It's my opinion that as long as we continue to use the dual model of museums-as-museums and museums-as-repositories, we are ultimately doomed to failure.  In order for a museum-as-museum to be successful, it will most likely be located in a highly urban center.  Exactly where land values are at their absolute highest.  It follows, then, that museums-as-repositories are using the most expensive/valuable land possible for storage.

Shifting collections repositories to rural land (or salt mines, or moth-balled military hangars) would absolutely make it more challenging for researchers to access the collections.  But to use the LAARC example, eight researchers in five years?  The combined expenses of storage and personnel costs of enabling those eight researchers to access collections in the figurative salt mine would almost certainly pale in comparison to the cost-per-square-foot (or cubic foot) of storage in central London.

I do not at all mean to suggest that we should retain everything we excavate.  But I also believe that if we *start* with the premise that we have already run out of storage space, then we run the risk of undermining the scientific value, yeah, even the scientific credibility, of our discipline. 

---Mike

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: "Terry O'Connor" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:01 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: SPAM-LOW:  Re: [ZOOARCH] IFA/LAARC Selection and Retention workshop report
> 
> That's a handy summary, Jim, and thank you for talking up the Hungate
> strategy. I think I speak for Clare in saying that we don't pretend to have
> got it absolutely right first time, but at least we have a strategy that
> has explicit objectives and a systematic *modus operandi*. Your 'one in,
> one out' policy is admirable, and I quite agree that giving privileged
> storage to ABGs just because they are of one particular mammal species (our
> own) seems foolish. And how much pottery does any museum need?
> 
> Terry
> 
> Terry O'Connor
> Professor of Archaeological Science
> Department of Archaeology, University of York
> Biology S Block, Heslington,
> York YO10 5DD
> +44-1904-328619
> http://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/academic-staff/terry-oconnor/
> http://www.sciculture.ac.uk/projects/large-grants/cultural-and-scientific-perceptions-of-human-chicken-interactions/
>  <http://yorkfestivalofideas.com/>
> 
> 
> On 15 November 2013 10:48, James Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> >  Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > If members remember we discussed retention strategies a few weeks ago in
> > which an IFA (Institute for Archaeologists) and LAARC (London
> > Archaeological Archive and Research Centre) workshop came up. The workshop
> > occurred yesterday and below are my thoughts and what I consider to be the
> > key points from the meeting. These are purely my own personal opinions and
> > do not represent the organisations who arranged the workshop. A number of
> > zooarchs and lapsed zooarchs  (Bones Jones, Alan, Kevin, Greg, Fay, Sylvia,
> > Martyn, Jane and Rob) attended the meeting so I hope if there is anything I
> > missed, or if they disagree with any of the below points, they'll also post
> > to the list.
> >
> >
> >
> > The workshop didn't just cover animal bones but most materials that could
> > be classified as 'bulk finds'. It consisted of morning and afternoon
> > sessions in which we were set a number of questions to discuss. In part
> > these can be placed into two categories: what makes an assemblage
> > significant and should/how do we develop selection strategies both onsite
> > and for the archive. I feel in terms of animal bones it was a successful
> > workshop with some excellent and constructive discussions taking place in
> > both the morning and afternoon sessions.
> >
> >
> >
> > In terms of what makes an archive of animal bone significant a number of
> > key points were made.
> >
> > .  Firstly, as I tell my students, context is key. An assemblage from a
> > site with limited stratagraphic and contextual information means the animal
> > bone assemblage from the site is also limited. However, there will always
> > be sites which despite having poor contextual records have for example rare
> > and important specimens (such as non-native species).
> >
> > .  In terms of new assemblages in London there are some periods that are
> > of more importance, such as prehistoric and perhaps controversially
> > post-medieval, due to their rarity.
> >
> > .  Assemblages that can inform on the specific human actions on a site
> > are an important consideration in terms of the significance of a site. So
> > for example a leather working site is of more significance than a dump of
> > midden material.
> >
> > .  Assemblages which are related to specific historic London events (such
> > as the Great Fire) are of significance for two reasons. Firstly they may
> > offer a tightly dated assemblage to the specialists, but secondly they are
> > of interest to the general public, which is an issue for the museum.
> >
> > .  In terms of significance, assemblages can have aspects that are
> > significant, for example rare species. Whereas other parts of the
> > assemblage my not be deemed significant.
> >
> > .  The concept of 'super sites' was discussed in the afternoon session.
> > These are internationally important sites that are a constant touchstone
> > for researchers, and will be constantly revisited. However, there was some
> > disagreement against 'super sites', as an approach because it was argued we
> > should stop looking at the same assemblages all the time.
> >
> > .  Residuality was also considered an issue, however, this is an area
> > which needs some consideration by the community. For example, just because
> > the majority of the pottery is residual does not mean the animal bone is
> > and does not automatically devalue the animal remains.
> >
> > .  Finally and in no means least, methods of onsite collection are of
> > importance. WSieved assemblages being more informative than purely
> > hand-collected remains.
> >
> >
> >
> > In terms of retention and discard
> >
> > .  A number of different examples of onsite sampling and retention
> > strategies were discussed throughout the day. In particular Clare and
> > Terrys work on Hungate. Discussion with curators was an important point,
> > for example the curators may be in a position to inform on the rarity of
> > specific types of sites/assemblages before and during an excavation.
> >
> > .  Specialist zooarchaeologcial input is required at the WSI (written
> > scheme of investigation) stage. Although this stage relates to how
> > commercial archaeology/CRM works in the UK, the basic consensus, which has
> > been a common theme since I entered archaeology (now 16 years ago), is that
> > we need to be involved at an early stage of any investigation.
> >
> > .  The general thinking appeared to be that space in the archive should
> > not be a deciding factor in terms of onsite selection policies. They should
> > only be informed by the research objectives of the excavation.
> >
> > .  Further subsampling based on the criteria of the archive (such as the
> > aspects discussed above) could then be used to decided what material is
> > accessioned into the archive.
> >
> > .  Material that the archive chooses not to accession would then be
> > offered to other institutions, following guidance of the museum association
> > in which physical throwing away is the very last option. Deep storage in a
> > salt mine in Cheshire seemed to be a popular option, at least amongst the
> > zooarchs.
> >
> >
> >
> > One big issue raised was legacy sites. In terms of the LAARC these tend to
> > be sites for early 50's, 60's and 70s, rescue excavations where the
> > material in many cases hasn't even been washed or recorded. It was
> > recommended that these remains need to be firstly analysed for potential to
> > see if they are worth keeping, however, as with all things this involves
> > money as a zooarchaeologist would have to look at them. It was suggested
> > archives could waver their deposition fee in return for a commercial units
> > specialist working on some of their legacy material.
> >
> >
> >
> > In terms of disposal it was agreed that 'preservation by record' (the
> > LAARCs phrase not mine) is the minimum that would be expected of the LAARC,
> > with the zooarchaeological records available. Photographing the context,
> > inspired by Clare and Terry's work at Hungate, was also discussed as a way
> > of adding to the animal bone records.
> >
> >
> >
> > One issue raised by the LAARC was that only 8 researchers in the past 5
> > years (I think it was the past 5 years) have visited the LAARC to use the
> > archive. We did discuss why this might be the case which included:
> >
> >
> >
> > .  a lack of awareness within the zooarch community of the material
> > available at the LAARC.
> >
> > .  A lack of records both in terms of the LAARC knowing what is in its
> > collection and making the records available online for researchers. We
> > discussed the LAARC making the raw animal bone database records available
> > for researches.
> >
> > .  The problems of having an archive in central London. We did discuss
> > the LAARC lending material out to other institutions (Local
> > museums/universities) so that students could work on it without having to
> > be in central London.
> >
> > .  I would also suggest for UK academics the REF is an issue, in terms of
> > it favoring 'internationally significant work' which is often interpreted
> > as non-UK work.
> >
> >
> >
> > Overall I think it was a very successful workshop in terms of animal
> > remains. What will happen next is the note takers (Sylvia and Jane) will
> > submit their notes to the LAARC and these will be combined with notes from
> > the other material workshops. As I have said before I think the LAARC
> > should be praised for grasping the nettle and attempting to tackle this
> > problem. I firmly believe that it's important that we as a specialist
> > community engage with archives and museums on this issue. In an ideal world
> > we would have massive well funded museum stores, and the possibility of
> > national archives for different material types was discussed at the
> > workshop. But if discard is going to take place it should at least
> > be informed by zooarchaeological research and priorities.
> >
> >
> >
> > We did discuss the need for specialists to support institutions such as
> > the LAARC and other museum archives: this included the LAARC forming an
> > external committee of material specialists to help inform it on archive and
> > research issues. Although not all members of the LAARC staff were in favor
> > of such an approach, possibly because they took it as a criticism.
> >
> >
> >
> > On a lighter note I thought I would leave you with some of the other means
> > we could use to create archive space, discussed in the animal bone session
> > of the workshop. Most, as appears to be the British way in the face of
> > adversity, with tongue very firmly in cheek.
> >
> > .  Operate a one in, one out policy (as one box of animal bones is
> > deposited another box from an old site is discarded). Although I think this
> > might have some merit
> >
> > .  Just say the LAARC is full, other museums do
> >
> > .  Throw away all material in the LAARC and start again
> >
> > .  Throw away all the human bone (it's only one species of mammal after
> > all) keeping just a tooth from each skeleton for DNA analysis to make more
> > room for animal bone (I couldn't resist including this one :-))
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll now leave it up to the community to digest this rather long email and
> > I'll now go and remind myself what cattle ribs look like.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >