OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEDERALLY-ASSOCIATED COLLECTIONS
June 5-7, 1996
Berkeley, CA

Session 9: MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL ARCHEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS: RESULTS OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST.LOUIS DISTRICT'S NATIONAL SURVEYS

Moderator: Michael K. Trimble, Department of the Army, St. Louis District Corps of Engineers

Moderator: stated that when he began collections management work for the Corps 10 years ago the full public benefit from Corps archeological collections was not being realized. As Federal managers we have an obligation to take care of our collections. We have, and continue to spend, million of dollars on cultural resource management, and yet until very recently federal agencies (with several exceptions) have focused on excavation and basic analysis. The Corps has recognized that we as federal managers are now in the true management phase of federal archeology and to this end have founded the MCX which is devoted to NAGPRA compliance and collections management.

A Satellite View of Federal Archeological Collections
Kenneth Shingleton (presented by Michael K. Trimble)

  1. MCX Collections Management Project
    1. Department of Defense (DOD)
      1. Legacy Resource Management Program
      2. Department of the Air Force
      3. Department of the Navy
      4. Department of the Army
    2. Department of the Interior (DOI)
      1. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
      2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
      3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

  2. Curation Assessment Projects--MCX Standardized Procedures
    1. Determine universe of properties for the project
    2. NADB research for gross estimate of the magnitude of the archeological investigations within the project area
    3. Perform state archeological site files research
    4. Identify locations of artifacts and records
    5. Perform assessment report
    6. Prepare collections assessment report, which provides
      1. Assessment of repositories
      2. Assessment of condition of collections
      3. Volume of artifacts, linear feet of records
      4. Descriptions of artifact materials, including human remains
      5. Recommendations for proper care and collections funding

  3. DoD Curation Assessment Approach
    1. Perform State Archeological Site Files Research
    2. Identify locations of artifacts and records
    3. Perform assessment of artifacts and records
    4. Prepare collections assessment report

  4. BIA Curation Assessment Approach
    1. Perform State Archeological Site Files Research
    2. Identify locations of artifacts and records
    3. Perform assessment of artifacts and records
    4. Prepare collections assessment report

  5. BIA--Project Discussion
    1. Advantages
      1. All reservations are investigated
      2. All repositories having collections are identified
      3. Total volume of collections measured
      4. Accurate assessment of curation conditions
      5. Accurate assessment of repositories
      6. Project findings provide cost-effective platform for NAGPRA
    2. Disadvantages
      1. Requires considerable travel on a small regional basis
    3. Results
      1. Number of reservations investigated: 46
      2. Number of reservations with collections: 13
      3. Number of repositories: 5
      4. Number of states with repositories: 5
      5. Volume of artifacts: 458 cubic feet
      6. Extent of associated records: 5.8 linear feet

  6. BLM Curation Assessment Approach
    1. Develop database for information management
    2. Perform research using permits database
    3. Identify locations of artifacts and records
    4. Perform NAGPRA inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects at selected repositories
    5. Reconcile all NAGPRA data
    6. Prepare collections assessment report and NAGPRA Report

  7. BLM--Project Discussion
    1. Advantages
      1. investigate a large region of properties
      2. little travel necessary to determine the potential location of collections
      3. easily identify large collections
      4. provide beginning platform for NAGPRA inventories
    2. Disadvantages
      1. Antiquities Act permits are poor method of research, if used alone
      2. Some collections will not be located
      3. No compilation of fine grained data on condition of collections or repositories
      4. BLM archeological permits are destroyed after 15 years retention
    3. Results
      1. Number of Antiquities Act Permits Identified: 154
      2. Number of permits issued for archeological projects: 87
      3. Number of repositories identified and contacted: 67
      4. Number of states with repositories: 19
      5. Volume of artifacts: unknown
      6. Extent of associated records: unknown

  8. USFWS Curation Assessment Approach
    1. Complete literature review and bibliography
    2. Identify locations of artifacts and records
    3. Perform limited state archeological site files research
    4. Perform assessment of artifacts and records at selected repositories
    5. Prepare collections assessment report

  9. USFWS--Project Discussion
    1. Advantages
      1. Results in accurate measurements of volume of artifacts and linear feet of documentation at specific repositories
      2. Results in comprehensive descriptions of the conditions of collections and suitability of facilities for specific repositories
      3. Provides easy and cost-effective platform for entry into NAGPRA
    2. Disadvantages
      1. Only specific repositories are visited, generally not reflective of project universe
      2. Service properties are not uniformly investigated; collections from the same property may be assessed at one repository but not visited at a separate repository
      3. Requires considerable time to piece together accurate assessments of collections from any region
    3. Results
      1. Number of repositories visited: 5
      2. Number of refuges having collections at the visited repositories: 15
      3. Number of states with repositories: 3
      4. Volume of examined artifacts: 191 cubic feet
      5. Extent of examined associated records: 10 linear feet

  10. Conclusions
    1. Federal archeological collections are extensive and highly decentralized
    2. Strategies to date reflect individual agencies priorities
    3. A comprehensive view of all collections status is achieved by BIA and DoD strategy

A National View of Federal Archeological Collections
Constance Callahan

  1. Project Objectives
    1. Identify and locate archeological collections/records
    2. Identify collections containing human remains and funerary objects
    3. Identify tribal territory associated with installation property
    4. Prepare installation - specific reports with collection information
    5. Prepare draft compliance documents for installations

  2. Archival research
    1. 37,737 archeological site records
    2. 2062 archeological reports
    3. 334 telephone interviews with installation personnel
    4. 983 telephone calls to repository personnel

  3. U.S. Army Environmental Center - NAGPRA Compliance Project - Results
    1. Standardized, Army-wide compliance with NAGPRA
    2. Identification of all Army archeological collections and ability to plan for compliance with 36 CFR Part 79
    3. Initiation of Army-wide consultation program with Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Native Alaskans

What's the Point without the Paper?
Natalie Drew

  1. Type of Associated Records
    1. Associated records generated from archeological investigations where artifacts were recovered
    2. Associated records generated from archeological investigations where no artifacts were recovered

  2. Four points where associated records are lost
    1. Records generated from archeological investigations that recover artifacts often not delivered to sponsoring agency
    2. Records generated from archeological investigations that do not recover artifacts often not delivered to sponsoring agency
    3. Records from negative findings investigations delivered to the sponsoring agency often not interpreted to be "associated records" due to lack of artifacts accompanying them.
    4. Records from negative findings kept by sponsoring agency are subject to agency's records retention schedules.

  3. What the retention schedules direct
    1. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service: Field notes and laboratory notes are temporary; reports are permanent
    2. Department of Defense, United States Army: Background data important to the government shall be delivered in addition to the final report.
    3. Department of Defense, United States Air Force: Environmental planning and historic preservation documents - undecided as yet
    4. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Environmental Impact Statements are temporary; destroyed when no longer needed
    5. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Surveying and mapping correspondence, cooperative agreements, and final reports are permanent. Working papers are temporary
    6. Department of the Interior, USGS: Environmental Impact Statements and all background materials to be destroyed after five years
    7. Department of the Interior, BIA: Cultural resource files are permanent
    8. Department of the Interior, BLM:
      1. Archeological permits are to be destroyed after 15 years
      2. Working papers are temporary; final reports are permanent
      3. Working papers are temporary; Resource Management Plan Reports are permanent
    9. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service:
      1. Antiquities Act permits are to be offered to NARA after 30 years
      2. Archeological project files are to be destroyed 10 years after report is finalized. Report is offered to NARA after 30 years.
    10. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Archeological documentation retired to FRC after six years; offered to NARA after 30 years

  4. Is there a solution to this problem? Rethinking "associated records"
    1. Ensure that the definition is clearly understood to include both records associated with artifacts and those unassociated with artifacts
    2. Ensure that federal agency official and archeological contractors understand that the associated records are a vital part of the collection. Delivery of the final report without the original supporting documentation is unacceptable
    3. Ensure that associated records from negative findings investigations are treated as archeological collections, rather than agency records, and therefore not subject to agency records retention schedules.


Curation Concerns Facing the U.S. Navy in Washington and California
Teresa Militello, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Patricia Duff, Department of the Navy

  1. Department of the Navy, Engineering Field Activity (EFA), West
    1. Over 25 Naval shore installations, most established during World War II or before
    2. EFA West assists Naval shore installations in California and Nevada with design and construction of support facilities and compliance with environmental laws
    3. Includes compliance with historic preservation laws and implementing regulations

  2. Background
    1. Lack of knowledge regarding the scope of collections from EFA West shore installations
    2. Little understanding of the volume and condition of archeological materials
    3. Need for compliance with 36 CFR Part 79
    4. NAGPRA and Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) - motivating legislation
    5. Funding through the DOD Legacy Resource Management Plan

  3. 36 CFR Part 79 Strategy
    1. Agreement in 1993 with the U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis
    2. Scope of Work: Facilities under footprint of EFA West (California and Nevada) and EFA Northwest (Washington and Oregon)
    3. Tasks:
      1. Identify and locate archeological collections
      2. Assess the condition and extent of archeological collections
      3. Develop an archeological collections management plan
      4. Provide a bibliography specific to each institution

  4. Advantages of Strategies
    1. More control over the process
    2. Standardized, uniform approach to compliance with NAGPRA and 36 CFR Part 79
    3. Established procedures and protocols for collections management
    4. Objective view of the condition of the Navy's archeological material at all installations within EFA West/EFA Northwest
    5. Funds for comprehensive approach were obtainable
    6. Cost-efficient approach

  5. Curation Needs Assessment Results
    1. 25 installations and 12 subinstallations
    2. 31 repositories
    3. 1,023 cubic feet of archeological material
    4. 59 linear feet of associated records
    5. 327 human skeletal remains identified (minimum)
    6. 85-90% of collections require total rehabilitation

  6. NAGPRA Strategy
    1. Continue work with the U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis
    2. Scope of work: NAGPRA material from NAWS Point Mugu and NAS Whibdey Island
    3. Tasks:
      1. Review all NAGPRA-related documentation
      2. Conduct physical inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects
      3. Create draft inventories
      4. Enter inventory information into electronic database

  7. NAGPRA Results
    1. 9 repositories examined
    2. 392 associated funerary objects inventoried
    3. 42 linear feet of associated records examined
    4. 524 individual human skeletal remains inventoried

  8. Curation issues
    1. Further research necessary to determine contested ownership/provenance of collections
    2. Potential for overseas collections
    3. Long-term collections management
    4. Cost of curation

Archeological Curation Buildings: More than Just Another Storage Building
Richard Siemons

Curation buildings: Architect and curator must work in collaboration

  1. Design standards
    1. 36 CFR Part 79.9 - states standards for a federal repository and collections center
    2. State and local building codes
    3. AAM standards

  2. Two books that state further building codes
    1. Uniform Building Code, 1994, by the International Conference of Building, book used on the west coast
    2. Boca National Building Code, 1996, used on the east coast

  3. Exterior site planning
    1. think of circulation around your building; roads, parking, truck-access delivery, access into building from parking areas, etc.
    2. Montana State University, Museum of the Rockies, as an example

  4. Interior site planning
    1. Repository - what will be housed, size and weight of objects, and storage system
    2. Processing
    3. Curatorial
    4. Offices
    5. Administration
    6. Special Rooms
    7. Mechanical and Support
    8. Store material you do not need to access often, ex: fire-cracked-rock, at another site

  5. Mechanical and support - You must remember, the more complex the system, the more specialized help you need to maintain your facility

The Challenge of Archeological Collections Management in the Next 20 Years
Michael K. Trimble

  1. Current Status of Federal Archeological Curation
    1. Housed at the state or local level for the last ninety years
    2. No consolidated federal curation plan
    3. No federal agency has been tasked with the curation mission
    4. Institutions curating federal archeological collections range from good to very bad
    5. Access to the archeological collections by all constituents (e.g., researchers, public, educators, Native Americans) is uneven

  2. Results of Corps work
    1. No central institution with responsibility for this issue has led to inconsistent, arbitrary policies
    2. State and local level strategies for federal archeological curation often not effective
    3. Federal agencies and local museums often play bureaucratic games with collections care
    4. Native American requests for access to and use of sensitive archeological material are not treated in a uniform manner by federal agencies

  3. Legacy Mission - DOD Prototype for Curation Partnership
    1. Mission
      1. Identify and assess DOD archeological collections
      2. Develop comprehensive partnership plan
    2. Products
      1. Assessment of volume and condition of DOD collections
      2. Identification of potential partners
      3. Cost estimates for rehabilitation and partnership implementation
    3. Lead Agency - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (MCX - Curation) designed sole authority for developing comprehensive curation plan
    4. Universe
      1. All states west of the Mississippi except Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota
      2. Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
      3. Alaska and Hawaii

  4. Inventory and Assess Collections--Modified Tasks
    1. Perform State Archeological Site Field Records
    2. Identify Locations of Artifacts and Records
    3. Perform Assessment of the Artifacts and Records
    4. Prepare Collections Assessment Records

  5. Identify Partners - Tasks
    1. Identify potential DOD archeological curation partners
    2. Evaluate the potential partners - building adequacy and repository infrastructure
    3. Determine specific benefits of each potential partner
    4. Determine specific DOD costs for each potential partner
    5. Design initial archeological collections management database
    6. Provide recommendations (Report) to DOD

  6. Implement Partnerships/Design
    1. Receive DOD guidance on partnership choices
    2. MCX submits partnership schedule to DOD
    3. Receive notice to proceed
    4. Building design
    5. Design review
    6. Construction/Rehabilitation

  7. Expected DOD Contributions
    1. Rehabilitation and construction funds
    2. Design
    3. National administration
    4. Basic equipment
    5. Percentage of O/M

  8. Expected Partner Contributions
    1. Qualified professional staff
    2. Staff salaries and benefits
    3. Equipment
    4. Percentage of O/M
    5. Outreach programs
    6. Exhibits

  9. DOD National Archeological Collections Management Plan
    1. Partner Benefits
      1. Long-term commitment to curation partnerships
      2. Access to expanded and centralized collections and catalogue for museums, researchers, and other interested groups
      3. Exhibits and loans in cooperation with partners
    2. Stakeholder Benefits
      1. Access to coalesced resources of various institutions
      2. Shared use of professional services (e.g., curatorial and conservation expertise)
      3. Shared use of facilities/equipment not otherwise available (e.g., conservation, photographic, analytical)
      4. Opportunities for professional training (workshops, seminars)

  10. Project Approach Discussion - USFWS
    1. Disadvantages - USFWS
      1. Only specific repositories are visited, generally not reflective of project universe
      2. Service properties are not uniformly investigated; collections from the same property may be assessed at one repository but not visited at a separate repository
      3. Requires considerable time to piece together accurate assessments of collections from any region
    2. Advantages - USFWS
      1. Results in accurate measurements of volume of artifacts and linear feet of documentation at specific repositories
      2. Results in comprehensive descriptions of the conditions of collections and suitability of facilities for specific repositories
      3. Provides easy and cost-effective platform for entry into NAGPRA inventories for specific repositories
    3. Project Results - USFWS
      1. Number of repositories visited: 5
      2. Number of refuges having collections at the visited repositories: 15
      3. Number of states with repositories: 3
      4. Volume of examined artifacts: 191 cubic feet Extent of examined associated records: 10 linear feet
    4. USFWS Curation Assessment Approach
      1. Complete literature review and bibliography
      2. Identify locations of artifacts and records
      3. Perform limited state archeological site files research
      4. Perform assessments of artifacts and records at selected repositories
      5. Prepare collections assessment report

  11. BLM - Project Approach Discussion
    1. Disadvantages - BLM
      1. Antiquities Act permits are poor methods of research, if used alone
      2. Many collections may not be located
      3. No compilation of data on size or condition of collections
      4. No indication on condition of repositories
      5. Research is based on the repository, rather than the land unit, thus giving an error-inherent outline of the project universe
      6. BLM archeological permits are destroyed after 15 years retention
    2. Advantages - BLM
      1. Can investigate a large region of properties
      2. Very little travel necessary to determine the potential location of collections
      3. Can easily identify large collections
      4. Can provide beginning platform for NAGPRA inventories
    3. Project Results - BLM
      1. Number of antiquities act permits identified: 154
      2. Number of permits issued for archeological projects: 87
      3. Number of repositories identified and contacted: 67
      4. Number of states with repositories: 19
      5. Volume of artifacts: unknown
      6. Extent of associated records: unknown
    4. Collections Management Approach - BLM
      1. Develop database for information management
      2. Perform research using permits database
      3. Identify locations of artifacts and records
      4. Perform NAGPRA inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects at selected repositories
      5. Reconcile all NAGPRA data
      6. Prepare collections assessment report and NAGPRA report

Back to notes from the conference's 18 sessions
Please contact Bob Jarcho, Web Site Administrator, with questions, comments or problems concerning this page.
This page was last updated on March 26, 1997.