Archaeological Curation and the Research Value of Archaeological Collections

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the curatorial and collections management related efforts undertaken to establish the research value of an "old" archaeological collection housed in a museum in California for over one hundred years. The archaeological collection assessed is associated with one of the most important archaeological sites in the region, the Ellis Landing shel l mound, a site excavated in 1906 by one of North America's leading archaeologists. First, after core issues in archaeologi cal curation are examined, basic features of the site and its excavation are outlined. Next, the process of curating, reanalyzing, and establish ing the research potential of the collection is described, recent archaeological analyses of the curated collection are presented, and the implications of this work for the museum profession and the research com munity are explored. Finally, to best manage these "old" archaeol ogy col lections, it is concluded that it is critical to recognize how much their research value has changed.

Reuniting Archaeology and Archives through the Smithsonian Institution’s Ralph S. and Rose L. Solecki Papers and Artifacts Project

“…Conversations and recommendations surrounding the curation and management of archaeological collections, which has grappled with the "crisis" of overwhelming volumes of material and data, has been ongoing for decades (Childs 2004;Collins et al 2010;Knoll andHucknell 2019 Pearce 1997;Sullivan and Childs 2003). While repositories like the NMNH struggle to conquer the backlog of specimens and records, the field has begun to advocate for increased use of legacy collections in an attempt to reduce the amount of new material excavated (Frieman and Janz 2018;Luby et al 2013) and to standardize the management not only of the specimens but also of the associated data within collecting repositories (Barker 2001). Ixchel Faniel and her collaborators have discussed the challenges of maintaining critical contextual data for future archaeological data reuse from the field to the repository "due to the emergent and diffuse nature of guidelines, standards, and ontologies in archaeology" (2013,296).…”

More Than “A Room of Antiquities” at the Global Museum: Constructing New Meanings Through the Provenance Research of an Ancient Egyptian Legacy Collection

“… 1. See S. Terry Childs, ed., Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship (Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004); Edward M. Luby, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Victoria L. Bradshaw, “Archaeological Curation and the Research Value of Archaeological Collections: A Case Study from California,” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals , 9, no. 3 (2013): 255–82; Julia A. King, “Comparative Colonialism and Collections-Based Archaeological Research: Dig Less, Catalog More,” Museum Worlds: Advances in Research , 4, no.…”

Archaeological Curation and Museums: Rehousing for Educational Access

“…An example of how a legacy archaeology collection was used for research will also be Introduction Accessibility and use of archaeological collections, as well as approaches to digitization, and social media, will be discussed below by relying on sources ranging from Allen and Ford's New Life for Archaeological Collections (2019), Museum Registration Methods Sixth Edition (2020), Smithsonian Institution's Digital Strategic Plan (2010), and Sullivan and Childs' Curating Archaeological Collections (2003). Additionally, a study completed by Edward Luby, Kent Lightfoot, and Victoria Bradshaw (2013) will outlined below to highlight how valuable an archaeological collection can be when used for research.…”

“…In Their rehabilitation project consisted of locating records, confirming descriptive information on the catalog records, evaluating the condition of the collection, and determining if re-housing was needed before being able to assess the research value of the collection (Luby et al 2013).…”

“…In order to be able to understand the collection better, samples were taken for radiocarbon dating and geochemical analysis (Luby et al 2013). GIS, site stratigraphy, and an assessment of burial and animal bones were also conducted in order to analyze the collection (Luby et al 2013). The most significant findings were the results of Carbon 14 dating.…”