STORAGE WARS Solving the Archaeological Curation Crisis? Author(S): Morag M
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
STORAGE WARS Solving the Archaeological Curation Crisis? Author(s): Morag M. Kersel Source: Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2015), pp. 42-54 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.3.1.0042 Accessed: 23-09-2016 09:42 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.3.1.0042?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies This content downloaded from 192.148.225.18 on Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:06 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FORUM STORAGE WARS Morag M. Kersel Department of Anthropology, DePaul University, 2343 North Racine Avenue, Chicago, IL, Solving the Archaeological Curation Crisis? 60614; [email protected] Every year, thousands of archaeological projects take abstract place across the globe all with the intent of uncovering information about our ancient ancestors and their lives. Whether sponsored by academic institutions, govern- Whether sponsored by academic institutions, govern- ments, international agencies, or private landowners, ments, international agencies, or private landowners, the the results of archaeological investigations are the same: results are the same: the production of knowledge and the production of knowledge and an accumulation of an accumulation of things. The material remains derived things. The material manifestations (artifacts and sam- from these investigations include everything from tens ples) and the accompanying daily notes, digital records, or hundreds of thousands of chipped and ground stone maps, photographs, and plans together comprise a com- pieces, whole and fragmentary ceramic vessels (Fig. 1), prehensive record of the past. Once these items have animal and human remains, soil samples, plants and been amassed, they are deposited in dig houses, maga- seeds, coins, rusty nails, broken glass, and much, much zines, museums, repositories, storage containers, and more. Along with the artifacts and samples are the daily sometimes in personal basements and garages to be held notes, digital records, maps, photographs, and plans, in perpetuity. Across the globe, storage (here implying which together comprise a comprehensive record of the curation and permanent care) is one of the most pressing past (Fig. 2). Once these items have been amassed, they issues facing archaeology today. The following examines the curation crisis and some of the traditional and inno- are deposited in dig houses, magazines, museums, repos- vative solutions to the storage wars, arguing that rather itories, storage containers, and sometimes in personal than something that is viewed as a time-consuming, basements and garages, to be held in perpetuity. A single costly afterthought; curation should be an integral part site can produce thousands of artifacts and records, and in of archaeological praxis. an ideal world these items should be both preserved and made accessible for future research—the past should be keywords: archaeological curation, partage, reposi- curated responsibly for the future. The very term curation tories, collections management implies careful stewardship of collections; management that includes accessioning, cataloging, conserving, main- taining, processing, publishing, and storing artifacts and the associated documentation. As we excavate sites and conduct surveys, we accumu- journal of eastern mediterranean archaeology late more but publish less (see Cherry 2011), and space and heritage studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015 Copyright © 2015 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA is at such a premium that we are confronting a curation This content downloaded from 192.148.225.18 on Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:06 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms FIG. 1 Things from an archaeological project. Drying sherds recovered from the Chalcolithic site of Marj Rabba, Israel. (Photo by M. M. Kersel. Courtesy of the Galilee Prehistory Project.) FIG. 2 Digital note taking with iPads in the field. (Photo by A. C. Hill. Courtesy of the Galilee Prehistory Project.) This content downloaded from 192.148.225.18 on Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:06 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 44 | FORUM crisis, which has been brewing for decades.1 Storage (here four decades the field of Cultural Resource Management implying curation and permanent care) is one of the (CRM), compliance-driven excavation and survey has most pressing issues facing archaeology today. As col- produced millions of records and artifacts associated with lections pile up, space is saturated, cataloging lags, and pre-development mitigation that are routinely deposited budget and staff capabilities are stretched beyond their in local, state, and national museums, archives, libraries, limits; repositories and museums are unable to cope with and institutions to be “curated in perpetuity” (Milanich the burgeoning rates of acquisition, curation, excavation, 2005; King 2008). As the coffers of museums and other and retention (Marquardt, Montet-White and Scholtz repositories fill up, “temporary storage solutions” in vari- 1982). Why is there a storage calamity, and what can be ous garages and basements of excavators and sponsoring done to solve this predicament? institutions become attractive ad hoc solutions (Fig. 3). Unfortunately, artifacts and their associated reports often Storage Wars become collateral damage when people move, get divorced, die, or leave the profession, or when smaller institutions By the mid-1970s, a consensus had emerged that there was a can no longer afford to keep collections. The loss of irre- storage problem, and it would only get worse. Richard Ford trievable data through the mismanagement of collections raised a red flag in his examination of the critical condition is a breach of the public’s trust—it is a fundamental duty of anthropological collections in the United States, conclud- of archaeologists and the profession to curate and preserve ing that poor conservation practices of deteriorating excavated and surveyed resources. artifacts stored in inadequate facilities were compromis- The crisis in curation should not be viewed as one lim- ing our ability to reconstruct the past (1977). The past was ited to merely putting artifacts into boxes or finding places becoming increasingly inaccessible due to facilities with no to house those boxes; at the core of the crisis are people, climate control, insufficient cataloging, and incomplete progress, publishing, and ethical responsibility (Milanich inventories. Ford called on the various government agen- 2005). The underlying difficulty in solving the curation cri- cies, professional organizations, and individual researchers sis is not simply whether to build more and better storage responsible for these collections to rectify the problem by facilities, but whether the prevailing paradigm, favoring taking a more holistic approach (planning, fieldwork, and archaeological fieldwork over processing, publication, post-excavation care and handling) in the hope of averting and permanent curation of materials from field projects, a potential loss of knowledge (1977). Over 30 years later, must change. The crisis is further aggravated by the lack Barbara Voss suggests that the curation crisis should be of funding dedicated to the final stage of post-excavation understood as an increasing disparity between the contin- care and handling. Typically fieldwork is privileged by both ued generation of archaeological assemblages through the academy and various funding agencies. Funding for excavation and survey without a parallel dedication of academic, CRM, or museum-based field research is often resources and facilities to accessioning, analyzing, report- inadequate for the costs of the post-fieldwork analysis, ing, curating, and otherwise caring for collections (2012: reporting, and ongoing care of collections (Milanich 2005; 146). Additionally, well-meaning government laws enacted King 2008; Luke 2012; Voss 2012). Voss suggests that prac- to ensure that historical legacies were not destroyed or titioners are faced with the irony of insufficient financial overlooked in development, and planning processes have support coupled with the ethical obligation to study, pub- exacerbated the crisis in curation. Prior to the enactment of lish, and care for the remnants of past, present, and future archaeological laws and policies responding to intensified excavations (2012: 148). Space is at a premium, and cura- development, developers (individuals and governments) tion is under- appreciated and under-funded at the local, were not compelled to include cultural heritage assess- state, and national levels in most areas of the world. ment before breaking ground on new building. The recent