Hi all @Alex @Manuel Gozalbes @elena @Sonia @Enric Tartera
Yesterday we had a meeting in which, among other topics, we discussed the issue of significance. As we see it, although this information may be useful for prioritising a possible restoration, the significance of an object does not disappear once the restoration has been carried out.
We see two types of information:
One field would indicate the level of significance. We established three levels, although this could vary depending on each project:
- Significant
- Of limited significance
- Irrelevant
A second field would establish a typology explaining why the object is significant. This “why” may clearly differ from one project to another. In our case, we have identified three levels — although there could possibly be four — which, as you will see, are very specific to the context of mass graves:
- It may contribute to an identification.
- It may be returned to the families.
- It is of scientific interest.
As we see it, these levels of significance do not disappear simply because the object has been restored. Therefore, we would not link them directly to restoration; rather, we see them as more closely related to the description of the object itself.
Regarding what you mention about “Highlight” [tch61], I am not entirely sure that it corresponds exactly to this concept. You may want to highlight an object within your collection for very different reasons, even temporarily, and this does not necessarily have to be directly related to its significance. Although, in most cases, I understand that an object with irrelevant significance would hardly be highlighted.
This is a topic we could discuss at the next Archaeological Friday meeting. By the way, we have not yet scheduled it. Would next Friday, 12/06/2026, at 12:00 work for you?
