic to see
while the rest is warehoused.
The contents of an archaeological site is not a "collection", but an
"accumulation". Sometimes everything is gathered up, recorded, and
subsequently preserved, in other cases many of the artefacts are
deliberately destroyed by the archaeologists (it happens a lot with
pottery) to prevent any of it getting into private hands.
Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web: