Washington State Curation Summit
Olympia,
WA
October
14, 2008
The
Washington State Curation Summit held its biannual meeting at the Washington
State Department of Transportation’s Materials Testing Lab on October 14, 2008.
Twenty three representatives from tribal nations, museums, universities, state
and federal agencies and private contract firms gathered to discuss the future
direction of curation in Washington State. This document presents a summary of
the session content and dialogue.
Contents
Steve
Denton welcomed attendees and thanked everyone in attendance for their participation
as well as Scott Williams for generously providing the meeting space and refreshments.
Denton provided a brief history of the summit, and acknowledged that
implementation of the DAHP repository requirements is a great group success and
cause for celebration.
Denton
explained one of the action items from the last meeting was the submission of a
state funding request. Stephenie Kramer and Peter Lape wrote a decision package
requesting $150,000 for a study to evaluate the state of curation in Washington
and identify what measures should be taken in the future, including space and
staffing needs. Kramer explained that if approved the funds will be added to
the governor’s budget. The results of the study would be used to support a
state funding request to address the issues identified.
Allyson
Brooks sits on a panel that evaluates and ranks decision packages and told
Kramer the request was well received and ultimately ranked 8 out of 32. Kramer
explained current state cutbacks make it hard to guess whether the package will
be funded. Peter Lape offered that if the package is not funded this year we
can ask again. Kramer added we can ask every year. Cindy Farr told the group the state never
gives funding the first time asked. Washington State Parks has been asking for
money for a collections manager for 20 years and just got it last year. Kramer
said our chances are improved by Brooks’ ability to convince the panel of the
importance of the issue.
Denton
asked if the collection locator survey has been removed from the DAHP web site
and if so, can it be reposted. Kramer replied it has been removed; however DAHP
could put it back up. The data from the survey was used in the decision package
with feedback from the Office of Fiscal Management (OFM) as to what information
is most useful and persuasive. Lape added we could look at reposting the survey
if the package is not funded.
Denton
explained that Katie Chabot completed a collection locator database for Clark
County and a database for King County collections is also available. Data for
collections from the rest of the state is lacking. The Burke Museum has been working
on creating a database for its collections that cover the entire state. Brooke
Shelman, UW Museum Studies Graduate Student, is complete a Master’s degree
project to place Burke Museum archaeology collections on-line. She is
investigating platforms to support the database, as well as security issues as
part of her project. Mary Collins asked what platform Shelman is leaning toward.
Shelman responded the PastPerfect museum software program has on-line
capabilities, however still needs to be researched as Shelman’s focus for now is
on gathering the data. Lape asked
Collins if she had any suggestions. Collins thought a parent database, possibly
maintained by DAHP. Collins asked the detail level of the database (e.g. site
number only, material types, etc.). Chabot explained her database has 12-13
fields. She found the site number could not be used as a unique identifier as
often multiple excavations with resulting collections are conducted at one
site. Chabot created her database in Microsoft Access which automatically
assigns a unique identifier to each entry. Chabot added it was difficult to
determine what level of detail to include as she found herself bogged down by
the volume of data.
Denton
said the Burke is still trying to determine what data to include. Lape
suggested it would be best to get the database up and add more information
later. Collins agreed, adding data from various programs and institutions could
be imported. Gay Hunter asked who the target audience for the database is.
Shelman responded researchers. Lape added it will be useful for DAHP permit
compliance tracking. Collins noted there will be other, yet unidentified uses. Denton
suggested the database will be useful to CRM firms doing project planning and
research
Kramer
asked where Forest Service collections are curated and how that is tracked.
Denton replied there is no cohesive system within the Forest Service, adding
that the Burke Museum will receive a collection from Mount Baker/Snoqualmie
National Forest next week. Collins said WSU has an agreement with the Colville
that collections from their Forest Service lands will go to WSU. Denton added
that until recently there has not been a lot of upper level interest in
curation within the USFS.
Collins
informed the group that as collections at WSU are studied, the results are
digitized. A 2-3 page abstract aimed at middle to high school aged kids is
written by the staff and linked to the complete thesis which is digitized by
their library. Denton asked how they protect the location of sites detailed in
the theses. Collins responded they redact the site locality. Currently this is
in place for the Lind Coulee and Marmes sites with three more slated to be
posted. Collins went on to say they have a database with all their collections.
Some collections have site number only, others have more detailed information.
Federally owned collections also have the controlling agency listed. Collins
suggested we could create links between websites with collection databases.
Collins added if DAHP were willing to maintain a state database she would be
willing to pay a small fee to support the program. Lape remarked that could be incorporated
into providing access to collections as mandated in CFR 79 and the new state
repository requirements.
Denton
explained the DAHP repository requirements were posted for final comments in
August. Jackie Cook, Angela Neller, Laura Phillips, Stephanie Kramer and Denton
have been working on the final version since. Denton asked Kramer how DAHP intends
to implement the requirements. Kramer said once Allyson Brooks approves the
final version it will function similarly to the contractors list. The
application will be available for completion on-line and a list of the approved
contractors will be on the DAHP website.
Denton
asked who will review the applications. Kramer replied a committee of
stakeholders is being considered. Lape asked if Allyson will appoint a
committee including tribal, government and museum professionals as well as
other interested parties or if there would be another system of selecting the
committee. Kramer explained they are concerned about appointing the committee
as some may have biases or conflicts of interest. Lape offered that if the
committee is simply advisory and Allyson makes the final decision some
conflicts could be avoided. Collins suggested a committee on each side of the
mountains would be appropriate. Kramer said she will discuss those ideas with
Allyson, but really it will depend on demand. If a flood of applications are
submitted DAHP will require more help from curation professionals.
Diana Barg
inquired how the new requirements will effect small institutions not acting as
repositories, but in possession of collections. Kramer responded that state
permits require collections from state lands be placed in a facility that meets
36 CFR Part 79, as with collections from federally owned land. Collections from
private property can be kept by the land owner and deposited anywhere they
choose. Collins explained that one goal of the new requirements is to help
smaller facilities meet acceptable standards. Kramer added part of the funds
from the decision package could help us determine if we should build new
repositories or invest in bringing existing facilities up to the standard. Lape
added the problem with the federal regulations is vagueness and that these
requirements give more specific requirements. Collins affirmed the state
requirements do a good job of getting to the core standards.
Kramer asked
how a repository would go about getting federal approval, as no one is really
doing it. Lape replied the US Army Corp of Engineers tried to certify and
maintain certifications of repositories, but gave up. Collins offered that perhaps
there is no uniform federal approval process that is able to consider regional
needs and differences.
David
Powell and Heather Hull questioned whether tribal museums would be required to
disclose all their collections, including non-archaeological ethnographic and
religious material. Kramer, Lape and Collins all agreed that should be changed
in the requirements to be only archaeological material.
Denton
inquired whether state agencies that hold their own collections will be
required to meet the new standards. Kramer answered the new permitting
requirements do require all collections from state lands go to an approved
repository. Agencies holding collections will need to apply to be on the approved
repository list. Farr said Washington State Parks (WSPRC) is working toward
qualified storage. They now have a collection manager and building that has
heat for historic material. WSPRC is working with the Washington State
Historical Society (WSHS) on their historic material. She could take the group
on a tour of the new space at an upcoming meeting.
Maurice
Major commented the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) does not do a lot of
digging and collecting so will not want to be an approved repository, however
they do want to maintain a small collection for training and education. Major
asked how that would work under the new requirements. Kramer replied that if a
collection is excavated under a state permit it has to be curated in an
approved repository. Major responded that some of the historic material in
their teaching collection was obtained at yard sales. Would that material and
others such as debitage be okay to keep? Lape and Collins offered
unprovenienced material from WSU or the Burke for teaching collections. Scott
Williams asked whether material from washed out archaeological sites can be collected
and used for education, as WSDOT is currently doing so. Kramer said she was not
aware of that practice. Lape explained the Burke has a large teaching
collection of unprovenienced material donated by the public. As these objects
have no research value they are not accessioned into the Burke’s permanent
collection making it much easier to loan them to outside agencies.
Denton
asked if there are any additional comments relating to the text of the repository
requirements. Collins suggested including the National Park Service’s policy
for deaccessioning collections. Heidi Pierson reported the protocol is still in
development. Lape asked for DAHP’s position on culling. Kramer explained they
have not decided yet and asked for recommendations from the group, also asking
what the Burke does. Noble replied the Burke keeps everything once it is
accessioned. Lape added it is preferred that any culling be completed prior to
delivery to the Burke. Michelle Parvey agreed that a policy for culling was
necessary. She is concerned about land owners risking fines for knowingly disturbing
a site rather than pay a large curation fee. Williams stated he has found
materials such as plastic from the 1940’s that he would like to cull. Is there
a resource for him to find out what can and cannot be culled? Kramer suggested
a curation summit sub-committee to determine if anyone is doing this and what
criteria they are using. Parvey said Nevada has guidelines that allow the
discarding of flat glass once it has been documented. Pierson said they keep
flat glass at Fort Vancouver as it can help them date buildings. Williams asked
if the Society for Historic Archaeology has guidelines which no one knew.
Denton
questioned if culling, or recommendations about culling should be the repository’s
responsibility. Kramer responded there should be a statewide guideline. Lape
added repositories will not have the archaeological expertise necessary to
evaluate objects to be culled. Williams suggested culling could be addressed in
the permit. Kramer agreed it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Noble
offered that while the conversation has centered on historic artifacts,
guidelines could also help address other material types such as sediment
samples. Lape agreed saying it could be appropriate to keep a representative
sample of sediment samples in some circumstances.
Rhonda
Foster inquired whether she might be allowed to cull some shell and FMR from
the Mud Bay site. Kramer asked if they are out of space, which Foster
confirmed. Kramer said they can look at the excavation permit and talk about it.
Barg asked what can be done with older collections. Kramer asked if they are
owned by the tribe and if they have been analyzed. Barg explained they are
owned by the tribe, but have not been analyzed. Kramer advised Barg she thinks
all unanalyzed collections should be kept.
Denton
asked what it would take to establish a state culling standard. Kramer
suggested a committee to investigate this. Collins thought it is premature to
try to establish a standard, adding repositories should not participate in
research designs. Institutions and professionals should make recommendations.
Parvey asked if culling could be addressed in the permitting process, perhaps
detailing what would be done if an overabundance of one material class is
excavated. Kramer said that would be the best way to handle culling. Parvey
described a current situation in which a city government is requesting the culling
of a 20 box historic collection, refusing to pay the high cost of curation for
that volume of material. Kramer suggested Parvey document the situation in a
letter to DAHP requesting permission to cull a portion of the collection. Lape
suggested a letter with all the specific information could be sent out for peer
review.
Denton
said the issue of culling will carry on. Collins added it should be a process
for deciding on an individual basis, not a hard and fast procedure. Denton
suggested putting the topic aside for now, as there are still repository
discussion points to be covered.
Denton
inquired what the process of implementing the standards will be. Is there a
timeline? Is there a deadline for submitting applications or will it be left
open? What help will be available to applicants during the process? Kramer
replied DAHP is planning a rolling application process with no deadlines.
Denton questioned what will happen if DAHP gets a permit application next week
and there is only one approved repository on the list. Collins suggested those
who have been in the business longest have to be proactive. It could take WSU
several months to prepare their application. Denton informed the group it took
Burke staff approximately 15 hours to prepare their application, however they
are accredited by the American Association of Museum’s (AAM) so much of the
necessary documentation had already been completed. Kim Owens asked if
repositories could submit a letter of intent to complete the application to be
temporarily added to the approved list. Kramer thought this could be
problematic if the repository is not approved by the time the collection is
ready. In those cases the contractors would have to hold the collections. Lape
suggested an application deadline for those that submit a letter of intent.
Hunter
stated these requirements really should be imposed on all permitted excavations.
Kramer explained DAHP can only enforce regulation of collections excavated from
public lands. Two thirds of the excavation applications submitted are for private lands. Lape asked Hunter if the National Park
Service (NPS) takes collections from other agencies. Hunter replied they could
take collections that fall within their scope of collections statement. Any
collections they get from other agencies would reduce what they need to
excavate from NPS land.
Lape
asked Barg how long it would take the Samish to complete the application
process. Barg said it could be years as they need to secure funding to make
changes to their facilities and policies before they would be ready to start
compiling the documentation for the application. Kramer asked Barg if the tribe
is interested in curating collections from public land. If so, she could use
the new requirements as leverage to secure funds to bring their facility up to
standard. Barg explained they would be interested, eventually.
Lape
asked the group if it would be helpful for them to review the Burke’s Emergency
Preparedness Plan. Collins and Barg both said it would. Denton stated part of
the reason the Burke already submitted their application is for others to use
it as an example. Kramer asked if she can release the Burke’s documents to
others. Denton said yes. Noble suggested removing personal information, such as
home addresses listed on resumes first. Lape asked if DAHP can review the Burke
application and post it on their website. Meyers offered examples of many of
the required supporting documents are also available on the NPS website. Hull
added the AAM also has this information available. Denton asked how this can be
carried forward. Should all applications be available for review on the DAHP
website or just a few examples? Kramer thought they should be supplied as
requested rather than posted on the DAHP website. Williams said links and
examples on the website along with the application would be helpful. Lape added
it would be good to have a tribal repository’s application available as some
information will be different. He asked how long it might take the Yakama to
submit their application. Hull thought it could happen relatively quickly as
they are in the process of compiling the information for AAM accreditation.
Denton
asked Kramer about the process for reviewing new applications and previously
approved or denied repositories. New applications could be evaluated every six
months, with approved repositories reevaluated every three to four years.
Kramer explained denied applicants could re-submit at any time. She is unsure
about reviewing applications every six months; DAHP will likely enroll
repositories as they apply with the review process taking 30 days. Denton asked
if there is a mechanism in place to remove repositories if they fail to renew
their application or DAHP discovers they are not complying with the
requirements, adding ongoing review is vital to the effectiveness of the
requirements. Concerns regarding the magnitude of work an influx of updated
applications at regular intervals would create were discussed. Collins and Hull
thought allowing repositories to file letters of intent would help to stager
the initial approvals and therefore the updates.
Collins
suggested the review committee members should have term limits. Kramer
responded that Allyson would say we are delving into writing rules and question
whether DAHP has the authority to make and enforce rules. Williams questioned
whether a review committee is really necessary; could DAHP evaluate the
applications? Kramer agreed to ask Allyson. Noble asked if we could approach
this more as a peer review process rather than an approval process. Lape
suggested leaving it ambiguous to see how it goes. Hull added that if someone
wants to meet the standards, but needs guidance to get up to standard, the
committee could be a consultative resource. Kramer suggested putting the
application and requirements on the DAHP website to see how many applications
are submitted. Once the volume is determined the necessity of a committee can
be revisited. Lape asked how the peer review process works for contractors.
Kramer replied there is legislation in place mandating that process. Lape told
the group the National Science Foundation sends proposal to 5-6 people and the
first three to respond are those that are taken for peer review. Kramer
questioned how that would work in this circumstance… how would the reviewers be
selected? Lape pondered whether the completed applications could be posted on
the DAHP website and open for comments for 30 days, adding it would be helpful
to be able to see others work. Kramer thought that would mitigate concerns
regarding biases of those on the review committee. Denton asked if those interested in reviewing
would simply check the DAHP website. Lape answered yes and suggested trying it
out with the Burke’s application. The discussion ended and the meeting
adjourned for lunch around 12pm.
After
lunch Denton asked how the new requirements and application will be promoted.
Kramer suggested articles in the AWA and DAHP newsletters. Denton proposed a
broad announcement directed at interested parties. Kramer offered to send an
e-mail to everyone on the DAHP newsletter listserv. David Powell suggested an
announcement through the Washington Association of Museums. Denton added the
Western Museum Association and Registrars Committee to the list. Kramer agreed
to this broad approach.
Denton
inquired what help might be available for those who want to apply. Noble suggested
posting a call for help completing documentation in the University of
Washington Museology newsletter. Denton asked what help repositories think they
need. Hull responded the biggest challenge for them is taking this through the
tribal hierarchy. Barg agreed with Hull adding once she has approval she will
need to secure funding and have a resource to answer questions. Lape said the
Burke can be a resource for questions. Denton added Collins is a good resource
too. Kramer proposed a list of contacts with examples of documentation on the
DAHP website. Lape suggested an open forum workshop at the curation summit
meetings for anyone with curation questions to come ask. We could add it on and
see how it goes. The discussion came to a close with Kramer agreeing to post
the requirements this week. It will take longer to get all the announcements
out and put examples on the website. Noble commented the THPOs should be added
to the announcement list too.
Denton
explained the spring meeting will be held at Fort Vancouver National Historic
Site. He asked Pierson if Terry Childs with the National Park Service would be
coming. Pierson responded that is up to the group to decide. Theresa Langford
is willing to lead one session if others are willing to lead others. Fort
Vancouver received $1000 from the City of Vancouver to cover travel expenses
for session leaders. Denton asked about possible topics for the sessions. Lape
expressed interest in what other states are doing with their curation standards.
Collins is interested in an update of federal policy issues. The chief of
curation at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) told Collins that collections
from BLM land would only receive funding for curation if they resulted from a
BLM project (Section 106 type actions). If another agency or private company
conducted the project they are responsible for the fees. Additionally, the
National Park Service was contracted to do archaeological excavations by other
agencies prior to and during the 1960s for which WSU has some collections. One
agency has refused to pay for curation, arguing that since NPS conducted the
excavation then NPS is responsible to pay for curation. Collins suspects some
federal agencies may be waiting for deaccessioning regulations before taking
responsibility for their collections.
Denton
asked if there were any other proposed topics. Noble suggested a session covering
the new NAGPRA update requirements. Pierson said Terry Childs will be running a
session regarding curation costs at the next SAA meeting. Lape suggested
coordinating something for the NWAC meetings too, but that we could wait a few
months to see how the applications go. Workshop topics may emerge from that
process. Lape thought developing something for depositors would also be
helpful. Collins explained WSU now does all the curation for small incoming
collections because contractors struggle to meet their requirements. Kramer
asked if the Burke has problems with this too, which Denton confirmed. Kramer
asked what the most widespread problems are. Denton and Meyers replied the
collection organization and packing as well as the preparation of archives.
Meyers explained that like WSU, the Burke is now allowing contractors to submit
archives that have not been curated and the Burke will complete the work as
contractors rarely meet archive curation requirements. Parvey reiterated the
need for information regarding proper curation. It was agreed the focus of the
workshop should be curation issues and the session should be held at or around
the NWAC meetings.
One
committee was formed to investigate workshops for the next Curation Summit
focusing on policy issues and to organize a curation workshop for contractors,
perhaps the Wednesday before the NWAC meetings begin. Lape suggested Jenn
Richman from the USACE would be a good speaker for the next Curation Summit and
that the Burke may be able to contribute some funds if necessary. Committee
members include Michelle Parvey and Megon Noble. Jackie Cook and Angela Neller
(not present) will be asked to serve on the committee. The next curation summit
will be held at Fort Vancouver on May 11th or 12th.
Denton
reminded the group of the first Curation Summit where key issues were identified
as developing statewide curation guidelines, a collection finder database and
addressing the cost of curation. The guidelines have been completed and the
database is in progress. Denton asked what direction the group should pursue
from here. Lack of space for historic collections, collection culling and cost of
curation are all topics that have been raised. Lape suggested we should include
funding for the Curation Summit as part of the state funding request to make
this public forum part of the DAHP process and give the group some teeth so we
can help influence the process and contribute to legislation. Funding for
participants, who up to this point have volunteered their time, would insure
continued and consistent participation.
Collins
said the group could explore advocating for consistency between federal
agencies. Between the regional institutions and tribes we could be persuasive.
Lape thought Terry Childs could help with that. Kramer agreed it is difficult
to compel federal agencies to follow their own regulations. Lape wondered if we
should be more public, perhaps contacting the press. Collins suggested
enlisting our representatives, asking if anyone knows any. Lape asked if the
Heritage Caucus, a committee of legislators who meets to discuss issues, would
be an appropriate venue.
Hull
said we should continue to meet regularly as there are still issues to be
addressed and there is still work to be done to complete the repository
requirements. Kramer and Parvey agreed education about what to collect and
curation needs to be promoted. Neither WSU nor UW requires curation training
for archaeology students. The group could apply pressure to Universities to
provide and require curation training.
Major
asked about what will happen to collections that are currently in people’s
garages. Lape said the Burke has offered amnesty in the past for older
collections improperly housed in archaeologists homes.
Kramer asked what happened with that program. Noble explained one archaeologist
came forward with two different collections and others said they had
collections, but were not ready to turn them over. Kramer thought a future
workshop could be aimed at helping archaeologists who may soon retire figure
out what to do with their collections.
Kramer
asked if the Burke has a consistent policy regarding fees for collections from
private property (small landowner, not developer). Lape replied the Burke
evaluates these collections on a case by case basis, usually suggesting a
donation to support long term care of the collection. Kramer questioned how
repositories inform contractors and landowners regarding curation fees and
guidelines. The group agreed that varies by repository. Lape said Northwest
Archaeological Associates (NWAA) has been great about informing and communicating
with the Burke regarding curation. Parvey stated NWAA prepares all collections
in accordance with Burke curation guidelines. Kramer said that is what she
wants, uniform quality curation regardless of where the collection is going.
The
question of how to inform land owners of curation cost is also a topic for
future discussion. Meyers said archaeologists and smaller institutions still
think and tell people the Burke charges small private landowners the same
donation fee as developers and agencies, which is not the case. It could be
coupled with a workshop about how to incorporate curation costs in project
bids.
Wrap Up
Work on
the collection locator database will continue at the Burke Museum. One
committee was formed to work on identifying workshop topics for the next
curation summit at Fort Vancouver in May, as well as a curation workshop for
archaeologist around the NWAC meetings. Kramer will post the new requirements
to the DAHP website. The meeting adjourned at 2:45pm.
|
Name |
Organization |
|
Allison
Deep |
Burke
Museum |
|
Brooke
Shelman |
University
of Washington |
|
Cindy
Farr |
WSPRC |
|
David
Powell |
Yakama
Nation |
|
Diana
Barg |
Samish
Indian Nation |
|
Gay
Hunter |
Olympic
National Park |
|
Gretchen
Kaehler |
DAHP
|
|
Heather
Hull |
Yakama
Nation |
|
Heidi
Pierson |
Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site |
|
Katie
Chobot |
Paragon
Research Associates, Inc. |
|
Kelly
Meyers |
Burke
Museum |
|
Kim
Owens |
University
of Washington |
|
Larry
Ross |
Squaxin
Island Tribe |
|
Mary
Collins |
WSU |
|
Maurice
Major |
Dept.
of Natural Resources |
|
Michele
Parvey |
NW
Archaeological Associates |
|
Peter
Lape |
Burke
Museum |
|
Rhonda
Foster |
Squaxin
Island Museum |
|
Roger
Kiers |
WSDOT |
|
Scott
Williams |
WSDOT |
|
Stephenie
Kramer |
DAHP
|
|
Steve
Denton |
Burke
Museum |
|
Trent
DeBoer |
WSDOT |