No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Morag Kersel's article is a valuable, clearly expressed contribution. There is a problem of storage of archaeological finds; its causes and possible remedies require discussion.An important observation, which shifts the focus of the discussion, concerns the distinction between two kinds of antiquities. For the sake of simplicity let us call them goodies and bulk items. The definitions vary between scholars, places, and times. Status is also determined by context; for example, being exhibited in a museum gives an object a certificate of value, making it a “museum piece” (Carman 2010). For the present discussion, however, we can use a general definition.Goodies are rare, or at least not very common, antiquities, usually complete or restorable and/or aesthetically pleasing (Figs. 1–2). They are treasures for their scientific, artistic, educational, and national reasons, but also literally, because they have monetary value. Think about gold coins, marble statues, inscribed documents, and things exhibited in every archaeological museum. Goodies form a minority among all antiquities.The majority of antiquities are bulk items (Figs. 3–4). They are the millions of fragmented, undecorated pottery vessels, unrestorable sherds, irregular ground stone items, lithic cores, etc. Bulk items have little or no monetary value. They are unappealing to most eyes. Smaller bulk items are often counted in bulk, adding ambiguity to the statistics of collections. Bulk items have little chance of reaching an exhibition. In private, archaeologists sometimes talk about them in terms of trash, since bulk items involve a lot of hard, often routine, work. They will rarely merit a paper in Antiquity.The problem of storage concerns largely bulk items, if only for the reason that they form the majority of antiquities. Once we accept this fact, we realize that storage options are drastically different for goodies and for bulk items. Most of the solutions judiciously discussed by Kersel are focused on goodies. Goodies tend to form a larger than representative part in museum collections, since museums usually select and exhibit them. Hence, goodies occupy the discourse of museums. Some scholars draw a distinction between museum collections and archaeological collections. The distinction is actually between institutions: on the one hand, institutions (mainly museums and collectors) that select objects, namely, goodies; on the other, institutions (including museums) that excavate or receive entire assemblages from excavations, that is, a lot of bulk items.One can lend, lease, exchange, or sell goodies. With few exceptions, one cannot lend, lease, exchange, or sell bulk items. Thirty-nine institutions wanted to receive the Bab adh-Dhra‘ tomb groups. How many of them would like to receive—even free of charge—the equivalent amount in weight of bulk items?Deaccession in the case of bulk items means destroying them (Sonderman 1996). We better not use misleading euphemisms. There is nobody out there waiting for bulk items. One cannot throw them into a rubbish heap, since they might contaminate future surveys and excavations. Destruction of some bulk items is legitimate, namely items having no (or negligible) scientific value. Who will decide? Committees of experienced curators and archaeologists representing more than one institute, but only some years after the final excavation report is published. Still, we will always have to keep and store a vast, growing amount of bulk items because of their scientific importance.It follows that loan, lease, sale, and deaccession would not solve the problem of storage. We need to think of solutions for bulk items.Concerning the Bab adh-Dhra‘ finds, it was stressed that it was not a “sale,” but “release” or “exchange.” The price “did not give the impression of selling” and “nowhere in any archival evidence is the word ‘sale’ associated with this endeavor.” The stress seems excessive; but whether a sale or not, how did it solve Jordan's storage problems, when the “income” was partly used for excavation, generating more items for storage (as Kersel observes)? Maybe one should check if all the involved institutions still exhibit these antiquities today. One thing is clear: this case is about goodies—sent for exhibition, not for storage. Hence, it is inconclusive for bulk items and the storage problem.Problems with storage are not limited to the Middle East. Institutions all over the world face storage issues. Large museums hold millions of items, of which only a very small percent is exhibited. It is difficult to gauge numbers, but as an example, the British National Museums a decade ago held somewhere in the region of 120 million items (by the most conservative estimate), and many of them acknowledged storage issues (Keene 2007; Gardner 2007; the Department of State Treasures of Israel holds ca. 1 million items [Israel Antiquities Authority 2014]). Storage is a universal worry, though the term “curation crisis” is used mainly in American contexts (Zimmermann 2005; Childs and Seth 2008; Jamieson and Fitzpatrick 2014). The literature cited by Kersel (e.g., Milanich 2005) does not seem very reassuring that the United States (U.S.) is a storage heaven for antiquities. How do we solve the curation crisis in the U.S. by bringing in more antiquities?Since the problem is global, transferring antiquities only means moving the problem in the long run, rather than solving it. There are no areas rich in free-of-cost storage, waiting empty for far-away antiquities. Moving Near Eastern antiquities to America for educational/cultural reasons or as a measure of safety merits separate discussion. It is not related to the curation crisis. Moving antiquities adds problems of expenditures (e.g., shipping and insurance); legal issues (e.g., ownership and keeping cultural assets in their areas of origin); and ethical issues (e.g., rich countries “storing” antiquities of less-rich ones).Partage is not a solution either. As Kersel mentions, it was a colonial system, common when foreign powers ruled the Middle East. Therefore, it was stopped when the Middle Eastern states gained independence. In a world of nation-states, antiquities are often considered state treasures. It is not an ideal world, but there is no return to colonial times.There is already a considerable movement of antiquities from the Middle East to developed countries. They move as part of illegal and legal trade that benefits collections in those countries (Kersel 2008; Kersel and Kletter 2006). There are also legal means of exchange/exhibitions between states, which can be developed and encouraged. Yet, these are not solutions for storage problems.If catch-and-release means sorting out during the excavation and leaving in the field items of little or no scientific value, it is employed successfully in the Middle East, as Kersel points. Mainly, one discards pottery body sherds after verifying by sorting that they would not yield complete vessels if taken to restoration. This is feasible in any excavation. Concerns about loss of data are not justified, as long as the sorting is properly made. There is a loss of some data in all excavations conducted everywhere. We can never save all the data by keeping everything or restore the site “as it really was” by publishing everything in the report. Such misconceptions only contribute to the number of unpublished excavations.In Israel, excavators often make two “releases.” One during the excavation, another after the final publication appears (or is in press) before delivering the objects to state treasuries. Discarded objects are not destroyed, since the ethic is to return them to their original sites. (Formerly, they were dumped within the Rockefeller compound in Jerusalem.) This is the custom in most excavations for dozens of years now. Obviously, it helps to save space, but it never solved and will never solve all the problems with storage.Reducing the amount of items that requires storage (by excavating less or by “catch and release”) may mitigate, but not alleviate problems of storage. Below are suggested partial remedies: Maximizing storage space. Using double rows for items that are less frequently accessed (Fig. 5); fitting sizes of containers and shelves; using compactus units; etc.Partial/temporary restoration. Most restored items will never be exhibited. It is difficult to judge in advance what will be. Yet, for large vessels, such as jars, one can restore profiles alone, enabling drawing. This would save storage space and the entire vessel can be restored on request. Restored vessels can also be dismantled after photography/drawing. Of course, the sherds would be kept separate and not mixed with other vessels. At present, even restored objects that are broken by accident are often re-restored, without waiting for an interested museum.Legal measures. Lack of publication causes “jams” and widens the use of temporal storage. Legislation setting fines on excavators that do not publish on time would improve the rate of final reporting. To make storage an integral part of archaeology, excavators/institutions asking for excavation permits would deposit a small percentage of the budget. The deposit will be supervised by all the involved bodies and used only for storage. Excavators will not receive new permits until all former excavations are published (not just “forthcoming” or “in press”). Each step involves difficulties, but such measures move us from “should” to a legally binding “must” (cf. Marquardt, Montet-White and Scholtz 1982: 316; Zimmermann 2005: 281).Educational measures. Teaching future archaeologists about curation, how to choose items for “release” during the excavation, etc.In sum, the problem of storage is universal. It concerns mainly bulk items. Solutions offered for goodies (lease, loan, deaccession, and sale) would not solve this problem. Neither would moving antiquities between nation-states. Storage is basically a financial problem; it is not about technology, ethics, legal measures, or education. Antiquities are discovered in huge numbers, and storage will always be needed for them. We face not just one specific curation crisis, but reoccurring worries about storage in different places and times.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.