3rd Conference Papers
The following is a listing of papers presented at the Third Conference on Partnership Opportunities for Federally Associated Collections

 

Sponsored by
U.S. Department of Interior and
Texas Association of Museums

 

a red line separating the text


The following is a listing of papers presented at the Third Conference on Partnership Opportunities for Federally Associated Collections

Developing the Texas-Based Accreditation Program for Curatorial Facilities--Eileen Johnson, Museum of Texas Tech University

Policy Development and Legal Protection for Institutions Housing Collections--Susan Baxevanis, Museum of Texas Tech University

Fossil Vertebrate Resources-An Outreach to Native Americans--David C. Parris (New Jersey State Museum) & Sally Y. Shelton (National Museum of Natural History)

The Paper Behind the Artifact: Rehabilitating Archaeological Documentation in Practice--Amy McPherson and James Ferguson

Accessible Collections on a Shoestring Budget

Plugging In: What We Have Learned In Making Collections Data Available on the World Wide Web

Present Your Data on the World Wide Web

Developing the Texas-Based Accreditation Program for Curatorial Facilities

Eileen Johnson, Museum of Texas Tech University

INTRODUCTION

Although federal regulations address the care of federally-associated collections, no mechanism is available to monitor the curatorial facilities housing those collections and insure the following of established standards. Concern on the national level clearly is evident for the condition of archaeological collections that are held-in-trust for the people of the United States in curatorial facilities across the nation. Recognition of the inadequate conditions and inaccessibility of many archaeological collections despite the federal regulations has instigated discussion on the federal and state levels towards how to rectify and improve curatorial care. A peer-evaluation program on the federal level would assist the federal agencies and curatorial facilities in meeting federal guidelines and provide recognition for the efforts of the curatorial facilities.
The point of discussion here is how a state-based program would fit into the national scheme of archaeological collections standards and care. As the only state to develop its own accreditation program for archaeological collections, the Texas-based program is a potential model for a national peer-evaluation program to monitor curation care. Twenty years in development, the Accreditation and Review Council (ARC) is a unit of the Council of Texas Archeologists (CTA), a state-based professional organization. Accreditation is voluntary and it is a service to the profession as a whole and to Texas.

BACKGROUND
By the late 1970s, it was evident across the country that a curation crisis existed with anthropological collections and archaeological collections in particular. Another clarion call was sounded in the early 1990s when the American Committee for Preservation of Archeological Collections stated "There is no question that curation of archeological materials has been inadequate and frequently slipshod, and better preservation of collections is a duty of archeologists and museums." With tremendous foresight, the CTA membership recognized in part its responsibility toward better preservation of archaeological collections by developing and then adopting in 1984 curation guidelines and creating a Curation Implementation Committee charged with developing a program called for in those guidelines to help curatorial facilities follow the guidelines and recognize them for their efforts.
That Committee was the precursor of ARC and charged with finding a way to implement the concepts put forward in the Curation Guidelines and establish ARC as a functioning unit of CTA. The Curation Implementation Committee was given the responsibility of producing a separate document that addressed: 1) the basic principles of accreditation; 2) procedures for establishing and operating ARC; 3) procedures for accreditation and the review process; 4) procedures for application, initial review, evaluation, notification of council decision, appeal, and suspension of accreditation; and 5) any other actions deemed necessary to organize and initiate the program. The Accreditation Policy put forth by the Curation Implementation Committee was adopted by the CTA membership in 1991. That policy provided the philosophical basis and outlined the scope of accreditation, authority, and responsibility of ARC and its members.
The Accreditation and Review Council was formally recognized and constituted by the CTA membership in 1991 and inaugurated in 1992. ARC had a two-fold charge: 1) development of the accreditation program based on the adopted accreditation policy; and 2) upgrade the curation guidelines as warrented. The concept behind ARC was the acceptance of the responsibility for and demonstration of appropriate and adequate care for archaeological collections generated from lands in Texas. Curatorial facilities had both legal and ethical obligations in providing the best care possible within their resources. A timeline was developed for making ARC functional and the accreditation process operational by 1999 with 2000 as the targeted year for the first accreditation deliberation. In late 1998, CTA empowered ARC to implement the accreditation program. Much of 1999 was spent finalizing documents, training field reviewers, and adopting a mission statement (Table 1). The first application was received late 1999. ARC deliberations resulted in the first accredited curatorial facility in October 2000. The process took 11 months.

Table 1. Mission Statement of the Accreditation and Review Council

The Accreditation and Review Council (ARC) is a unit of the Council of Texas Archeologists (CTA), a non-profit organization. The purpose of ARC is to improve and bring up to current standards the care and management of archeological collections by administering an accreditation program for museums and repositories in the State of Texas. The ARC is empowered by CTA to set, review, and revise standards used in the accreditation process; accredit institutions; adjudicate accreditation appeals; establish and conduct field reviewer and educational workshops; and establish, review, and revise policies and procedures. The ARC and its program are a service to, and a resource and educational outlet for, the professions that care for and preserve the archeological collections of Texas.

CONCEPTS

The ARC process is based on museum concepts and used the American Association of Museums (AAM) accreditation program as a model. Whether in a museum or a repository, archaeological collections are held-in-trust for the people and State of Texas. The not-for-profit status of museums engenders a trust-like situation and they hold their collections in trust for the good of their beneficiaries, their pubic. A more specific held-in-trust situation applies for state-associated collections generated off of public lands, donated to or purchased by the state in the placement of those collections in a curatorial facility. Accountability is key and that accountability encompasses the financial, legal, and moral responsibility of a curatorial facility to the public.
The concept of accreditation is not new and both AAM and the Association of Systematic Collections (ASC) accredit collections-holding institutions in their purview. While the AAM accreditation program is the model, ARC accreditation is not a duplicate but rather an adaptation to suit the needs of a smaller, more focused program. AAM accredition is designed for museums with a clear definition of what a museum is and a program based on that definition. Many Texas curatorial facilities are not museums and, therefore, do not fall under the purview of the AAM accreditation program. Furthermore, AAM accreditation is concerned with the overall operation of a museum, its governance, exhibits and educational programming, and general well-being of its collections. ARC accreditation is focused on the curatorial care, handling, and maintenance specifically of archaeological collections regardless of the type of curatorial facility in which those collections are housed. The two accreditation systems are complementary but are not dependent.
A second major difference is in ARC's recruitment and training of field reviewers. Training is an undertaking that AAM does not do. Training is provided to familiarize the field reviewers with the concepts and procedures on which ARC accreditation is based, establish a secure and equalized basis for reviews, and ensure a quality experience for both the curatorial facility and the field reviewer. Field reviewers act as the "eyes and ears" of ARC and provide written comments. It is, however, ARC's responsibility to make the accreditation decision, not that of the field review team.
Accreditation is a peer-evaluation process that involves standards recognized by the profession that are to be achieved and followed. Accreditation is a recognition by the profession that an institution is striving to achieve those agreed-upon standards and is following acceptable practices. Central to the philosophy of accreditation is the ultimate value it places on the integrity of the collections. If archaeological sites are of scientific value and non-renewable resources (the justifications frequently cited for federal and state legislation to protect sites and provide for mitigation when necessary), then the corollary of that maxim is that the collections generated from archaeological sites also are of scientific value and are non-renewable resources. The profession cannot continue to excavate and maintain credibility without ensuring the longterm appropriate and proper care of those collections.
Accreditation involves a great many linked concepts and processes within a curatorial facility (Table 2). The keystone museum concept is that of a sound, written collections management policy coupled with written procedures that implement that policy. A collections management policy is a public accountability document and a statement of standards employed. For ARC accreditation purposes, it must address goverance, mission statement and scope of collections, acqusitions, accessions and held-in-trust agreements, deaccessions, loans, collections care, record-keeping cataloging, inventories, insurance, access to collections, security, pest management, disaster management, and appraisals.
Another foundation concept is that of accredible standards. Accredible standards are those currently acceptable practices and procedures that are greater than the minimum. Accredible standards are dynamic and upgraded periodically with continued professional development. The standards by which a curatorial facility is evaluated would not necessarily be the same as those used in a reaccreditation evaluation. This position ensures continued upgrading of collections care and educational training of curatorial staff.

Table 2. Accreditation Criteria

Governance
specific mission statement
scope of collections
charter or organizational document


Finance
clear fiscal plan
continued efforts to raise level of support

Policies
written Collections Management Policy


Procedures
written Collections Management procedures
written Disaster Management plan
written Pest Management plan
written security plan

Physical Facilities
sound, appropriate structure
adequate and appropriate insurance
security and fire systems
environmental controls
floor plan

Staff
written code of ethics
support for staff professional development
minimum one full-time staff member

Visiting Scholars and Researchers
written policy and procedures on access to and handling of collections

Records Management
functional accession, catalog, inventory, and photodocumentation systems
physical inventory of collections

Collections Care
housing -- appropriate storage units; accessibility and organization of collections
packaging -- appropriate materials, object spacing, and organization

PROCESS

Early in the documents development process, decisions were made that would shape the character of the accreditation program. A field review was required for an applicant curatorial facility. It was determined that trial field reviews be conducted by council members in order to incorporate that experience into the revision of the documents concerning field reviews and make the reviews pertinent, productive, and realistic. Two trial field reviews were conducted, one at a small county museum and the other at a university repository. The field review documents were revised after each trial field review. Based on this experiece, it was determine recruitment would be broad-based among professions dealing with collections and archives. Such recruitment necessitated training of field reviewers in order to establish expectations, a balanced or equalized knowledge base, and familiarization with the accreditation process. ARC can be fair to an applicant curatorial facility only if it sends out field reviewers who are prepared to the best of their ability to conduct a competent, professional on-site evaluation. A training session should supply the field reviewer with the knowledge needed to conduct such a field review. Two trial field reviewer training sessions were held and the training documents revised after each trial training session and additional ajustments made in the field review documents.
The first actual field reviewer training sessions were conducted in 1999, resulting in a field reviewer roster of 20 people. Each 2-day training session consisted of three main segments: museum concepts, field review documents, and a mock field review. Additional revisions were made to documents and training based on participant and council member evaluations. Mandatory refresher courses every three years will keep a field reviewer on the active roster and annual review sessions are planned to discuss any problems, concerns, and new developoments.
Based on the adopted accreditation policy, the process for a curatorial facility involves several steps. The curatorial facility initiates the process with an application form provided by ARC. Upon receipt of the application and fee, an accreditation packet is sent that includes a self-evaluation form. A lengthy document, the self-evaluation form is one of two key documents in the process. It is designed to elicit how the curatorial facility views themself, the role of collections care and managment at the facility, and their resources. The self-evaluation phase consists of an in-depth assessment of the curatorial facility's collections, performance, resources, policies, purposes, and plans. It serves as the facility's initial statement of current conditions and operations.
A review by the Council of this statement along with copies of the documents requested are the basis for the next phase in the accreditation process. ARC takes one of two actions after initial review and notifies the curatorial facility either: 1) the application has been approved and meets on paper the minimum standards for participation and a field review will be scheduled; or 2) the application has been rejected, stating the reasons why the curatorial facility does not meet the minimum standards for participation. At this point, a rejected applicant may choose to go through the appeals process.
The field review and the report produced by the field review team constitute the second of the key documents in the process. The field review is designed to verify that accredible standards are being met. Quality and performance are measured by objective reference points incorporated into an on-site evaluation report. The team musk ask themselves how professionally the curatorial facility is meeting its own stated purposes with its resources at hand. The field review reports are used to draft a written narrative following the field review. This narrative and a composite field review report are submitted to ARC to make a final determination.
The final review is conducted by the Council members at their next meeting following receipt of the written narrative and field report. That review involves a consideration of all the supporting documentation. In the categories of factors considered for accreditation, the disabling factor category is defined as being unable or fails to produce essential documents or demonstrate adequate facilities. Disabling factors could withhold accreditation; denial is based on the number of disabling factors present. The deficiency factor category is defined as lacking in some essential requirement for maintaining standard, acceptable curatorial practices. Deficiency factors could trigger provisional status.
The decision options are: 1) ARC grants accreditation for a 7-year period; 2) ARC approves provisional status for up to a 3-year period; or 3) ARC denies accreditation. If accreditation is granted, a formal certificate is presented to the curatorial facility. With provisional status, a curatorial facility meets most of the requirements but is lacking in one or more specific areas. The deficiencies must be outlined and the provisions for upgrading the curatorial facility to accredible standards must be explicit. The curatorial facility devises the schedule for making the necessary changes. In denying accreditation, clear disabling factors must exist and be documented in the notice to the curatorial facility.
A curatorial facility that had its accreditation application rejected or was denied accreditation may appeal by submitting a written apeal within 3 months of the negative action. Reaccreditation is obligatory to maintain accredited status. It is intended to insure that curatorial facilities keep current with curation standards and continue upgrading the care of the collections and professional development.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Although several federal agencies now have curation standards for federally-associated collections, only a few states have such standards for state-associated collections. Texas is the only state to have to have a system of accreditation that insures statewide adopted standards for archaeological collections are being followed. The Texas-based accreditation program is precedent-setting. Although applicable to a broader range of archaeological collections than those that are state-associated, nevertheless, the ARC accreditation process is a service to the state agency charged with the protection and stewardship of Texas archaeological sites on public lands and their collections. In its role as a model program, the Texas-based accreditation program can also be a service to the federal agencies charged with the protection and stewardship of collections from federal lands.

Policy Development and Legal Protection for Institutions Housing Collections

 Susan Baxevanis, Museum of Texas Tech University

The development and adoption of written policies by an institution provides guidelines for action and legal protection to that institution. This review examines the policies that are essential for an institution housing collections, how they should be developed, and the benefits of having such policies in place. Specifically discussed are the policies required by the Accreditation and Review Council (ARC), particularly the Collection Management Policy, its contents, and legal ramifications.
Policy is defined as any governing principle, plan, or course of action. Policy statements are written articulations of how an organization carries out its mission. Developing policy statements requires creating and updating general written policies for the administration of the organization, and applying in a structured way the general governance principles to particular responsibilities.
Confusion regarding areas of responsibility is a chronic problem. Policy development is a Board responsibility that may be delegated to the Director; however, the Board must maintain oversight and approve and adopt all policies. While the Board may make the policy, it is the staff who must implement and carry out the policy. Expressed delegations of responsibility in policy statements lead to effective oversight by the Board.
Confusion regarding policy versus procedure is also a chronic problem. Policy is the governance statement and procedure is the process. A procedure is a particular way of doing something; an established way of carrying on business; or that which proceeds from something. Policy is the why or the ends, and procedure is the how or the means. The two should not be mixed. The "ends" are the products, outputs, or other effects, not the activities. Written policies and procedures lay the foundation for informed decision-making to further the mission of the organization.

 Benefits of Policies

 Developing a Policy

Collections Management Policy

A Collection Management Policy is a statement of public accountability and the standards that collection care-givers employ. The policy must reflect day-to-day activities of the institution.

Collection management policies are variable in scope. ARC accreditation requires institutions have policy statements on specific issues. Some topics may be incorporated into one another, but issues must be addressed somewhere in the policy.

Collection Management Policy Elements Required by ARC:

To be accredited by ARC, a written Collection Management Policy is required. However, many other benefits to policies exist, including a basis for legal protection, employing professional standards, and providing accountability to the public.
For more information about the Accreditation and Review Council, please log on to the web site: http://www.c-tx-arch.org/cta_ARC/ARC.html

Fossil Vertebrate Resources- An Outreach to Native Americans

 David C. Parris (New Jersey State Museum) Sally Y. Shelton (National Museum of Natural History)

The purpose of our presentation is to more publicly present an offer of assistance, which the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology made through its Outreach Committee several years ago. While both of us were serving on the committee (Sally was the chair), my friend Jack Rushing, an enrolled Muskogee, made a suggestion to me. He was aware of the good cooperative efforts that our field parties had experienced with various Native American Tribal Organizations (and knew of similar situations in the past) and suggested that it could be a broader effort. At the 1995 meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (Pittsburgh). The committee agreed to the following effort: members of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology would offer to advise and assist Native American tribal organizations with the identification, collection, preservation, and research of their resources of vertebrate fossils, for the common benefit of the tribes, the science of paleontology, and Americans as a whole. This idealistic declaration has not produced outstanding results to date, but we have had some successes and believe that by presenting the offer in this greater public forum, that good results can be achieved.

It is no secret that offers of mutual friendship and assistance to the various tribes historically were often more theoretical than real; the benefits were typically lopsided. For example, during the presidency of Millard Fillmore, friendly and cooperative chieftains were presented with medals which often seemed to be the only tangible reward for their cooperation, one might cynically observe. However, the collecting of vertebrate fossils from the western interior lands was first accomplished by Lewis and Clark along the loess bluffs near the Soldier River in Iowa, and that expedition not only entered lands traditional to Native America, but also had Native American participants.

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC PRECEDENTS

While early explorations may not seem like much of a precedent for a Native American collecting tradition, there are other examples to be found. In recent work, author Adrienne Mayor, chronicler of ancient fossil collecting in the Old World (1), also has documented various instances of prehistoric interest in fossils in America, and archaeological evidences of interest in fossil sharks' teeth (2), petrified wood (3), and other fossils are known.

Examples of more pertinence to modern science include the photographic documents of the South Dakota School of Mines and Princeton expeditions of the early Twentieth Century, where a Siouxan man named Silas Fills The Pipe is shown. Although his role is not clearly specified, he evidently assisted Glenn Jepsen and other fossil seekers; one of the photographs appears to show him holding a fossil. Jepsen, himself South Dakota born, maintained a lifetime of respect for the Native American tribes especially in his homeland, a feeling shared by others from there, notably J. Reid MacDonald, who enshrined Lakota designations as scientific names for fossil animals described by him (i.e., Sunkahetanka) (4).

Particularly in the Dakotas, the reservation lands now existing are noted for their vertebrate fossil resources. While this is an area of particular interest to us, it is by no means the only such place or region, since the reservations of the Southwest are similarly well endowed, and there are many other areas where little evaluation has taken place.

PALEONTOLOGY AT CROW CREEK RESERVATION, A CASE HISTORY

For fifteen years now, field parties of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology have been investigating the Pierre Shale of Cretaceous Age for its rich yields of fossil marine vertebrates, notably mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, pterosaurs, and fish. Many of these fossils are spectacularly large, having the potential to be major museum attractions. When these field parties began work along the Missouri River about a decade ago, they first searched the tracts of the Army Corps of Engineers which are above the water line of the South Dakota "Great Lakes," but soon discovered that the productive rock exposures extended well above those federal jurisdictions, into the lands of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in Buffalo, Hyde, and Hughes counties. An agreement with mutual benefits was completed: by action of the tribal chairman and the council, collecting permits were granted to the field parties for exploration and retrieval of the fossils, with permission to study them in repository at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. The fossils remain the property of the tribe however, and may be used for the benefit of the tribe in future educational, scientific, and cultural interpretation and exhibition.
Soon afterwards, the field parties began a very productive association with a member of the tribe, Mr. Lee Azure. The tribal chairman knew Mr. Azure well, and knew that he was an accomplished collector of fossils. His unusual perception had led him to mark specimens in the field, rather than wrenching them from context and regarding them as simple attractive curiosities. Mr. Azure served his tribe well in his association with the South Dakota Tech field expeditions, frequently finding more specimens over the winter than the field expedition could collect in the summer. His excellent eyesight located specimens, such as three-dimensional fossil fish, that were rather subtle in the rock emplacements, or even in grassy areas that many experienced collectors did not search. Indeed, his introduction to the scientists was because of a spectacular but poorly-exposed specimen of the rare species Mosasaurus dekayi, which is to say that he began affecting paleontological studies from the very beginning of his association, and has thus been cited in our literature (5).

THE CASE FOR TRIBAL RETENTION OF FOSSIL RESOURCES

While all tribes are making comprehensive efforts to increase economic opportunity, the most conspicuous programs have been with gaming and other forms of tourism. Although more diversified development is needed, and these types of economic initiatives should not be the only efforts, there is no question that tourism can bring considerable profits, jobs with full ranges of skills, and favorable publicity. Museums and other types of interpretive centers contribute greatly to tourism (notably for family groups), and offer the opportunity to showcase the natural and cultural values of an area.

An Associated Press analysis of tribal gaming enterprises this year noted that the economic impact was highly variable among the tribes, and that the most positive impacts were in reservations near major metropolitan areas (6). Fossil vertebrate localities are more often associated with areas that are remote or sparsely populated, where positive impacts of gaming are less likely. Museums are potential attractions in such areas, where other enterprises may not succeed.

One typical means of estimating the economic impact of tourism is to multiply tourist expenditure by a factor of seven, in order to predict the total economic benefit (due to support services and further circulation of funds). For example, if a tribal museum is in a relatively remote area, visitors would likely seek overnight lodging, meals, and other services. 'The potential benefits of a museum fee plus lodging costs plus food service plus fuel expenditures (multiplied by a factor of seven) can readily be appreciated. Various published studies of the positive impact of museums already exist (7).

Vertebrate fossils are attractive focal points for a museum, carrying the fascinations of rarity, antiquity, and spectacle. They may be a major asset to a tourism initiative and have been repeatedly used to advantage in such development efforts. During a recent tour of northeastern China, I learned firsthand of the development of regional museums, based on the fame and productivity of the fossils of the Jehol Biota, which includes the so-called feathered dinosaurs and various early birds. Tourism is in a very early stage of development there; our tour of perhaps eighty scientists was probably the largest number of visitors for which the local facilities ever had made provision. In several cases, the construction of the museum had been completed prior to completion of the infrastructure and support facilities necessary to maintain it. Nonetheless, the regional museums of the area, even though proliferated for the sake of many municipalities, were already having positive results. Public officials had clearly decided to take full advantage of fossil resources both for the sake of tourism and to inspire science education. We see no reason why Native American tribes cannot do the same.

This latter point, the encouragement of science education, deserves further elaboration. Traditionally, fascination with vertebrate fossils has been an inspiration to young people to aspire to careers not merely in paleontology, but in sciences generally (8). Ideal locations for exhibition of such fossils are tribal colleges and community colleges, where buildings and rooms suitable for exhibitions may already exist. The goal should be to have not only an exhibition, however, but a "center for study" with supporting "behind the scenes" facilities.

The support facility, with laboratory and library resources, is an important means of expanding the employment opportunities of the museum effort. Proprietary rights should be retained for the fossils, so that the production of replicas, casts, and photographs can remain a legal privilege of the tribal organization. These can be marketed, providing a source of income and jobs. Although some in the past have viewed the fossils as a resource in the same category as mineral and fossil fuels, there is a consensus now that the rarity of these antiquities, and their importance to natural heritage, justifies their perpetual retention.

The objective should be the establishment of a systematic collection housed in a fully accredited museum, that is, one that meets national standards of quality, with full-time staffing and proper care of objects, whether on exhibition or in repository. This is an achievable goal, one which should attract grant support and philanthropy when carefully pursued, as a number of tribes are already doing. While our society's interest is vertebrate fossils, there is no need to confine the scope of a tribal museum to that subject.

REITERATED PROPOSAL

We again offer the assistance of the Outreach Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to the tribal organizations. It has been our policy to encourage amateur and professional paleontology for the sake of our science, and the tribal organizations are no exception. Upon contact, we will discuss with Outreach Committee members and others in geographic proximity how best to provide assistance and advice. We call on the tribal organizations to join with us in seeking individuals who wish to become expert at fossil collecting and other aspects of paleontology. Retain your fossil resources as tribal property and natural heritage, but make use of the fame and public interest in them for lasting economic benefit and the educational inspiration of youth. The theme of this conference is partnership opportunities, and that is exactly what we are proposing.

REFERENCES

(1) Mayor, Adrienne. 2000. The First Fossil Collectors. Princeton University Press. 360 pages.

(2) Cross, Dorothy, 1956. Archaeology of New Jersey, Volume Two, The Abbott Farm, Pages 161 and 163.

(3) Mounier, Alan 1974. Aboriginal Use of Petrified Wood in New Jersey. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey. Spring/Summer 1974, pages 25-26.

(4) MacDonald, J. Reid. Miocene Faunas from the Wounded Knee Area, South Dakota. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 125:3.

(5) Bell, G. L., Jr.; Martin, J.E.; Parris, D.C.; and Grandstaff, B. S.; 1994. Mosasaurus dekayi in the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) Marine Deposits of South Dakota and New Jersey. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14 (3) Supplement, page 14A.

(6) Pace, David (Associated Press Articles, in Trenton Times September 1, 2000).
Also see: New York Times, September 3, 2000. Reservations with Casinos Gain Ground on Poverty.

(7) Fireman, Peggy. Partnerships for Prosperity- Museums and Economic Development.
American Association of Museums.

(8) Otis, Lauren. (Article in Trenton Times, November 12, 2000). Thrills Without Chills.

The Paper Behind the Artifact: Rehabilitating Archaeological Documentation in Practice

 Amy McPherson and James Ferguson

Amy McPherson and James Ferguson are two archival interns at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District's Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collection. For brevity's sake, we refer to it as the MCX. Amy and Jim are the two archival interns who are primarily responsible for performing archival processing and rehabilitation at our lab in St. Louis. The MCX has established standard protocols and methods for both material remains and associated documentation, but today's paper addresses those for associated records only.

This paper will present some basic information and history on the MCX and how we began processing associated documentation for the Department of Defense. The second portion of the paper will describe the methods and protocols used at the MCX processing lab. Finally, the last section will discuss standards for processing and stabilizing associated records.

The MCX's involvement in archival processing flowed very logically from previous projects completed by the MCX-the National Inventory Project; the Curation Options Project; the Pilot Partnership Implementation Project, and the Pilot Rehabilitation Project. These projects provided basic information that answered certain questions for the Department of Defense. Specifically questions regarding what, where, and how.

The National Inventory, or Curation Needs Assessment, Project answered the question "what is the extent of the archaeological collections for which the Department of Defense is responsible?" In addition, it also answered the questions of "where are these collections now?" and "what needs to be done in order to get the collections in compliance with the Curation Regulation, 36 CFR Part 79?" The resulting data reported to the Department of Defense presented, for the first time, a national inventory of archaeological materials under Department of Defense stewardship.

The Curation Options, or Partnership, Project conducted a nation-wide questionnaire and evaluation process that answered the question of "where are we going to curate all of these materials so that they are in compliance with 36 CFR Part 79?" This project identified repositories within each state that were willing and able to partner with the Department of Defense to curate all DoD collections by geographic region. The primary regions were based upon state boundaries, but options for other geographic regions were provided as well. 

 The Partnership Implementation Project was a direct result of the Curation Options Project. It answers part of the question of "how does the Department of Defense comply with the directives of 36 CFR Part 79?" Specifically, this project is designed to identify a process for implementing partnerships between curation facilities identified in the Curation Options Project and the Department of Defense for curating those collections reported in the National Inventory Project. The findings of this project will be reported to the Department of Defense as a prototype that may be applied for all archaeological collections in DoD's care.

 The second half of the question "how does the Department of Defense comply with the directives of 36 CFR Part 79?" is addressed by the Pilot Rehabilitation Project. Under this project, the MCX has established standard protocols and methods for the rehabilitation and stabilization of archaeological collections (both records and artifacts). As with the Partnership Implementation Project, the findings of this project will be reported to the Department of Defense as a prototype for all DoD archaeological collections. The standards, protocols, and methods for rehabilitating and stabilizing material remains are beyond the scope of this paper, but let's discuss those adopted for processing associated documentation.

  The first step in processing a collection is determining the arrangement of the materials. While determining the arrangement of a collection, the processing archivist familiarizes him or herself with the collection's contents. Associated records collections are unique entities that must be treated as such. Each collection must be arranged according to its individual characteristics. Because each collection contains different data and record formats, there is no "one-size-fits-all" arrangement that can be applied to every collection.

 There are a few critical concepts that are important to keep in mind when arranging collections. The first concept is the notion of provenance. Provenance is the record of successive transfers of ownership and custody, and documents the origin and history of a particular manuscript or document collection. By tracking a collection's provenance, it is sometimes possible to retrieve missing items or request additional information from the creator or compiler. The secondary definition of provenance states that an individual collection should never be co-mingled with other collections. Following this first concept is the principle of Respect For Original Order. This second concept states that a collection originating from a single provenance should retain the arrangement, if discernable, established by the creator. Maintaining the original order serves to preserve the existing relationships and evidential significance of the collection. If no original order exists, it is then the job of the processing archivist to impose and describe a logical arrangement.

There are any number of ways to organize a collection. Most archival arrangements are founded upon groupings of similar or related documents. These groupings are often referred to as record groups, series, sub-series, and units. Both within and between each of these groupings, an arrangement scheme must be chosen. The most common arrangements schemes are: chronological, topical, numerical, or alphabetical. Any of these schemes may be used alone or in any combination, according to the characteristics found in a collection.

After the arrangement has been determined, the materials are ready to be stabilized and repackaged. Documents, in all their myriad formats, arrive in a variety of secondary containers--anything from acidic manila envelopes to PVC plastic bags, if they are packaged at all. These containers endanger the longevity of the collection and must be replaced with secondary containers constructed of archivally sound materials. It is also imperative to remember that size matters. If documents are packaged in containers too large or too small, the resultant damage is often more detrimental than the original containers. Materials are always packaged in appropriately sized containers. Finally because different record formats have different storage requirements, it is often necessary to segregate the collection by record format.

Paper records are packaged in acid-free folders of the appropriate size. These folders then are placed into acid-free boxes, also of an appropriate size. Photographic materials are sleeved in polyethylene sleeve pages or archival envelope sleeves. The pages are then housed in archival photograph notebooks or acid-free folders and boxes. Further, it is important to store photographs within a single plane to prevent warping. Electronic records are stored in acid-free or polypropylene boxes of appropriate size. One important issue to keep in mind when storing electronic media is that they must be kept free from dirt, dust, and electromagnetic fields. Audio-visual materials are housed similarly to electronic media; again care must be taken to keep them free of dust and dirt. Cartographic and oversized materials are frequently the most difficult to store. These materials should be stored within a single plane, preferably flat. Baked enamel flat file cabinets of appropriate size or customized acid-free boxes may be used. Oversize acid-free folders and Mylar L-velopes are available for packaging these items. Interleaving acid-free tissue paper between several maps in a single folder or box is also an acceptable practice.

Once repackaged, the secondary containers must be labeled. Indelible (i.e., permanent) ink or #4 (or HH) pencil lead is used for labeling. This practice ensures the permanence of the label once it is recorded on the secondary containers for all record formats. Consistent information presented in a consistent format is maintained throughout the collection. Because record formats often are separated from other portions of the collection due to storage considerations, cross-indexing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the collection. Whenever an item is removed for special storage, the removal is noted in three places--the original file from which it was removed, on the item's new secondary container, and in the finding aid.

After being arranged, repackaged, and labeled, the folders holding the documents are ready to be numbered. Each file is assigned a number according to its place in the arrangement. Traditionally, two numbering schemes are used--sequential, or redundant. Sequential file numbering is when the folders are numbered from one to whatever. When the folders fill a box and begin another, the file numbering simply continues in the next box with the next sequential number. In redundant numbering, the first file of each box is designated as "Folder 1." The MCX uses sequential numbering of folders and boxes within each collection.

Each secondary container is labeled with certain basic information, presented in a consistent format. Basic information consists of the collection name and/or number, the originating installation or agency, the accession number (if available), the unique file title, the inclusive dates, and the file number. For specific record formats, additional information, additional label information is recorded on the secondary containers. For instance, each photographic image is labeled with a roll and exposure number, regardless of the media (i.e., slide, print, negative) in addition to the basic information described above. If a negative, print, and slide of the image is present, all copies are assigned the same roll and exposure numbers. Electronic materials include the basic information plus information on software, versions, file sizes, and program metadata; while audio-visual items provide a more detailed description of the item's contents.

The finding aid is the primary tool archivists create to assure fast and accurate retrieval of the records in a document collection. There are many kinds of finding aids. The most common types are guides, registers, inventories, checklists and indices. A finding aid is an essential element in the preservation and use of archaeological documentation. They may be simple or complex, depending upon the collection, or a specific institution's policies. The finding aid, created by the MCX archivists, contain the following sections: the history of the rehabilitative effort, the scope and content note, the series description, and the folder listing.
The history of the rehabilitative effort section is an accounting of the methods used to process a collection. It is composed of different sub-sections, each describing the methods used to stabilize different record formats. The scope and content note is a narrative description, written by the processing archivist, that describes the strengths and weaknesses, and characteristics of the collection. Any special actions taken to preserve or conserve parts of the collection also are described in the scope and content note. The series description is a brief, precise overview of the files contained within each related groupings, or series. It includes the series title, a description of the contents, the inclusive dates, and the size of the series being described. The folder listing serves as a detailed table of contents that provides specific information on the filing order and the contents of the collection. The folder list enumerates the unique folder titles with their identifying number listed in the same order as the physical arrangement of the collection.

As each associated documentation collection is procesed, it is linked to the stabilized and rehabilitated materials remains collection from the same investigative effort. The final product then consists of three elements-the processed documentation, the stabilized and rehabilitated material remains, and the finding aid and artifact catalog that describes each collection as a single discrete entity. The previous section described the methods the MCX has implemented to process archaeological associated documents in a consistent and efficient manner. The critical importance of professionally curating the associated documentation in addition to the artifacts from an investigative effort is undeniable. Artifacts without documentation are limited in their use. An artifact-no matter how interesting or exhibitable-is simply an object. An artifact with the context and raw data provided in the accompanying documents, however, becomes a true cultural treasure and a valuable resource for the future. The MCX recognizes this crucial link between objects and records and has established standard archival practices and procedures to ensure this link is preserved.

The archival methods adopted by the MCX differ only slightly with the professional standards of archival processing used by archival institutions worldwide. MCX archivists process each collection with the future user very much in mind. The objectives of both the MCX and more traditional archival repositories, however, remain the same.

There are three primary objectives the MCX strives to achieve when processing associated documentation. 1) To ensure that the complete archaeological collection (i.e., documentation and material remains) from an archaeological investigation will be available in the future. 2) To arrange and stabilize the collection in such a way to produce the widest possible access and most efficient use of the collection by future users. 3) To provide complete information and present it so it allows users to easily understand the relationships between all aspects of the investigation. These objectives seem straightforward enough, but there are obstacles to achieving these goals. The adoption of universal or national definitions, methods, and standards for processing associated documentation, however, would alleviate, if not eradicate, many of these.

The single largest obstacle for achieving the first objective is a lack of agreement on what constitutes associated documentation, and therefore what documents should be retained. The definition of associated documentation provided in the "Curation Regulation" (i.e., Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections, or 36 CFR Part 79) assisted with this topic, but further agreement is necessary. The MCX has adopted the definition provided in 36 CFR Part 79.4 for their purposes. In other words, the MCX preserves all documentation (even from secondary sources) either generated or compiled during the course of an investigation. The sad fact, however, is that frequently the MCX receives "complete" collections which consist of the final report. This begs the question "why generate it if you're not going to keep it?" Using the original documents to compose the final report and then discarding the original data is counterproductive for future archaeologists and researchers alike. Scientific methods and practices require documentation be kept to validate and substantiate ones findings. Too many people are interpreting this definition too narrowly, and so many of these collections are being irrevocably destroyed. The archaeological community would do well to establish a standard definition to be used by archaeologists at all levels of study-fieldwork, analysis, reporting, and curation.

The second objective of archival processing is to ensure the collection is preserved for as long as possible. The methods and standards implemented by the MCX and explained in the previous portion of this paper ensures the physical stability of the records across all formats. The practice of repackaging in archivally stable materials and reformatting records onto more stable media can greatly increase the life of these materials. The MCX's labeling and cross indexing practices ensures the original data and information describing these materials is not lost.

Further, the MCX's adoption of a consistent format used for describing these materials also protects associated records for future use. The standard finding aids produced by the MCX serves many functions, but one of its best features is that it lessens the damage caused to documents through unnecessary handling. Records are not as sturdy as they look; they are susceptible to rips, tears, increased acidity, and other damage inadvertently caused by careless handling. The archival finding aid is the front door to an archaeological collection. Instead of going immediately to a box of records or artifacts, the user browses through the finding aid to either identify the materials they really want to see or to see if the collection contains information pertinent to their inquiry.

The finding aid enables users-researchers, educators, and museum personnel-to more efficiently use their valuable time when conducting research. Finding aids provide a single source of information for not only the associated records, but for the objects in the same collection. And finally, the finding aid presents the user with information not only on content of the collection, but its arrangement as well. In this way, the user can ascertain the relationships between the documentation, data, and artifacts within a collection.

Adopting standards and a consistent format for describing associated documentation enables the stewards of these materials to increase the use of these materials by making the collections accessible to a wider audience. If more collections of archaeological associated documentation were processed and described in a consistent, or at least a similar manner, this would increase the use of these collections. As users become familiar with a description tool, they tend to depend upon it more for their inquiries. Today it is common for archival institutions to place their finding aids on the World Wide Web for potential patrons. For the potential user, this practice greatly facilitates research by eliminating potential dead end field trips to review collections that do not quite fit their research criteria. The MCX produces all of their finding aids in word processing software, probably the most familiar type of software for users. Making consistently formatted finding aids available on the Web would reach a world wide audience thus meeting the third goal of archival processing-making these materials available to the widest possible audience. And this basic use of the World Wide Web is only the most obvious application of the burgeoning technology now available to us.

If we achieve all three goals of archival processing-and we at the MCX believe that we do achieve them-complete archaeological collections will be available for a long time. And who knows what applications the future may hold for these resources? From past experience, we know that many of these collections were never analyzed and interpreted fully when the investigation was conducted. Preserving the results of an investigative effort enables users to conduct initial interpretation of sites mitigated many years prior. In addition, the collections that were interpreted and analyzed may be reinterpreted as innovations and developments in archaeology are made. And finally, and what we at the MCX feel is one of the most exciting applications, is the ability to recreate a site and an investigation. One of the misfortunes of archaeological fieldwork is the fact that the site is destroyed as it is mitigated. With new computer technology and virtual reality graphics, it is now possible to recreate an archaeological excavation. Of course, this is only possible if the complete collection was preserved and described in a manner that allows this to be accomplished. One of the best examples of the potential of this technology is the CD put out by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Press, on their excavations at Ocaneechi Town.

The development and adoption of standards, definitions, and methods are critical to the preservation of archaeological collections. This is particularly true in the case of archaeological associated documentation. The MCX, by processing and describing these collections in a consistent manner, has established a method to not only preserve these materials, but also increase their usage and applicability-in the present and the future. We feel that institutions and agencies could benefit as well from adoption of these or similar standards and techniques.

 Accessible Collections on a Shoestring Budget

 Ann Molineux, Collections Manager, Non-vertebrate Paleontology,Texas Memorial Museum, Austin, Texas

Texas has a rich and interesting history of geological research. Almost four million non-vertebrate specimens from this research are housed at the Texas Memorial Museum of Science and History (TMM). These important collections are not readily accessible to researchers, educators, or the public. TMM has begun to computerize the collection, including specimen inventory, catalogues and related data, and images of original labels and important specimens. Digital records are currently only available in the lab and collection areas, but will be available on the Internet in the future, together with visitor and loan requests. Support has come from IMLS, UT Department of Geological Sciences & Geology foundation, TMM and enthusiastic volunteers.

Introduction:


Geological research of Texas began officially in the mid nineteenth century, and has continued ever since then. The early surveys, especially those of Shumard and Dumble account for many specimens of great historical importance. Other specimens derive from sources listed below.

 State of Texas Agricultural and Geological Surveys 1858-1895
1. The Shumard Survey 1858-1861
2. The Glenn-Buckley Survey 1870-1876
3. The Dumble Survey 1888-1895
University of Texas Department of Geological Sciences 1888-present
University of Texas Mineral Survey 1901-1905
Bureau of Economic Geology 1909-present
Orphaned collections and donated specimens from a wide variety of sources

Overall, the specimens within these collections are not easily accessible. The major reasons for this inadequate situation appear to stem from the history of the individual collections, the timing of their acquisition by TMM, and the lack of adequate funding for curatorial staff.
This paper addresses how we are solving some of the critical problems in our collections despite the limitations of our own budget.

Perspectives:

We are planning to develop a collection that is both accessible to the researcher, the educator, and the general public. To achieve those demanding goals, we are committed to the development of an extensive database that will incorporate physical location and status of the specimen together with its catalogue record, labels, images and any other relevant metadata. Much of this data will be directly accessible via the web.
As we move through the collection, we are also developing educational web pages, and CDROMs so enabling virtual visits for those who cannot physically visit the actual museum. Before these objectives can be attained we must plan and address several important shortcomings of these particular collections.

Planning for improved accessibility:
 
The broad plan of action is based on the following

Current conditions:
These aspects are probably common in many other collections however it is pertinent to outline them here.

�Increase in collection size without increase in staff

The chart above, based on the original data of Chris Durden derived from a drawer inventory completed in 1977, indicates the magnitude of the collections. They are approaching an estimated 4 million. A recent visiting consultant recommended 8 staff for a collection of our size, perhaps less given the university environment. Current staffing is limited to one full-time member of staff.

� Multiple physical moves of the collection
Large portions of the collection have been moved about campus, with three major moves during the last 30 years. This has not only taken its toll on the physical well being of specimens but also the integrity of the labels, and resulted in the loss of specific within-collection location information.

� Poor physical location and condition
A large open warehouse is currently home to the greater portion of specimens. It is an environment lacking any climate control, and subject to dirt and vehicle fumes. The obvious negative aspects of this type of storage environment are of ongoing concern. The condition survey below provides some measure of the physical situation.

Current conditions:
These aspects are probably common in many other collections however it is pertinent to outline them here.

�Increase in collection size without increase in staff

The chart above, based on the original data of Chris Durden derived from a drawer inventory completed in 1977, indicates the magnitude of the collections. They are approaching an estimated 4 million. A recent visiting consultant recommended 8 staff for a collection of our size, perhaps less given the university environment. Current staffing is limited to one full-time member of staff.

� Multiple physical moves of the collection
Large portions of the collection have been moved about campus, with three major moves during the last 30 years. This has not only taken its toll on the physical well being of specimens but also the integrity of the labels, and resulted in the loss of specific within-collection location information.

� Poor physical location and condition
A large open warehouse is currently home to the greater portion of specimens. It is an environment lacking any climate control, and subject to dirt and vehicle fumes. The obvious negative aspects of this type of storage environment are of ongoing concern. The condition survey below provides some measure of the physical situation.

Year Loans Total Specimens Data Requests Professional visitors Public Visitors
2000 12+7 returns 520 25 30 30
1999 7+4 returns 101 14 15 4

*General queries assessed by email traffic c.500 between 1999-2000
Year 2000 only to August.

Estimating use of the collections by loans, visitors, and requests for data, further back than the last two years is difficult. Collection movement was certainly one major disruptive force, but lack of staff is clearly an important issue.
Published research also reflects the potential importance of this material.

The key issue here is that ongoing use of the collection does not represent potential use of this collection. To achieve that level of use requires consideration of those aspects that are less than ideal!

Priorities include:
Development of database, including an inventory of specimens!
The replacement of inadequate wooden storage equipment with metal, casketed cabinets where possible. A recent IMLS grant has enabled us to conserve and relocate 12,000 specimens in the least accessible area of the Cretaceous collection, and we are continuing to seek funds to extend this work.
Assessment of the type collection determined that it should be moved to the recently developed Non-vertebrate Paleontology Lab (NPL). Inventory of this collection revealed many damaged specimens, and conservation of those became top priority.
Relocation of specimens of rare historic interest, and fragile or damaged specimens throughout the collection are an area on concern. Our latest grant proposal is targeting those specimens in addition to furthering our inventory.
Damaged labels are evident throughout the collection. Silver fish are often the culprit but age is also a significant factor. We have begun to archive these old label, after scanning them into the database, and replacing them with new acid-free paper labels printed directly from the database and held in Mylar holders. Each label also contains a barcode for rapid inventory, and loan processing in the future.
Treatment for damaged specimens is recorded for future use, allowing for the monitoring of effective/ineffective treatments.

Defining procedures:
An important part of the process is to organize and codify the procedures and protocols that pertain to this particular collection. We have begun that process with an in-house, online, document, constantly updated, but attempting to create a basic reference document for all who work in the collections. This document is on-line in all the collection areas.

Data management:
There was no link between catalogue and specimen location, and no functional database to query where specific specimens are located or whether we even have the specimens listed in the catalogue. The collection is also encumbered with non-catalogued specimens, and many unprocessed returned loans.
From accessibility standpoint a critical task for us is inventory of the collection that will allow us to locate specific numbered specimens. The most logical decision was to proceed with that inventory as part of the development of an overall database system.
We elected to use Microsoft Access for the database. This program is part of the basic software package on our computers, it is easily user friendly, and allows us to manipulate our data in the manner we need at this time.
In addition to the inventory of specimens as many other curatorial tasks as possible are being incorporated into the database. New label generation, loan tracking, and response to queries are all accomplished through the database. As the database grows so does the efficiency with which we can resolve queries and find specimens. Current progress has expanded the database to about 14,000 entries from the printed catalogues, and 120,000 specimens have been inventoried.

Information retrieval:
Every day the database is queried to solve some question relating to the collection. However, our aim is to produce a web accessible database with images for important specimens. Currently our database is only available in-house, but that does include access in all collection areas.

Funding and expansion of the workforce:
In one year we have located and made accessible over 120,000 specimens.
This included over 50,000 previously un-catalogued Tertiary specimens. This has been possible by using a variety of sources for financial and in-kind resources.
Thanks to the Department of Geological Sciences and TMM we now have 8 part-time students working the collections. 8 volunteers, now work in NPL, many of whom were enlisted through outreach talks to amateur geological and paleontological organizations.

Improving our public image and visibility:
We have made efforts to contact and talk to all the amateur geological organizations in the area. Outreach activities through the Museum, in the form of ID-days, and the University (in connection with their increasing interest in public education) have improved the visibility of all the TMM collections.
We have developed exhibits that include specimens in our collections.
Field trips and research projects bring our student assistants in contact with ongoing research that is of direct relevance to our collections.

Conclusion:
Although our official budget is small, we have found ways to make the most of our situation. The use of student assistants and volunteers, the use of used equipment, the focusing of available funds into pertinent areas such as providing computer access to all the collections. Even though the machines located in our warehouse are not state-of-the-art machines, they allow critical access to our database! We hope that eventual increase in levels of funding and grant monies may allow for permanent expansion of the work force in this collection. Higher level of funding would enable us to complete this task in a timely manner, and would increase the level of specimen conservation.

 FOR MORE INFORMATION

On the Texas Association of Museums (TAM): http://www.io.com/~tam

 

a red line separating the text