9.6: Curation: Disposal of a Collection


At some stage a responsible decision will have to be taken about what to do with a personal artefact collection if the original owner (finder) loses interest, moves house and has nowhere to store it, or dies. Every country in the European Union has developed legislation around cultural heritage, but not all have specific legislation on deaccessioning and disposal even in the cases of public museums let alone private collections. Particularly contentious is the use of funds raised from teh sales of antiquities, can a private collection be treated ethically as a financial asset to be realised in hard times (and to what degree is the landowner that allowed an artefact hunter to take items for free to be compensated if the items are later sold by him or his heirs when there was no prior agreement to do so? This is where documentation of title becomes important). There are views (for example Stevenson 2017) that archaeological antiquities, documented or not, should not be sold on the open market.

Collected material that is discarded, for example because it has lost all of its documentation and is thus no longer usable as a source of information (and of course every effort should be made that such a situation does not arise), should be disposed of in such a way that it is not exposed by erosion and subsequently re-found and assumed to be part of the archaeological record. The PAS record already has a number of such items obviously lost by previous generations of collectors in colonial times.

Hopefully a collection that is well-maintained, properly-documented and presented in suitable packing materials and contains material in line with local collection policies can enter the collection of the local museum or archaeological store. At an early stage, it is imperative that contact is made with such stores to ascertain whether the material is acceptable and what the collector can do while accumulating and ordering the material to make museum accession easier (and that correspondence should be archived for further reference and eventual dispute management). Knoll and Huckell (2019) give some guidance for how this is done in the USA which might be helpful for readers in other countries too. Museums might have requirements how items are to be segregated and packed, documentation may have to be supplied in a specified format compatible with that of the collections as a whole. They are unlikely to have the resources to repack, catalogue and segregate loose material that comes to them from a collector that has not prepared the collection for easy accession and are within their rights to refuse to accept large groups of  material that they find unacceptably presented. 


Bibliography:

Alice Stevenson 2017, 'Why archaeological antiquities should not be sold on the open market, full stop' the Conversation, July 13, 2017

Michelle K. Knoll and Bruce B. Huckell 2019, ' SAA Guidelines for Preparing Legacy Archaeological Collections for Curation' SAA


Tamara Kroftova comments:
"It seems to me that, the only proper end of a personal collection of artefact-hunted finds is that they go to an institution where they will be permanently curated together with their associated documentation to be used in research. Any other end is a waste, and the artefacts and their evidence should have been left in the archaeological record, and not irresponsibly ripped out to serve some selfish acquisitive needs."

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2.1: What is archaeology?

Image
Archaeological research   as a process There are many possible ways to define the subject and object of study. This is the definition of archaeology used here: Archaeology is the study of aspects the human past through the documentation and analysis of physical remains and traces, their associations and contexts, by the methodology of archaeology and dissemination of the results and conclusions. 1) " The study of aspects of the human past ", The past might be very remote, from the Lower Palaeolithic, where it may intercalate with palaeontology (but archaeologists don't do dinosaurs), to almost the present day (periods when other but not all aspects of the past are amply documented by other sources), 2)  " aspects of the human past ", many areas of the human past are arguably beyond the reach of even the most creative of archaeological thought, 3) " through the documentation ", the archaeological evidence does not exist in a vacuum, curran...
Read more

3.3: Archaeological layers

Image
In talking about archaeological context we tend to think of it in terms of being composed of individual layers. These are discrete units of sediment, debris, rock, and other materials that form or accumulate as the result of natural processes, human activity, or both. In order to describe them and indicate their position on a site and in its sequence, these layers are generally numbered sequentially (with the lowest number being that removed first). An individual layer or deposit may be termed (following geological nomenclature) a stratum, and multiple layers are called strata. Therefore the study of their sequence is called stratigraphy (description of what we call the stratification). One of the simplest ways to depict layers is to depict them as a vertical sequence and this is frequently done in the form of a section (or 'profile') through them. Here is an explanation from Michigan State University 'Campus Archaeology' page "Archaeology 101: Reading strati...
Read more

4.1 What the archaeological record looks like in the Ground

Image
If the responsible artefact hunter is to  record the bits of the archaeological record destroyed in removing artefacts in collection-driven exploitation of a site, obviously they need to know what it is they are looking for, in other words, what the archaeological record looks like. At this point, many textbooks would show the reader a section or two showing the superimposed layers ("like a cake"). But that actually is not the way the stratification of a feature are actually encountered in the field. The suggestion that it is the section that is always paramount in the recording and interpretation of a site is a very damaging one. This is despite the prevalence of s ingle-context recording in the standard excavation methodical toolkit for over half a century. The main manner in which the stratigraphical units of a site are met is from above, from the working surface. The first point that this raises is that this should at all times be kept clean of loose soil, trample ...
Read more