V13_p015-019 - Murray State University

DISCARDING THE PAST?
A CASE STUDY FOR REDUCING CURATED MATERIALS,
ARGOSY CASINO PROJECT
JoAnn Wilson and Trina e_ Maples
The lack of curatorial space has been a topic of discussion for several years. The Industrial Revolution caused a
marked increase in the number of artifacts collected from post-1870 sites. The Argosy Casino Project has served as
a case study for reducing the amount of material to be curated from these sites. By eliminating those artifacts
thought to be of little or no current or future analytical value, a 38% decrease in storage space and cost was
affected. This reduction in curated material not only saves the CRM client money, but more importantly, saves
precious storage space for the future.
For years there has been an ongoing discussion about
the lack of curatorial space. What is rarely discussed is
what are we going to do about it? Really. What are our
options as keepers of the past? What are our obligations to
the future? Are we being responsible managers by keeping
everything? Or are we saddling future generations with
the cost of caring for artifacts that have little or no
analytical value now, just because they may have value in
some unknown distant future?
This paper is not an attempt to answer these very
difficult questions that face archaeologists who deal with
historic material. It does, however, try to address the real
world problems associated with the material recovered
from turn-of-the-century (post 1870) and early 20th century
sites. We use the Argosy Casino project, in Lawrenceburg,
Indiana, near Cincinnati, as a case in point.
The Argosy project entailed almost three years of
fieldwork and resulted in the investigation of 18 sites. Of
these sites, nine were historic and collectively produced 96
features, including many privies. To date, six sites have
been cataloged with a total artifact count in excess of
60,000 items. Even though we are only about half way
through the cataloguing, the number of artifacts is already
astounding.
It is because of the Argosy project that we at Cultural
Resource Analysts felt it necessary to take a long, hard
look at what artifacts were really necessary to keep and
what artifacts could be discarded without compromising
our ethics. Those of us involved in CRM work face a
unique set of circumstances. To quote South,
" ... archaeologists have two masters, the sponsor of their
research, and their scientific responsibility" (South
1977:317). We have an obligation to our client to provide
the best work possible at a reasonable price. Our livelihood
depends on this. As scientists, we are committed to
obtaining the most information possible from our
excavations and resulting analysis. Through curation we
should attempt to consider future research questions and
preserve those artifacts that will adequately answer such
questions.
While preparing a final budget for the Argosy project,
the lab director was asked to provide an estimate of
curation costs. Based on the number of flats that contained
artifacts, it was determined we would probably have at
least 225 boxes of material to curate. Assuming a cost of
$100 per cubic foot for curation, we were looking at a total
curation cost of $22,500. How do you go to your client, in
good conscience, and tell them it is going to cost over
$22,000 to store in perpetuity such things as broken
window glass, plastic, bottle caps, aluminum foil, and
other 20th century debris? At this point, we knew it was
time to take a look at our cataloguing methodology and
find a way to save our client money, maintain our
professional obligation to future researchers, and take into
consideration how our decisions would affect the curational
facility.
JoAnn Wilson and Trina C. Maples Cultural Resource
When we contacted the facility that would eventually
curate the Argosy artifacts for their guidelines, we found
that they were grappling with similar problems. Thus, it
was decided that we would have to develop our own plan of
action. No one person made the difficult decision about
what was worth retaining and what was not. We based our
decision on a consensus of opiniom>, blending each
Analysts, Inc.,
40)0S
various concerns and come to an unbiased decision. Our
143 Walton Avenue,
Lexington, KY
partic\llar }X>int of view.
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
This way we hoped to address
13(1998):15-19
15
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
merry band of culprits included the principal investigator,
staff historical archaeologist, lab director, and the lab
assistant in charge of historical materials analysis.
As a result, we started to catalogue Argosy with the
intent to record and discard specific artifacts. The first 18
items listed in Table 1 were included in our initial
"discard" group. The remaining items were added to the
list after we had catalogued a couple of sites and realized
there were still items that could be discarded without
adversely affecting future research. Discarded artifacts
were catalogued the same as those artifacts being retained.
After the appropriate infonnation was recorded, artifacts
from the "D" list were thrown out. Our computer catalogue
program includes a "discard" field that allows us to track
items that are not kept. As a result we know exactly what
was discarded from each site. Although we do not believe
it is necessary to keep certain artifacts, we do realize it is
important to record pertinent data, such as, for example,
dimensions, weight, material type, and to retain in some
permanent form a record of what has been discarded.
While computer diskettes are an easy form of data storage,
recent evidence reported in the February 16, 1998, issue of
U.S. News & World Report (Tangley 1998) has brought to
light our folly in using them as our only means of storing
data as the life of a diskette is only 5-10 years. Thus, we
encourage colleagues to keep a hard copy of their databases
to be stored with the other related paperwork.
Although we do not, as a profession, tend to talk about
it, many of the artifacts on our discard list are ones that
have been regularly thrown away for years. Items like 20th
century plastic, coal, cinder, concrete, and fragmented
bricks seem to be generally accepted as items of no real
analytical value to the future.
Volume 13
1998
undecorated whiteware, ironstone. stoneware and
undiagnostic container glass. Undiagnostic body sherds
from glass containers are discarded after color and weight
is noted. Lips, rims, bases, and any body fragments with
embossing or other decoration are retained. Undecorated
ceramics are handled similarly, retaining rims, footrings,
maker's marks, and anything else that may be of an
interpretive nature. If there is nothing we would nom1ally
retain as a sample of a particular type of ceramic, then we
keep a sample of the body for each provenience unit.
It is more difficult to make on the spot decisions about
what to retain in features, especially privies, cisterns and
wells. In order to gain the most information, it is usually
necessary to keep all ceramics and container glass until
crossmending is completed. After crossmending, a decision
can be made as to what material is redundant, including
rebuilt wares. How many chamber pots of the same style or
plates from the same set do we need to retain? We argue
that only a sample needs to be kept as long as a complete
analytical catalogue of discarded items is recorded.
Although window glass is a subject of constant scrutiny
and research, we do not feel the actual glass needs to be
retained as long as the thickness is recorded. Early
research by Ball (1983) suggests color might have some
temporal significance. But other studies, among them
Roenke (1978) and Rivers (1998), seem to eliminate that as
a significant factor. Color is caused by impurities in the
"metal" (liquid glass). Even modem glass has a slight
green tint. Also, past experience in attempting to record
color led us to believe it was purely subjective. So, taking
into consideration these factors, we decided that recording
the thickness of window glass to the hundredth of a
millimeter with digital calipers was sufficient before
discarding this material.
On the other hand, container glass and ceramics seem
to be held as some type of sacred cow" and should NEVER
be discarded. This is probably where we start to raise some
eyebrows. From most sites, kitchen related artifacts (i.e.,
container glass and ceramics) constitute the vast majority
of the collection. If we are to reduce the amount of
curatorial space each site consumes, then we must start to
seriously examine what glass and ceramics give us the
most useful information and what really needs to be
retained in collections.
Other items that are discarded, such as washers and
smooth wire, have pertinent measurements taken before
being thrown away. Much thought and care was put into
what attributes are recorded for future research, but as
South stated, "We cannot possibly list all the attributes
conceivably of use to someone someday... " (South
1977:326). As a result, some information will inevitably be
lost. These are realities we must accept if we are to be
responsible curators.
Retention of specific artifacts has been based on prior
usefulness in site interpretation. If it can be shown that a
specific artifact could be used to interpret a site (i.e.,
Now that we have listed what artifacts are thrown out
and why, how does this discard action affect the bottom
line? Figure 1 shows, by site, the total number of artifacts
maker's marks, embossing, technological or morphological
catalogued. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of artifacts
information, etc.), then it was kept. Nevertheless, we do
not feel it is necessary to retain redundant material, such as
represented by Architecture and Domestic groups (the
groups from which the majority of discards are made) as
16
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
Volume 13
1998
TABLE 1. ARGOSY CASINO PROJECT DISCARD LIST.
CATE<?OFlY
CO.JNT \NEIGH SAWPl..E CCMvENTS
rvbdern Plastic
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Plastic wapper
Coal, cinder, slag
IVbrtar
Plaster
Unid container glass (all colors)
Siingle'tar paper
Rod<s
Plastic ooated wre
c.oncrete
Aluninum fragments
Mlsonite
Brick fragments
l\Jail fragmnts
U'lid metal frags (flat-thin & thick)
Asbestos
OOM1caps
M31ted glass
Aluninum foil
Cerarric drain pipe
Srrothwre
Glass*
Uidecorated Wlitevvare & ironstone
Lhdecorated stoneware
Plain flo.ri.er p:Jts
Wirrl:m glass
Fence staples
C.arbon electrcdes
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Washer
y
y
y
&xr:mfragments
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Dameter measurement
Keep sarrple
Keepsarrpe
Keep sarrple
Dscard after rrm.surement taken
Diameter rrea5Urerrent
Exterior diameter rreasurement
f\DTE: \Miere appropriate art~acts are described in comnents field.
I
*Uidiagnostic body sherds (except for handbl0M1) VIAii be discarded. A sarrple VIAii be kept of redundant
dicmostic qlass (i.e. dear Vvhiskey bottles).
I
-
·
-
·---- --······ ··-- -
- · - -- - ~
-·-
-- ---------- -
-- -
- -
--··-
- ---
·-
17
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
Volume 13
1998
TOTAL# OF ARTIFACTS
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
12D502
12D505
12D507
12D508
12D516
12D520
FIGURE l. TOTAL NUMBER OF ARTIFACTS FROM ARGOSY SITES.
90
El% ARCHITECTURE
80
70
B% DOMESTIC
60
0% UNIDENTIFIED
50
[£! %ARCHITEC1URE
DISCARDED
30
B% DOMESTIC
20
DISCARDED
Ill % UNIDENTIFIED
DISCARDED
10
0
12D502 12D505 12D507 12D508 12D516 12D520
FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGE OF ARCHITECTURE, DOMESTIC, AND UNIDENTIFIED ARTIFACTS.
well as the Unidentified group (repository of metal lumps
and melted glass). In addition, this graph shows the
percentage of artifacts from these three groups that were
discarded. For example, site 12D502 has a total of 6,223
catalogued artifacts. Of that amount, 55% are from the
Architecture group and of that 55%, 21% were discarded.
In other words, almost one quarter of the artifacts
representing the Architecture group at this site was
eliminated from pennanent curation. Domestic artifacts
(i.e., ceramics and glass) comprised 25% of the total
18
collection and 8% were discarded. The Unidentified group
is consistently a small percentage of total artifacts from a
site, in this case 3%. As the graph indicates, however, the
majority of those items are consistently thrown out. These
discards have had a dramatic effect on the total curation
cost. Our initial estimate of $22,500 has been reduced to
$13 ,800; a savings to our client of over $8,000 and a
reduction of 800 cubic feet of storage space for the
curational facility.
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology
As may be seen, we have ceased talking about this
problem and started to do something about it. Have we
considered all the possible problems associated with
discarding artifacts - we think so. Have we kept those
artifacts that will allow for future research - we hope so.
Have we saved our client money by being selective about
what artifacts we curate - we know we have. Have we
saved the curational facility much needed space - of course
we have. And finally, have our decisions given the
historical archaeological community something to think
about?
REFERENCES CITED
Ball, Donald B.
1983 Approaches Toward the Dating of 19th Century
Ohio Valley Flat Glass. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic
Volume 13
1998
Archaeologv 1:129-137.
Rivers, Sara
1998 Window Glass at the Gower House (15Lvl78):
An Application of Donald Ball's Dating Formula.
Paper presented at 15th Annual Kentucky Heritage
Council Archaeological Conference, Murray State
University, Murray, Kentucky.
Roenke, Karl G.
1978 Flat Glass: Its Use as a Dating Tool for
Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites in the
Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest
Anthropological Research Notes, Memoir No. 4.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
Academic Press, New York.
Tangley, Laura
1998 Whoops, There Goes Another CD-ROM. U. S.
News & World Report 124(6; February 16):67-68.
19