JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ZOOARCH Archives


ZOOARCH Archives

ZOOARCH Archives


ZOOARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZOOARCH Home

ZOOARCH Home

ZOOARCH  March 2009

ZOOARCH March 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

storing faunal assemblages

From:

"Michael A. Etnier" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael A. Etnier

Date:

Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:16:55 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

this is obviously a huge issue for archaeologists of any kind all over the 
world.  but speaking as a zooarchaeologist who has spent the bulk of my 
research career analyzing museum collections, some of which were collected 
in the 1880s, i would argue that we need to come up with creative long-term 
storage solutions.  if that means developing off-site storage facilities in 
areas where land/rent/etc. are much cheaper than near the main museum 
collections, then so be it.

i would also argue that we, as a discipline, should get creative about ways 
in which we use existing collections.  
i, too, have been brought up with the "don't throw anything away" ethic 
[begging the question of "down to what minimum screen size?", which is 
another discussion altogether].  but i have also developed a very strong 
inclination that you shouldn't dig it up if you're not going to keep it.  
it follows that if we're going to keep it, we should utilize it for all 
it's worth.


Michael A. Etnier, PhD
Applied Osteology
Bellingham, WA  
www.appliedosteology.com

and

Department of Anthropology
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
http://faculty.washington.edu/metnier/

-------- Original Message --------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SPAM-LOW:  [ZOOARCH] storing faunal assemblages
> 
> Dear colleagues,
>   At the moment the warehouses in Hungary are full to beyond bursting 
with 
> finds of all kinds. At our museum, because of over-crowding, it is 
impossile 
> to find whole site materials let alone have good access to individual  
> contexts I might wish to re-examine once they have been analyzed. The 
> result is that excavating archaeologists are legitimately lobbying for 
parts of 
> bone and ceramic assemblages to be disposed of after analysis. The 
> question is: What do we keep and what do we throw away?
>      I was raised with the mantra - throw nothing away. That worked well 
in 
> the early days of archaeozoology where there were few space or money 
> issues with regard to curating faunal assemblages. At the moment I am 
> telling the archaeologists at our museum that all bones should be 
identified 
> and special bones separated and given inventory numbers whether they are 

> fom mixed contexts or not. However, I am permitting all other bone from 
> mixed period contexts (medieval and Roman, Neolithic and Bronze age, 
> modern and whatever) to be tossed with plastic tablets identifying them 
for 
> future archaeologists or saved for education programs for children.  This 

> only accounts for 10-15% of the bone assemblages and my museum is 
> already lobbying for more bones to be thrown out. This has become 
> particularly difficult since non-archaeozoologists at the Hungarian 
Central 
> Excavating Authority  already have a protocol that says  large 
proportions of 
> faunal materials may be thrown away after identification, keeping aside 
> 'measurable bones, burned bones, bones stained with metal, bones with 
> butchering marks, pathologies and bones from rare species. Everything 
else 
> is thrown away no matter how clearly dated the archaeological context. It 

> seems to me wrong to dispose of any faunal material from well-dated 
> archaeological contexts.  But then again, what to do with bones from an 
> archaeological level where 200-300 years are represented? Roman contexts 

> frequently appear with dates like 2nd-3rd century or 2nd-4th centuries. 
Does 
> this mean those bones should be selected using the above criteria and the 

> remainder thrown away?
>     I really do not know how to handle this question and would like to 
see 
> some kind of real politique consensus from the archaeozoological 
> community. Principals are important but if we are too rigid the end 
result will 
> be that excavating archaeologists with either no longer collect bones or 

> decide what to save on their own without consideration for our finer 
> academic sensibilities.
> 
> Alice Choyke 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager