Consultations with Southern Plains Indian Tribal Organizations - One Museum's Perspective
Mei Wan Campbell, Curator of Ethnology/Clothing and Textiles, Museum of Texas Tech
- Art collections, funerary objects, and documents consulted on; 1 1/2 day consultation with each group; 1 day sacred objects, 1/2 day for funerary objects.
- Used classroom; video and audio documentation of the consultation when approved by group. No formal documentation occurred after consultation had ended.
- Prior to consultation - tribe asked if they wished to do cleansing ceremony (avoid activating fire suppression system; explain history of museum and its mission statement; guided tours of museum and museum library.
- Benefits to museum:
- identification of objects as to function, artist, history;
- open dialogue between groups not only on repatriation but also on exhibition;
- begin relationships for future cooperation in exhibitions.
- What was learned from consultations:
- be flexible in scheduling;
- ask permission to use audio/visual in documentation; some tribes will ask to review and edit;
- during meals and social times, groups tend to open up more;
- learn how to use audio/visual equipment beforehand; do a practice run; problem in knowing which consultant is speaking; mention catalogue number on tape; cover objects not being discussed; ask consultants to speak one at a time;
- be open and honest about museum's collection and documents; many tribal consultants will ask if there are any more; show them entire collection and accession records;
- give them a copy of mission statement, accession and deaccession policies and explain all these procedures;
- make sure that information is correct in labeling/description; look to other museum's collections for correct tribe creation/identification;
- explain to consultants that museum is not only to comply with law but also to disseminate information on tribal culture;
- difficult to respond to questions about why more complete documentation is not available;
- reasons for consulting go beyond legal compliance.
The Minnesota Historical Society and its Role as a Contractor and Repository for Federally Associated Archaeological Collections
Charles O. Diesen, Curator, Minnesota Historical Society
long-standing relations with NPS and FWS
- Grand Portage Depot (National Historic Site)
- 1960 Grand Portage made a National Monument; reconstruction begun
- 1960-75 12,000 objects to MHS
- 1982 contract with NPS to catalogue and inventory collections limited to figured collection in notes taken by head archeologist; documentation was manual process
- 1989 first of series of small contracts and more cataloguing; new numbering system created to catalogue
The Central Arizona Project Repository (CAPR): A Case Study in Interagency Curation
Nancy Mahaney, Central Arizona Project Repository, Arizona State Museum
- relationship: BOR with NPS and Arizona State Museum
- early 1980s-existing state repositories could not handle collections
- CAPR built as a temporary holding facility, now 10 years old.
- BOR to define scope of collections and funding;
- NPS to give advice and technical assistance;
- University to provide personnel;
- located in Tucson Federal Building basement - limited work space
- staff reviewed annually, 3 FTEs and 3-4 Temp/PT
- diverse collections - paper archives, maps, photos, NAGPRA, research collection, "special collection"
- BOR wants CAPR to catalogue all collections within 4 years and discontinue all other activities to get this done;
- NPS could not okay cataloguing only the most heavily used collection;
- CAPR wants to catalogue collection but does not see the need to use ANCS when it is being phased out. (SNAP does not meet needs either; Foxpro as an interim step?)
Partnerships with Federal Agencies: A Case Study
Susan Baxevanis, Collections Assistant, Museum of Texas Tech University
- NPS grant to do Phase I for Lake Meredith collection from 1960s (by F. E. Green in 1964);
- cataloguing systems not compatible between museum and NPS;
- documentation from Green, 1964, was incomplete
- 12,000 objects estimated, was actually 200,000;
- NAGPRA categories given priority
- ANCS-is IBM; MTT-is MacIntosh
- NPS policy prohibits writing on human bones, etc.
- Benefits: over 195,000 inventories, 10,000 catalogued collections rehoused; plan prepared; open-minded approach on both sides
- cataloguing allowed for realistic planning and more accurate projection for Phase II.
Institutional Partnerships for the Curation of Federally Associated Collections: The Alabama Example
Eugene M. Futato, Curator of Archaeological Collections, Office of Archaeological Services, The University of Alabama Museums
- Reason to house collections in non-federal repository:
- permanent repository at lower cost
- enhance utilization and access
- special facilities available at university
- Partnership is two-way street
- Negative side:
- Federal: direct control lost
- University: funding, universities don't want to pay for storage buildings
- Fees based on volume flat rate - example: $50 for process and $150 for maintenance - a one-time cost and no overhead
- Historical Society vs University of Alabama facility
- in the historical society, no fee, but care agreement defines requirements
- at the university, $9 facility for systematic collections of all campus museum