Moderator: Jennifer Luksic, Curator of Collections, San Diego Historical Society, San Diego, CA
 

Valerie Butler, Susan Baxevanis, and Eileen Johnson, Anthropology Division, Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX

Standards must be established to ensure the long-term care of permitted held-in-trust collections. Although several Federal agencies now have curation standards for Federally-associated collections, few states have such standards for state-associated collections. In Texas, museums and repositories now must be accredited by the Accreditation and Review Council of the Council of Texas Archaeologists to hold state permitted held-in-trust archaeological collections after the year 2000. The Accreditation and Review Council has developed a Texas-based accreditation program modeled on the American Association of Museums national program. Museums and repositories in Texas are required by the Texas Historical Commission (the permitting agency) to meet accreditation standards of collections care and museum management to be eligible to receive state held-in-trust collections. The standards that museums and repositories in Texas must meet were reviewed and the procedures and implementation of the state accreditation program presented.
 

Paula Johnson, Paragon Research Associates, Seattle, WA

I. Assumptions
    A. Curation standards are a workable idea
    B. Archaeologists, agencies, tribes, and repositories share common goal: preserve excavated archaeological
            collections
    C. Lessons have been learned through past mistakes

II. Curation standards are increasingly necessary
    A. Increased dependence on museum collections for research
    B. Increase in quantity and diversity of archaeological materials excavated
    C. Lack of museum resources for remedial care of collections

III. Benefits of curation standards
    A. Troubleshoot potential problems
    B. Preventative conservation
    C. Increase research with collections
    D. Decrease remedial curation work with collections
    E. Lower curation costs over time
    F. Partnership opportunities

IV. Who should be involved in developing curation standards?
    A. Agencies
    B. Repositories
    C. Archaeologists and Researchers
    D. Tribes, if appropriate
    E. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

V. How to start the processY
    A. Involved parties meet, review already developed curation standards
    B. Be specific:
        1. about what you need
        2. about what you can offer
    C. Be flexible

VI. What are some of the common "monkey wrenches"?
    A. Incompatible computer programs
    B. Inconsistent use/definition of fields
    C. Facility "dimensions"
        1. box size vs. shelf dimensions
        2. storage of oversize artifacts and documents
    D. Method or completeness of labeling

VII. Two examples from Washington State
    A. Excavation from 1970s (rehabilitation)
        1. curation methods have been updated
        2. compatibility of collection database with repository's database
        3. archives
    B. Recent excavation (proper, efficient curation from beginning of project)
        1. information on final storage location
        2. use of computers to increase efficiency
        3. slight resistance to change

VIII. How have standards been accepted so far?
    A. Need more active involvement of agencies, people with both decision making authority and knowledge
         of issues
    B. Need more support of archaeologists, shift from focus on report as end of project
    C. Need commitment from repositories to promote the use of standards
 

Mary Collins, Assistant Director, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

Once a MOU is signed and the collections are brought up to standards, the work of being a repository for federal archaeological collections begins. Providing access to collections while at the same time maintaining control over the care of the objects and associated information has created circumstances not familiar to many archaeologists, repositories and depositing agencies. These circumstances include addressing conditions placed on collections use and cost responsibilities as important aspects of the project design. The day-to-day working relationship between an academic entity and a federal agency brings challenges akin to different cultures coming together. While the academic environment fosters individual autonomy, federal agencies function with more hierarchical structure. The experiences of the Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University in acting as a partner in managing federal collections provide insight into circumstances not always anticipated, but likely to face, collection depositors and managers.