Washington State Curation Summit
Olympia,
WA
October
29, 2007
The
Washington State Curation Summit held its quarterly meeting at the Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation GA Building in Olympia on October 29,
2007. Twenty nine representatives from tribal nations, museums, universities,
city, 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
Curation Summit Purpose and Current Status
Repositories & Historic
Collections
Steve
Denton welcomed attendees and thanked everyone in attendance for their
participation as well as DAHP for generously providing the meeting space, refreshments
and snacks. Denton provided a brief history of the summit and introduced the
topics to be addressed at this meeting: review of previous meeting topics,
status update on workgroups and points of agreement at the time of the last
meeting, discussion of the future direction of workgroups and other issues
related to curation in Washington.
• The National Park Service is conducting
a curation fee survey. All are encouraged to contact Terry Childs to provide
data by November 14th.
• Both
UCLA and the GETTY are holding sessions on curation.
• There
will be an international session addressing curation issues at the SAA
conference this March. Angela Neller
sits on the committee organizing this.
• Paula
Johnson is organizing another curation session for the NWAC in April.
Denton
briefly explained the history and purpose of the curation summit. Several years
ago interested parties came together to discuss archaeological curation issues
in Washington State and to develop strategies to address these issues. Key
points of concern included identifying the current location of existing
collections and developing statewide curation guidelines.
Curation
Guidelines
In
recent discussions the group determined statewide guidelines are not a
possibility as there are neither current regulations nor a governing body to
enforce curation requirements. However; new state regulations require that
collections resulting from state permitted projects be deposited in a
repository that meets the federal curation standard, 36 CFR Part 79. This new
regulation sparked questions including whether it will be applied to
collections made under previously issued permits, how collection placement will
be tracked and whether DAHP will evaluate repositories to ensure collections
are in acceptable facilities. It was agreed the focus of the workgroup should
be shifted to aiding DAHP in enforcing the new regulations and encouraging DAHP
to generate a list of repositories that meet 36 CFR Part 79. Paula Johnson and
Mary Collins agreed to generate a letter to Allyson Brooks offering support and
asking these questions. The letter was sent to Dr. Brooks on September 1, 2007.
Collections
Database
Sources
of funding for the collections database were explored at the last meeting.
WSDOT recently applied for a grant funding one FTE which could possibly be
applied to this project. Seeking federal funds through USACE, tribal financial
support and the existence of numerous smaller funding sources were also discussed.
Katie
Chabot created collection databases for Clark County and Burke Museum
collections that will be posted to the Burke’s website in the near future and
can be used as a starting point to move forward with the statewide database.
Previous
discussions regarding who should be responsible for monitoring and maintaining
the collections database resulting in a consensus that a state agency would be
most appropriate, preferably DAHP. DAHP is the only agency with the authority
to compel contractors to provide the necessary information to keep the database
current. It was agreed that DAHP and other stakeholders, including THPOs,
should be brought into the conversation to obtain support in order to move
forward.
Repositories:
The
discussion began with questions directed to DAHP addressed in the letter sent
September 1st, but not received until today. The new regulations mandating
collections resulting from permitted projects be curated in a repository that
meet federal regulations does not apply to collections made under permits
issued prior to the regulation. DAHP does not have a system in place to track
whether collections are deposited in the repository identified in the permit or
if collections meet acceptable curation standards upon delivery to repositories.
The expectation has been that repositories will inform DAHP if a collection
does not meet curation standards or of other problems. It was suggested that
this could be tracked by a student once the standard is agreed upon.
Mary
Collins reiterated the discussion of curation guidelines/regulations was born
from small museums taking collections they are unable to care for. The purpose
of the regulations is not to remove collections from these institutions, but to
help repositories understand and meet the standard. Allyson Brooks added that
tribes are sovereign nations so enforcing curation standards may be
problematic. She questioned whether federal agencies would have to be involved
and how curation fees could be assessed, suggesting in perpetuity fees may be
necessary. It was suggested that involving more federal agencies in future
discussions may be necessary. The US Army Corp of Engineers completed a study
to evaluate and indentify repositories that meet 36 CFR Part 79; however the
study was not comprehensive. Questions of how and who should evaluate whether
repositories meet the federal standard were discussed. Collins offered that
keeping the focus and discussion more localized will help us tailor regulations
to our specific regional needs.
Maureen
Zehrender stated having a list of acceptable repositories would help to inform
contractors what institutions are interested in taking collections. Having
guidance from DAHP, similar to the current list of contractors would help
justify the cost of curation and give the standards teeth. Alexander Gall added
that private landowners are often unwilling or unable to pay the high curation
fees assessed by repositories who currently meet federal standards. It is more
cost effective and easier to keep things in the communities in which they were
found. Jackie Cook advised only a one-time fee is often assessed for private
landowners. Contractors should consider tribes, many of whom have repositories
that meet federal standards, when evaluating local options.
Laura
Phillips asked how DAHP compiled the contractor list and how the list was
announced. Both were done prior to the tenure of any of the current DAHP
representatives. It was debated whether repositories should be able to
self-identify as meeting 36 CFR Part 79 or if some standards should be confirmed
prior to being added. Most were in agreement that at least minimal standards
should be verified but there was no consensus regarding how to accomplish this.
Discussion concerning what type of institution to contact and how to begin the
process of identifying repositories resulted in Jackie Cook’s suggestion to
contact contractors to see who they have deposited collections with. Gall
offered it is in contractor’s best interest to encourage small repositories to meet
the standard.
Mary
Collins informed the group the Register of Professional Archaeologists will be
announcing a mandate prohibiting archaeologists from participating in for-profit
excavations which will be an issue in the future if a private landowner intends
to retain ownership of collections from projects on their land. Allyson stated
she may not be able to prevent landowners from keeping collections. DAHP was
unsuccessful in implementing a prohibition of surface collecting. Only one case
in Kentucky has successfully divorced archaeological finds from land rights.
Stephenie Kramer added that if a private landowner keeps collections from their
land they are still required to deposit the associated documentation in an
approved repository and while permit requirements cannot be retroactively
applied, this mandate was already in place prior to the recent revisions.
The
conversation shifted back to the federal standards and what DAHP can do
regarding collections in repositories that do not meet those standards. Allyson
remarked federal agencies can remove their collections; however DAHP does not
have the authority to do the same for state collections made prior to the permit
revisions. Jackie Cook asked where collections would be curated if removed from
subpar repositories; adding the goal is to educate these institutions as to
what accepting archaeological collections requires. The Heritage Resource
Center used to provide curatorial educational opportunities. Perhaps this
program can be resurrected. Susan Barrett in Eastern Washington may be offering
curation training sessions. We could contact her to inquire about their funding
and look at their model.
At the
conclusion of the conversation Maureen Zehrender reiterated the need for
curation standards and fee structures in order to evaluate repositories. It
would be helpful to contractors to be able to identify what curation fees are
paying for.
Historic
Collections:
Limited
space has forced many repositories to refuse historic archaeological collections.
In searching for solutions to this problem personnel from the Burke Museum, the
Washington State Historical Society and DAHP met to discuss the possibility of
the WSHS taking historic archaeological collections. At this time they lack
both the space and personnel to do this, although they are interested in the
possibility.
The
Burke Museum is the only repository that meets federal curation standards currently
accepting historic collections. WSU will accept historic collections from sites
that also have a prehistoric component (i.e. they will not split collections
from one excavation). WSPRC has temporary storage in Olympia for their
collections. All the WSDOT collections go to the Burke which is nearly full.
Numerous collections are in subpar facilities or are languishing in
contractor’s offices due to many repositories’ refusal to accept them. The
current hope is for a partnership including DAHP, Burke, WSHS, WSPRC, WSDOT,
and other stakeholders to take a proposal specifically aimed at historic
collections to the legislature for funding.
To this
end, several surveys were proposed. One survey to identify which repositories
will accept historic archaeological collections, specifically stating
collections fifty years or older and inquiring about material type (tin cans,
broken glass, sediment, etc.). It was suggested that an archaeologist should
sculpt the questions. Another survey to identify how many and why contractors
have collections in their offices was proposed and all agreed it is possible
and necessary. Discussion focused on the latter survey.
The
purpose of the collection survey is to identify who has collections. Allyson
suggested the survey must be anonymous to ensure maximum participation.
Questions should include:
• Why do
contractors have the collections?
• How
long have the collections been in their possession?
• What
type of collections do they have?
• What
volume of collections do they have?
• Why do
they have these collections? Did the designated repository ultimately refuse to
take them? Were curation funds unavailable?
Stephenie
Kramer will write and distribute the survey to contractors via e-mail. It will
be made clear that negative consequences will not result from participation in
the survey and identifying oneself will be voluntary. Advertising in the AWA
newsletter and posting the survey on the DAHP website will help inform the
archaeological community of the survey and its purpose. The goal is to post the
survey within one month and leave it on the DAHP website for six months.
A new
Repository List and Collections Survey workgroup was formed with Stephenie
Kramer as the point of contact. Laura Phillips, Jackie Cook, Angela Neller and
Mary Collins make up the remainder of the workgroup. It was agreed the goal is
to have the repository list complete and survey results available within six
months.
The
discussion began with an overview of the last meeting’s dialogue and update
identifying where the process stands. Laura Phillips explained Katie Chabot’s Clark
County and the Burke Museum databases will be up on the Burke website soon and
can be used as a template for the statewide database. She researched possible
funding sources and found an IMLS grant that could provide up to $40,000 for
the database work. Applications are due in October 2008 for funding the
following year which would allow time to recruit THPO’s and other stakeholders.
Mary Collins asked if the application should be filed by DAHP to avoid the high
overhead costs charged by the University of Washington and Washington State
University. Allyson Brooks suggested we could also make a budget request to the
state for the 2009-2010 biennium. Pam Trautman added that WSDOT is working on a
grant application to secure $200,000 to create a collections database for WSDOT
collections. The database would have to be functional to other state DOTs and
would only include WSDOT collections initially, but in the future other
collections could be folded in. They will know if they got the grant this spring,
with the funds released in September, 2008.
Any
database will need long term management. It was suggested DAHP could make this
part of the permitting process. A new full time position in DAHP could work on this
as well as other many other tasks relating to curation. Allyson added that we
need to find all the collections from the 1950s and 1960s before they are
untraceable. When Katie Chabot completed her Clark County database she used
DAHPs permitting database to identify who to contact. Many collections did not
end up in the repository identified in the permit. Katie was able to determine
the DAHP database was approximately 50% accurate as to what was deposited at
the Burke Museum. Allyson suggested students from the Evans School at the
University of Washington could work on obtaining and verifying the data as she
has been contacted about their availability and interest in working at DAHP.
Allyson
stated Helen Sommers, Washington State House of Representatives, sits on the
board of the Burke Museum and has $50,000-$60,000 of discretionary funds
available each year. Allyson suggested we enlist Julie Stein, Burke Museum
Director, to request said funds for the projects discussed today. A recent
cemetery project required $100,000-$125,000 per year for one full time
employee. Allyson pondered whether this could be added as a line in the State
budget as a UW position and if the position could be at the Burke. There was
agreement that DAHP involvement and enforcement would be vital.
Allyson
urged Burke Museum representatives begin preparing information for Helen
Sommers immediately so she can be approached before the session starts in
January. Phillips confirmed the Burke database should be up by then. Allyson
further suggested we could link this with current efforts to secure funding to
expand the Burke. We could also ask for funding to identify and protect
collections that may be lost due to poor curation and subpar facilities. Data
from the survey identifying how many collections remain in unsuitable repositories
would strengthen the request. Letters of support from stakeholders should be
supplied to Helen Sommers.
Whether
curation funds would be available solely to Universities and historical
societies and which agency would distribute the funds was questioned. All were
in agreement the funds should follow the collection and be provided to
whichever repository takes the collection. A granting agency similar to the
Heritage Program was suggested to distribute the funds. Grant eligibility could
be used to enforce permit and curation requirements.
Discussion
concluded and members of the database group were identified. Laura Phillips is
point of contact with Jackie Cook, Stephenie Kramer and Pam Trautman also in
the workgroup. The Burke database should be on the Museum website by December
at which time a notice will be published in AWA informing stakeholders of the
database.
The next
meeting will be scheduled for the second week in May to avoid conflicts with
NWAC, SAA and National NAGPRA conferences. If CWU is agreeable we will meet
there, otherwise WSU offered to host the next meeting.
• Stephenie
Kramer will begin to generate a list of repositories who are accepting
archaeological collections as identified in state permits.
• Kramer
will create and distribute to contractors a survey identifying who has what
type of collections and why. The survey will also be posted to the DAHP
website.
• Laura
Phillips will work toward having Katie Chabot’s Clark County and the Burke
Museum’s collections databases on the Burke website by December.
• Phillips
will prepare data/proposal for Julie Stein to possibly speak to Helen Somers.
• Phillips
will contact Central Washington University to arrange the next meeting.
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Organization |
|
Christina
|
Aucutt |
Applied
Archaeological Research |
|
Tom
|
Becker |
AWA |
|
Allyson
|
Brooks |
DAHP |
|
Katie |
Chabot |
Paragon
Associates, Inc. |
|
Mary |
Collins |
Washington
State University |
|
Diane |
Curewitz |
Washington
State University |
|
Trent
|
DeBoer |
WSDOT |
|
Steve |
Denton |
Burke
Museum |
|
Alex
|
Gall |
Archaeological
Services of Clark County |
|
Stephenie
|
Kramer |
DAHP |
|
Theresa |
Langford |
National
Park Service, Fort Vancouver NHS |
|
Alicia
|
Lee |
WSPRC |
|
Dan
|
Meatte |
WSPRC |
|
Kelly
|
Meyers |
Burke
Museum |
|
Lynette
|
Miller |
Washington
Historical Society |
|
Angela
|
Neller |
Wanapum
Heritage Center |
|
Michele |
Parvey |
NW
Archaeological Associates |
|
Laura |
Phillips |
Burke
Museum |
|
Heidi |
Pierson |
National
Park Service, Fort Vancouver NHS |
|
David |
Powell |
Yakama
Nation |
|
Larry
|
Ross |
Squaxin
Island Tribe |
|
Lawr
|
Salo |
USACE
– Seattle District |
|
Katie
|
Saylor |
Seattle
Public Utilities, Cedar River Watershed |
|
Lynette |
Scriver |
Washington
State University |
|
Matthew
|
Sterner |
DAHP |
|
Pam |
Trautman |
WSDOT |
|
Rob
|
Whitlam |
DAHP |
|
Scott
|
Williams |
DAHP |
|
Maureen |
Zehendner |
Archaeological
Investigations Northwest, Inc. |