MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Pamela Silvestri <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:41:50 EDT
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (3110 bytes) , text/html (4 kB)
 
 
I agree. The data has been recorded and/or can be reconstructed for use in  
an archaeological study. In this case at hand it appears that the data which 
was  collected is consistent with an archaeological investigation. If the  data 
has yet to be analyzed, it may be wise to categorize it as  archaeological. If 
not,  l also stress what you said Trevor  of course - to cross-reference 
associated materials and  flag them for study. 
 
As you have noted Trevor- not all archaeological remains and  features are 
below ground. Typically, an historic structure is more likely  to be considered 
1st for an archaeological investigation if  it is, 'standing ruins'. During 
which of course data will be collected to  be used to analyze the architectural 
features...and so vice-versa if the  direction of the study was 1st, the 
architectural for which archaeological  remains were found.
 
Although datable artifacts may be helpful in determining the age of the  
wall...it will be a variable date. Datable artifacts are determinants for  
terminus post quem and terminus ante quem dating of the deposition of the  
artifact(s)...therefore the archaeological find may predate or postdate the  wall by 
numerous years. The only way to more closely date the wall in  association with 
the artifacts would be to prove that the deposition of the  artifacts occurred 
along with the construction of the wall.
 
Pam
 
In a message dated 8/15/2006 10:10:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

I'm  afraid that I would have to disagree with David on this one.   Walls
are capable of being archaeological features whether they are above  or
below ground.  If you have the records of exactly where they have  been
found then you can treat them as archaeological objects.  And of  course
like finds in any archaeological feature they can help date the wall  in
which they were found.

However I don't think it matters too much  which collection they are in
provided they remain associated with the  information about how and where
they were discovered.

Trevor  Reynolds
Collections Registrar
English Heritage 3 Bunhill Row, London  EC1Y 8YZ
postal address English Heritage 1 Waterhouse Square, 138 Holborn,  London
EC1N 2ST






Pamela Silvestri, Seasonal Interpretive Guide
Northeast States  Civilian Conservation Corps Museum
Connecticut State Department of  Environmental Protection
State Parks Division
Shenipsit State Forest  Headquarters
166 Chestnut Hill Road
Stafford Springs, Connecticut  06076
Telephone: (860) 684-3430
e-mail: [log in to unmask]  or
[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).


ATOM RSS1 RSS2