Mr. Adams:
I think that you need to not get so defensive about my
little observation. I'm not out to criticize or "slam" you
and your methods--that wasn't the intent. The intent was to
make brief mention to the fundamental difference between
two "object ideologies". The difference between how and
what museum people think about objects and how and what
archaeologists think is, of course, going to manifest itself
in the way the people in each profession treat the objects
they encounter.
Because each agenda is different, each profession as a whole
is going to have some criticism for the treatment. Museum
conservators and collections managers will scream at how
ragged and poor things look when they come in and
archaeologists will scream because they can't get to the
stuff they dug up as it is now deemed "fragile".
The agenda behind archaeology is to preserve the
_information_ contained in an object--the object, in most
cases, is not the most important part of study. It is a
tool. Museum people, on the other hand, conservators
especially want to preserve the object itself--to give it
maximum above ground life. That's not to say that
information isn't important to us as well, but if there is
nothing left of the object because it's been treated poorly,
then there can be no more information received. Can you
tell me this ISN'T true?? So this agenda manifests itself
in the way things are handled for example. Museum
conservators, registrars, collections managers, whatever use
wear white cotton gloves to handle what archaeologists have
pulled out of the ground and, I've actually done this,
LICKED to find out what kind of material it is. While
spit was once considered a miracle cleanser in museums (I
got that from Carolyn Rose at the Smithsonian. Take it up
with her if you have a problem with it), I doubt it is
considered an acceptable museum practice anymore. Much more
sophisticated enzymes have "evolved" I think.
So, Mr. Adams, I sincerely congratulate you on your efforts
to work with conservators to make YOUR work more museum
friendly. But even though, as Ms. Young states, attempts
are being made to foster this type of communication, you are
the exception rather than the rule. I think this is shown
by Ms. Cohen-Williams post that started this whole thing,
stating:
"Sorry, people, but archaeologists in this country have been
using "white-out" for decades to label artifacts. We have
found it to be the most stable material, and it is
waterproof as well. I have yet to see an artifact damaged
by its application."
And this, posted on a _MUSEUM_ discussion list! Some
discussion about different attitudes must have been
expected.
|