MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dave Harvey <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:03:09 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Sally, You are very right about the proper scientific collection of
samples of organic materials (and inorganic as well) prior to analysis.
There is a wealth of archaeological/conservation science literature on
the topic. I believe that Noreen Tuross at the Smithsonian is one of the
best in terms of DNA bone analysis of human remains -  archaeologists can
find her papers on artifact recovery procedure protocols in various
journals. Since the field of DNA research is breaking new ground almost
every month a phone call/fax/or e-mail might be the best approach to get
the most up-to-date advice.
 
Dave Harvey
Conservator of Metals & Arms
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
P.O. Box 1776
Williamsburg, VA 23187-1776
phone: 804-220-7039
 
=:|\Pinnacle Online                    - Open and dynamic Internet services:=
=:|o\.    |  |      |  ______                                              :=
=:|_/||\ ||\ |   |\.| __  |       Voice: 804/498.3889  email: [log in to unmask]:=
=:|  || \|| \| o | \| \_ .|        Data: 804/498.9762  login: guest or new :=
 
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, San Diego Natural History Museum wrote:
 
> It seems to me that, if you want to do C-14 work in the future, that you
> would be best off reserving a sample and *NOT* treating it with
> *ANYTHING* rather than trying to find the perfect consolidant that will
> leave no contamination. The people I know who are working with amino acid
> traces in dino bones view any glue, consolidant, coating, sweaty human
> handprint, or prolonged exposure as a source of contamination. As one
> colleague phrased it, "We don't touch these things with WATER, let alone
> anything else." A lot of old field processes were based on the assumption
> that collecting was done for the purpose of exhibition and that the
> morphology of the bone was its only scientifically important feature. Now
> that there is increasing emphasis on the biogeochemical nature of these
> specimens as well, the actual shape may be of secondary importance. I
> don't have the perfect solution, other than to suggest that a sample be
> left untreated for C-14 or other such tests. Comments?
>
> Sally Shelton
> Collections Conservation Specialist
> San Diego Natural History Museum
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2