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 Without a doubt, there is a crisis in curation. Although requirement of environmental impact statements, which many have worked toward creative solutions, there are include historical resource assessments, and inc reasing indications that the problem continues to be widespread development activities have resulted in even greater and serious—creating a dilemma for any country that amounts of material to be curated. Globally over the last accumulates material evidence as a result of archaeological 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 JOURnAl OF EASTERn MEDITERRAnEAn ARChAEOlOGy AnD hERITAGE STUDIES | 45

FIG. 3 Post-excavation analysis and temporary storage of artifacts. (Photo by Y. M. Rowan.)

excavation and survey. How do we solve a problem like “A response to the scale of the curation crisis is to suggest curation? that excavation be halted altogether, or reduced to a mini- mum, until existing collections are adequately accessioned, analyzed, and reported” (Voss 2012: 148). Should we as a Potential Solutions discipline agree to excavate fewer sites in order to lessen the burdens on conservation, curation, and storage? Imagine The effects of the curation crisis are perhaps most notable the reaction to such a suggestion. “Excavation is esteemed in museums, repositories, and storehouses, but the conse- as the defining modus operandi of archaeology,” observes quences are also felt by researchers and field archaeologists Matt Edgeworth (2011: 44); all else pales in comparison. using those facilities (Bawaya 2007). Archaeologists anxious “We have to excavate in order to increase the production about storing the material they unearth are faced with of archaeological knowledge in still poorly documented the critical question of “to excavate or not to excavate.” parts of the world and in order to preserve the archaeologi- Recognizing the current crisis in curation, national govern- cal heritage of humanity for future generations” (Demoule ments are also faced with the dilemmas of how many 2011: 10). Whether you agree with the sentiment, most archaeological research permits to issue and what to do with funding bodies choose to support archaeological fieldwork the artifacts and samples amassed as a result of fieldwork. (excavation and survey) over post-excavation studies and 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 46 | FORUM

eventual publication (see Cherry 2011; Edgeworth 2011; in tandem with the compulsion to excavate has brought Luke 2012; Voss 2012). The preference for excavation as the about what Cherry refers to as a “crisis of confidence” in foremost producer of knowledge results in an accumulation archaeology: “the impulse to keep excavating, set against of material, which requires curation and storage (Fig. 4). widespread failures to publish” (2011: 10). Excavating less While the associated materials from new fieldwork is a solution to both the failure to publish quandary and to increase the strain on over-burdened curation facilities, an the storage calamity, but perhaps not realistic for archae- overlooked issue in the “storage wars” is old, unpublished ology as a discipline. A more pragmatic solution may excavations and surveys languishing in repositories across be encouraging the point of view that “the future of the globe. Labeled “archaeology’s dirty secret” (Fagan 1995), archaeology is in excavating collections” (Childs quoted in the discipline’s inability to publish (hard copy or elec- Bawaya 2007). tronic) research results makes it appear as though the In recent studies, King and Voss make impassioned, eru- excavation work never took place (Levy 2001). Artifacts dite pleas for the study of material housed in warehouses and reports from unpublished excavations and surveys across the globe as an alternative mode of research (King cannot be returned to the site, loaned, or archived because 2008; Voss 2012). At the same time, they acknowledge that (presumably) researchers tasked with publication still curation and archival work are not the focus of significant require access to the materials. There are a host of reasons inquiry because such work is perceived of as routine, per- (see Kletter and De-Groot 2001; Levy 2001; Cherry 2011) formed by technicians rather than archaeological “experts,” why people do not publish in a timely manner, but this and that until curated/archival collections are considered

FIG. 4 Excavating at the Chalcolithic site of Marj Rabba, Israel. (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 JOURnAl OF EASTERn MEDITERRAnEAn ARChAEOlOGy AnD hERITAGE STUDIES | 47 true research, they will always take second place to actual Deaccessioning “Old” Collections fieldwork (Voss 2012). Revisiting stored collections and What are the options for curation facilities, educa- excavating fewer sites are both potential solutions to the tional institutions, museums, and repositories with curation crisis, but only if the discipline and the fund- abandoned and neglected collections that no longer ing agencies recognize the merits of investigations into meet their missions and objectives? Deaccessioning archives, repositories, and long unpublished materials. is “to remove an entry for (an exhibit, book) from the accessions register of a museum, library, etc., usually in order to sell the item concerned.”2 As the curation Catch-and-Release Archaeology crisis deepens and financial belts are tightened, there Another potential solution to the curation crisis is a movement toward removing highly “redundant” is also considered provocative. Catch-and-release material to regain storage space for newly excavated archaeology has been employed at sites worldwide material.3 Most archaeologists have been trained in the with varying degrees of success (Gonzalez et al. 2006: tradition of keeping everything recovered. Everything 407; Lightfoot 2008). As the name implies, in catch- gets washed, labeled, inventoried, and cataloged; and-release archaeology artifacts are recorded in situ, nothing is discarded, and with few exceptions, it is all collected, systematically analyzed, photographed, considered a valuable source of scientific information. measured, and drawn while researchers are in the field. Once the material is meticulously documented, the artifacts are returned to the places of origin (Fig. 5). For decades, this has been the standard formula at many of the “big digs” in the Near East, where ground stone is recorded in situ and pottery reading takes place on site with only diagnostic (i.e., rims, bases, and painted pieces) sherds or reconstructable/ complete vessels kept in long-term storage. As a result, excavation continues but produces less material requir- ing storage and perhaps less expense. Detractors raise valid concerns and criticisms with the catch-and-release method. Questions arise sur- rounding the placement of artifacts back at the sites of origin: How will future generations know that this is not the original place of deposition? Catch-and-release is more time consuming and requires more specialists on site during the actual fieldwork season. This scenario is not feasible at all sites, particularly salvage excava- tions and sites under threat. This policy does not really allow for researchers to revisit material when further research is required, and there is also the potential loss of information due to limited field time and difficult field conditions. While excavating less and a policy of catch-and-release might stem the tide of new material to store, the question of what to do with the enormous FIG. 5 quantity of existing and unpublished collections cur- Analyzed sherds being redeposited as part of a catch-and-release policy. rently in storage remains unresolved. (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 48 | FORUM

The very concept of removing items from a collection is nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Bernhardsson antithetical to the practice of archaeology. 2005; Cuno 2008:14). Sponsoring cultural institutions Despite the perceived usefulness in collections man- large (i.e., The British Museum, the Louvre, and the agement and care (the creation of storage space; other Royal Ontario Museum) and small (i.e., the University of individuals/institutions are now the proud “owners” of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the unwanted material, and presumably the material will The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago) now be lovingly cared for and curated), deaccessioning is a house and display artifacts that were the direct result of highly divisive practice (Sonderman 1996; Ainslie 1999; archaeological expeditions and partage. Such a system is Katzman and Lawson 2009; Danielson 2010: 87–119; often seen as a colonialist concept whereby occupying Stephens 2011–2012). The process of deaccessioning indi- nations took advantage of archaeologically rich nations, cates that the current repository no longer intends to emptying them of their cultural heritage and providing hold the object in perpetuity, which may have been part little or nothing in return. In response, nascent Middle of an original agreement. Some contend that nothing Eastern countries in the post-Ottoman period enacted should ever be removed once it has been deposited, while national ownership laws, which ended the practice of others argue for flexibility to meet challenges, changes, partage.4 Although the finds were no longer divided, or crises. Critics of deaccessioning policies recognize that foreign archaeological missions continued to excavate there are clear dangers in this approach. No one can know in these nations, resulting in worsening storage issues what questions will be asked in the future, and no one can in places like Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Syria, and know what objects will be needed for scientific analysis. among others. Many repositories have clear collection acquisition and Faced with a looming storage crunch, quite possibly deaccession policies with regard to the items they house. the legacy of a post-partage world, in 2003 Israel pro- As a result, the collections manager, curator, or board of posed a government-sponsored sale of ancient glass directors can restrict the type and flow of objects that and pottery sherds, stating that these efforts would enter and exit the storeroom. Deaccessioning may be a “fix budgetary problems and solve the storage crisis” painful inevitability to the current storage crisis, which (Barkat 2003). The scheme faced a number of oppos- may lead to the conclusion that a systematic catch-and- ing views, but the element that engendered the largest release policy may be a far better approach; being selec- outcry was regarding “the sticky issue of who decides tive in the field will result in fewer objects to be curated what is ‘surplus’? Is anything really surplus as scien- and stored and ultimately no need for a deaccessioning tific studies advance?” (Kersel and Kletter 2006: 318). policy (Sonderman 1996). In the face of challenges to the suggestion of selling the national heritage of Israel to free up storage space, the idea was abandoned, but perhaps in the face of the Sharing the Spoils: Partage continuing crisis in curation it should be reexamined? There are countries that continue to use partage. At this juncture in the examination of artifact accumu- lation, overburdened storage facilities, and potential The state shall be the proprietor of all the antiquities solutions, should those (foreigners, Departments of found during the excavation work carried out by Antiquities, Ministries of Culture) who work in the any licensee in the Kingdom. It is permissible, by a Middle East consider a return to partage? Partage is the decision of the Minister on the recommendation of system whereby archaeologically rich nations, foreign the Director, to grant the said licensee some of the excavators, and sometimes landowners split the exca- movable antiquities found, if there are others that are vated artifacts at the end of a field season. Partage was similar. (Article 21b of Jordanian Law No. 21 for The standard practice in the Middle East during the later Law of Antiquities [1988])

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 JOURnAl OF EASTERn MEDITERRAnEAn ARChAEOlOGy AnD hERITAGE STUDIES | 49

This article in the current Jordanian antiquities law temporary possessor of the artifacts; the ownership allows for the partage of items that the Jordanian resides with the loaning country (Beltrametti 2013). If Department of Antiquities considers to be duplicates, a loaned artifact from Cyprus is on display in a museum benefitting both excavators and the state, the latter freed in London for decades, it still “belongs” to the people from the obligation to curate, conserve, or store the of Cyprus. material. Some advocate strongly for a return to partage There are of course pros and cons associated with as the cure for much of what ails the archaeological and loans/leases. On the positive side, objects traveling from museum worlds (i.e., Cuno 2008). their countries of origin can and do act as promotional Like some of the previously mentioned solutions, this materials, encouraging potential future tourism to the potential answer to the curation crisis addresses only areas from which the artifacts originate. There is an the recently excavated rather than collections that have advancement of collective knowledge of artifacts, his- long resided in repositories. The notion of moving arti- tory, and cultures through research, public exposure, and facts (those that have been in storage for some time) out educational initiatives (Kersel 2012; Beltrametti 2013). of cramped storage and into the institutional realm is While there is some hesitancy to loan/lease to private appealing and has led to various proposals regarding the individuals, there are arguments that the private collector possibility of long-term loans and the leasing of antiqui- is in a better position to finance the conservation, pres- ties (Beltrametti 2013; Kremer and Wilkening 2014). ervation, and display of artifacts (White 1998; Hoffman 2010). Museum revenues and profits are created as arti- facts are displayed; although determining which entity is Long-Term Loans or Leasing entitled to the proceeds has been flagged as a problem- atic element of loans. Unfortunately, loans can be very Archaeologically rich nations in the eastern Medi- costly (conservation, insurance, and transportation) and, terranean who continue to carry out and sponsor in a recent ethnographic interview with a museum cura- archaeological projects are running out of space to store tor, they suggested that “loans were money-losers and and curate the recovered materials. At the same time, by the time the museum conserves, curates, and exhibits there are educational institutions, museums, and even the artifact thousands of dollars have been expended” individuals that are interested in conserving, curating, (quoting museum professional 5).5 Silvia Beltrametti displaying, and researching artifacts from this area suggests that long-term leases are a pragmatic solution of the world. Long-term loans or leases of antiquities that allows the country of origin to retain control of their offer each group a satisfying option where all parties cultural heritage while the artifacts act as dipl omats benefit. Long-term loans, as the name suggests, enable (2013). Loans and leasing appear to be good strategies countries of origin to loan archaeological materials to where everyone (those with artifacts and those desiring institutions and individuals for the purposes of display, artifacts) and everything (storage facilities and education, research, or personal enjoyment. Long-term museums) wins. leases have the added benefit for the archaeologically rich nation in that there is a financial transaction associated with the loaned material. Long-term leases would generate significant revenue for the country of A Case Study in Solving the Storage Wars: origin that could be used to fund further excavations, A Solution from Jordan additional storage facilities, artifact conservation, or museum displays (Kremer and Wilkening 2014). Long- Between 1965 and 1967 Paul Lapp, then director of the term loans and leases differ from outright sales in that W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in the entity/individual receiving the loan is only the Jerusalem, excavated a number of tombs at the Early

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 50 | FORUM

Bronze Age (ca. 3600–2000 BCE) site of Bab adh-Dhra‘ In a le tter between Lapp and the ASOR Board on the Dead Sea Plain in Jordan (Schaub and Rast outlining the proposal, she writes: “There is reason 1989). Under the auspices of the American Schools to think thatthis unusual proposal will be picked of Oriental Research (ASOR), Lapp unearthed thou- up! It could mean that a group of 8 or 10 complete sands of pots and other artifacts from the various or fully reconstructed pots could be available for shaft tombs and charnel houses. Artifacts recovered roughly $150, delivered directly to a museum” (Nancy from these excavations were stored in repositories in Lapp to the ASOR, 1 September 1977, Nancy Lapp Jerusalem (where Lapp was based) and in Amman. correspondence). In October 1977, the Department Lapp died unexpectedly in a swimming accident off the of Antiquities agreed to release some of these Early coast of Cyprus in 1970 before publishing the results Bronze Age tomb groups for purposes of permanent of his excavations, which in addition to being a great display and only for the costs of shipping and handling loss for the archaeology of region meant that the Bab (David McCreery to Edward Campbell, Nancy Lapp, adh-Dhra‛ material remained in storage in unpublished and R. Thomas Schaub, 13 October 13 1977, Nancy limbo. In a letter from David McCreery (an archaeolo- Lapp correspondence). Everyone (ASOR, Nancy gist based in Amman) to Edward Campbell (an ASOR Lapp, and the Jordanian Department of Antiquities) representative), McCreery outlined an assessment involved with the “exchange” were concerned with of the stored pottery in Amman, suggesting that the negative perceptions associated with selling national documentation of the collection was inadequate, the cultural heritage; it was therefore necessary to agree artifacts were at risk, and some of the pots were “miss- on a price that did not give the impression of sell- ing” (David McCreery to Edward Campbell, Nancy ing to the highest bidder. For the government of Lapp, and R. Thomas Schaub, 2 September 1977, Nancy Jordan, the underpinning rationale for the move- Lapp correspondence). The tenuous storage situation ment of these tombs groups was to increase interest of the Bab adh-Dhra‛ material was compounded when in Jordanian archaeology and cooperative archaeo- archaeologists Walter Rast and R. Thomas Schaub logical efforts between the United States and Jordan applied for permission to renew excavations at the site (interview with archaeologist 13, Kersel 2012). The beginning in 1975. These new investigations resulted objects were to act as ambassadors on behalf of Jordan in the dilemma of thousands of additional pots requir- (Kersel 2012). ing storage—what to do with the pots recovered from For anywhere between $100 and $1,500, institu- Bab adh-Dhra‛ in the 1960s? The Early Bronze Age pot tional members of ASOR were offered tomb groups quandary led the Jordanian Department of Antiquities from chambers and charnel houses, and the ASOR Ad and ASOR (the Lapp excavation sponsors) to come up Hoc Committee decision-makers (chaired by Nancy with a pioneering initiative associated with the pots Lapp) chose institutions based on a wide regional from the earlier 1960s excavations. Archival records distribution (i.e., not everything was going to larger of the transactions and ethnographic interviews with institutions or to the east coast of the United States). Nancy Lapp, the widow of Paul Lapp, provide a fasci- Twenty-four institutions received tomb groups; a fur- nating glimpse into solving the curation crisis for this ther fifteen were unsuccessful in their bid for a group. corpus of material. Obligations for institutions under the agreement In 1977 in an unusual proposal, Nancy Lapp devised included the following: a scheme whereby tomb groups from the original Lapp excavations would be distributed to interested 1. The groups will remain intact with no further ASOR member institutions for the purposes of dis- division without the permission of ASOR, thus play and education (Nancy Lapp to Adnan Hadidi, the ensuring that ASOR and the Department of director of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, Antiquities would be able to keep accurate records 1 August 1977, Bab adh-Dhra‘ file, ASOR Archives). of the location of the Bab adh-Dhra‘ material.

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 JOURnAl OF EASTERn MEDITERRAnEAn ARChAEOlOGy AnD hERITAGE STUDIES | 51

2. The pots should be displayed publicly (Fig. 6) with in Jordan. The controlled distribution of tomb groups proper attribution. allowed for the Jordanians to decide how and where 3. They should be available for study by those their cultural heritage was displayed in the public responsible for the publication of Bab adh-Dhra‛. domain rather than in individual homes, adding to This would ensure that Schaub and Rast, who the potential production of archaeological knowledge. were working on the publication of the results The ability for educational institutions to access this of the 1965–1967 Lapp investigations (Schaub material responsibly, at a reasonable cost, with the and Rast 1989), had the necessary access to the imprimatur of the Jordanian government might also collections. decrease the demand for archaeological artifacts from 4. The charge”“ for the collection should be paid in the market (legal or illegal). This is an important point full in a timely manner (Nancy Lapp to ASOR to note as many institutions purchased and continue Representatives of Institutional Members, to purchase artifacts for educational/instructional 26 December 1977, Nancy Lapp correspondence). purposes and to carry out these acquisitions they turn to the antiquities market, which may result in Successful institutions received assurances that the pots the procurement of fake or illegal material (see Kersel were in perfect condition, and there was a no-questions- 2014). The original impetus for the tomb group circu- asked return policy, which included a 90 percent refund lation was educational access (Nancy Lapp to ASOR within a three-month period. Representatives of Institutional Members, December A total of 1,186 pots and 10 basalt bowls were dis- 26, 1977, Nancy Lapp correspondence). Some addi- tributed throughout , , and the United tional positive results were the curation of threatened States. Generating almost $14,000 in income, pro- collections and the freeing up of Jordanian storage ceeds from the pot allocation (and nowhere in any facilities. Could an initiative like this be a solution to archival evidence is the world “sale” associated with overcrowded storage areas and at the same satisfy the this endeavor) would be used for future publication demand for archaeological material? and excavation at Bab adh-Dhra‛, small projects con- ducted by the American Center of Oriental Research, an American archaeological research institution Storing the “Ark of the Covenant” based in Amman, and other ASOR initiatives. In 1978, The University of Melbourne paid $855 for 45 pots Discussing collections at the Maryland Archaeological from Tomb Group A72S, the Royal Ontario Museum Conservation Laboratory, Julia King deploys the iconic paid $266 for 14 pots from Tomb Group 12 (Fig. 7), imagery of the non-descript government warehouse and a whole host of other institutions like Andrews in which the much fought over “Ark of the Covenant” University, the University of Missouri, the McCormick is housed in the Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Theological Seminary, and The Oriental Institute were Lost Ark. “Viewers are invited to appreciate the irony all successful recipients of Bab adh-Dhra‛ tomb groups that this extraordinary treasure is about to become (Nancy Lapp to Adnan Hadidi, 17 May 1978, Nancy just another crate in a warehouse full of crates” (King Lapp correspondence). 2008: 283). While an extreme example, one might The movement of tomb groups to educational insti- ask if the Ark is better off hidden from view and out tutions guaranteed that Jordanian archaeological of the hands of the Nazis? Or would the public be material was readily available for study, was curated better served if the Ark went on long-term loan, and stored in safe facilities, and that it could be viewed lease, or even sale to a museum or educational insti- publicly. The ability for foreign entities to access these tution in another country willing to house, conserve, pieces responsibly and with the permission of the and curate the artifact for future research and Jordanian government lessened the storage burden investigation?

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. 6 Tomb Group 65W from Bab adh-Dhra‛ on display at the McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. (Photo by M. M. Kersel.)

FIG. 7 Tomb Group A72S from Bab adh-Dhra‛ available for study at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. (Photo by M. M. Kersel.)

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 JOURnAl OF EASTERn MEDITERRAnEAn ARChAEOlOGy AnD hERITAGE STUDIES | 53

Key consequences of partage or a long-term loan/ notes leasing policy are educational access, knowledge pro- I want to thank Ann Killebrew for encouraging me to explore this topic in greater depth. All ethnographic research included in this duction and objects acting as ambassadors (Kersel article was carried out under the DePaul Office of Research IRB 2012). The Harvards, The University of Chicagos, and Protocol Approval. I thank Dr. Monther al-Jamhawi, director the UCLAs have associated museums and study collec- general of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan for the sup- tions for student and scholarly use. Smaller seminar- port and permission to conduct this study. Background research ies and undergraduate institutions, in the American and writing of this article occurred while I was a Council of American Overseas Research Center Fellow at the American Midwest, South, or far North may have little or no Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan (2013–2014). access to hands-on material for teaching purposes. An During that time Ayla Staelin-Lefsky of Smith University initiative like that of the Bab adh-Dhra‛ tomb group assisted ably with this investigation through an internship at distribution allowed and continues to allow for greater the American Center of Oriental Research. The ASOR Archives in Boston are a trove of untapped information, and I thank Cynthia contact with the material culture of the Early Bronze Age Rufo-McCormick for her assistance and insights into these of Jordan. Could the innovative plan of Nancy Lapp be collections. I am indebted to Meredith Chesson, Nancy Lapp, the solution to the curation crisis; or, is deaccessioning Paul Lapp, Walt Rast, Tom Schaub, and Marilyn Schaub for the answer to the curation crunch? providing archival records, background information, and for Should institutions housing materials that are their endless support of this research. Yorke M. Rowan read and commented on earlier drafts of this paper. All errors of fact and clearly outside the scope of their mission, which may omission are of course my own. be deteriorated beyond a useful life, or that could be 1. For the use of this term, see Ford 1977; Marquardt, used more effectively by other educational institutions Montet-White and Scholtz 1982; Johnson 2003; Milanich be allowed to sell-off unwanted or redundant material? 2005; Bawaya 2007; Legard 2007; King 2008; and Voss 2012. 2. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, “de-accession, v.” Is judicious culling of collections necessary to ensure Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2014. Oxford a purposeful life for many of the stored objects? In a University Press. http://www.oed.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu world where space is equated with money, archaeolo- .edu/view/Entry/47602?rskey=V1PMSD&result=2&isAdvanced gists must face the hard reality that we simply cannot =false (accessed November 19, 2014). 3. For discussion on the contentious use of the term redundant keep everything. The professional community must material, see Sonderman 1996; Brodie and Renfrew 2005; and take the lead on this issue or we face the possibility of Leventhal and Daniels 2013. having the decisions made for us. Our new paradigm 4. For a discussion of Middle Eastern law, see Bernhardsson should be that the best deaccession policy is a good 2005 and Kersel 2008; 2010. accession policy: a comprehensive catch-and-release 5. All ethnographic research included in this article was carried out under the DePaul Office of Research IRB Approval. model (Sonderman 1996). Interviews are all anonymous and each informant was Or is the nub of the curation crisis that “excavation provided with an anonymous identifier, i.e., museum remains the signature gesture of our discipline” (Cherry professional 2, archaeologist 18. For further information on 2011)? Do we excavate too much and with insufficient this method, see Kersel 2009. regard to the material legacy produced as a result of excavation? Voss asserts that the study of archived and References curated collections should be reconceptualized as a val- Ainslie, P. 1999. Deaccessioning as a Collections Management Tool. ued research endeavor in both the academy and fund- In Museums and the Future of Collecting, ed. S. J. Knell, 173–93. ing spheres (2012: 166). Rather than something that is Aldershot: Ashgate. Barkat, A. 2003. Antiquities Authority Considers Trading Finds on viewed as a time-consuming, costly afterthought, cura- Open Market. Haaretz, October 5. tion should be an integral part of archaeological praxis. Bawaya, M. 2007. Archaeology: Curation in Crisis. Science A catch-and-release policy and the model from the Bab 317:1025–26. adh-Dhra‛ tomb group distribution are intriguing solu- Beltrametti, S. 2013. Museum Strategies: Leasing Antiquities. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 36:203–60. tions to storage wars. This essay is intended as the open- Bernhardsson, M. T. 2005. Reclaiming a Plundered Past: Archaeology ing round in discussions on how best to preserve the past and Nation Building in Modern Iraq. Austin: University of for future research. Texas Press.

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 54 | FORUM

Brodie, N., and C. Renfrew. 2005. Looting and the World’s King, J. A. 2008. Archaeological Collections, Government Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response. Annual Warehouses, and Anxious Moderns: The Maryland Review of Anthropology 34:343–61. Archaeological Conservation Laboratory. Archaeologies 4: Cherry, J. F. 2011. Still Not Digging, Much. Archaeological Dialogues 264–87. 18:10–17. Kletter, R., and A. De-Groot. 2001. Excavating to Excess? Cuno, J. 2008. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Implications of the Last Decade of Archaeology in Israel. Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14:76–85. Press. Kremer, M., and T. Wilkening. 2014. Protecting Antiquities: A Role Danielson, E. S. 2010. The Ethical Archivist. Chicago: Society of for Long-Term Leases? Weatherhead Center for International American Archivists. Affairs Working Papers, Harvard University. http://scholar. Demoule, J.-P. 2011. We Still Have to Excavate—But Not at Any harvard.edu/files/kremer/files/antiquities_qje_draft_ Price. Archaeological Dialogues 18:5–10. feb6_2014.pdf (accessed April 24, 2014). Edgeworth, M. 2011. Excavation as a Ground of Archaeological Legard, C. 2007. An ACHP Perspective on the Artifact Curation Knowledge. Archaeological Dialogues 18:44–46. Crisis. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 50:1–4. Fagan, B. 1995. Archaeology’s Dirty Secret. Archaeology 48 (4):14–17. Leventhal, R. M., and B. I. Daniels. 2013. “Orphaned Objects,” Ford, R. 1977. Systematic Research Collections in Anthropology: An Ethical Standards, and the Acquisition of Antiquities. Irreplaceable National Resource. Cambridge, MA: Published by DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, for the Council for 23:339–61. Museum Anthropology. Levy, T. E. 2001. Is the Publication Glass Half Empty or Half Full? Gonzalez, S. L., D. Modzelewski, L. M. Panich, and T. D. Schneider. Comment of Kletter and De-Groot. Journal of Mediterranean 2006. Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. American Archaeology 14:99–103. Indian Quarterly 30:338–415. Lightfoot, K. G. 2008. Collaborative Research Programs: Hoffman, M. R. 2010. Cultural Pragmatism: A New Approach to Implications for the Practice of North American the International Movement of Antiquities. Iowa Law Review Archaeology. In Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching 95:665–94. and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, ed. S. W. Silliman, Johnson, E. 2003. An Archaeological Curation Dilemma with an 211–27. Amerind Studies in Archaeology. Tucson: Approach to a Solution—The Texas-Based Accreditation University of Press. Program for Curatorial Facilities. Plains Anthropologist Luke, C. 2012. The Science behind United States Smart Power in 48:151–64. Honduras: Archaeological Heritage Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Katzman, L. R., and K. A. Lawson. 2009. The (Im)permanent Statecraft 23:110–39. Collection: Lessons from a Deaccession. Museum 88 (1):54–61. Marquardt, W. H., A. Montet-White, and S. C. Scholtz. 1982. Kersel, M. M. 2008. The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities. Jerusalem Resolving the Crisis in Archaeological Collections Curation. Quarterly 33 (Winter):21–38. American Antiquity 47:409–18. ———. 2009. Walking a Fine Line: Obtaining Sensitive Milanich, J. T. 2005. Homeless Collections: What Happens to Information Using a Valid Methodology. In Heritage Studies: Artifacts When They Have No Place to Go? Archaeology 58 Methods and Approaches, ed. M. L. Stig Sørenson and (6):57–64. J. Carman, 178–200. London: Routledge. Schaub, R. T., and W. Rast. 1989. Bab edh-Dhrā‛: Excavations in the ———. 2010. The Changing Legal Landscape for Middle Eastern Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Reports of the Archaeology in the Colonial Era, 1800–1930. In Pioneers Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, IN: to the Past: American Archaeologists in the Middle East, Published for the American Schools of Oriental Research by 1919–1920, ed. G. Emberling, 85–90. The Oriental Institute Eisenbrauns. Museum Publications 30. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Sonderman, R. C. 1996. Primal Fear: Deaccessioning Collections. ———. 2012. Objects as Ambassadors? UNESCO and the Exchange Common Ground 1(2). http://www.nps.gov/archeology/cg/ of Cultural Objects. Paper presented at World Heritage vol1_num2/fear.htm (accessed May 4, 2014). Now: Critical Views of the 1970 and 1972 Conventions, Penn Stephens, H. H. 2011–2012. All in a Day’s Work: How Museums Cultural Heritage Center, Philadelphia, PA. May Approach Deaccessioning as a Necessary Collections ———. 2014. The Lure of the Artefact? The Effects of Acquiring Management Tool. DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Eastern Mediterranean Material Culture. In The Cambridge Intellectual Property Law 22:119–81. Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, ed. Voss, B. 2012. Curation as Research: A Case Study in Orphaned A. B. Knapp and P. van Dommelen 367–78. New York: and Underreported Archaeological Collections. Archaeological Cambridge University Press. Dialogues 19:145–69. ———, and R. Kletter. 2006. Heritage for Sale? A Case Study from White, S. 1998. A Collector’s Odyssey. International Journal of Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 31:317–27. Cultural Property 7:170–76.

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