January 25, 2005
The Washington State Curation
Summit held its quarterly meeting at the Burke Museum of Natural History and
Culture in
Welcome
and Agenda Overview: Steven Denton
Other
Business: Current Issues: Steven Denton and Stephenie Kramer
Collections
Database Work Group
Curation
Guidelines Work Group
Steven Denton welcomed
attendees on behalf of the
Steven Denton briefed the group on activities by the
Association of Oregon Archaeologists to develop standards for handling historic
archaeological materials. The seven member committee, appointed by the AOA
Board at the November 2004 annual meeting, held their first meeting on December
20, 2004. The AOA Board decided to form the committee after questions were
brought up at an AOA meeting regarding multiple aspects of historic materials:
recording standards, field collection strategies, and handling and curation. At
this point the Committee is focusing on the following topics: field collection
strategies and who is qualified to make these determinations, reporting
standards (what needs to be recorded on SHPO forms), handling of historic
collections in the lab, what should be curated versus culled, and
identification of appropriate curation facilities. The Committee will hold
public forums to gather input from interested parties at the spring AOA
meeting. For additional information, please contact Maureen Zehendner, AINW,
Inc, at 503-761-6605 or maureen@ainw.com
Kramer stated
that Avey referred to the collections by name, not site number, in their
conversation, so she does not have a clear list of what sites are represented. The
majority of the collections were created prior to 1980, leaving no paper trail
within OAHP. McGuiness, a former college professor responsible for excavating several
collections during the 1970s, apparently often excavated without a permit,
making ownership unclear for some of the material. A collection with human
remains was returned to the Puyallup Tribe some time in the past. However, a
volunteer on the original excavation recently contacted Avey to say that he had
material from the excavation at home, including fragmentary human remains, and
wanted to return it to the College. According to Avey, the College has been
unresponsive to his request, making Avey concerned over the future disposition
of the material. It is assumed that the College has not complied with NAGPRA.
The group
responded with a spirited conversation. The group generally felt that the
College administration must be contacted to discuss the issues. Lape recently
dealt with a similar issue involving a deceased professor from
Land ownership
for the original sites was felt to be important and must be determined. This
will require a complete list of sites from which the collections at
Conversation
turned to the lack of clear curation guidelines at state and federal level
(e.g. lack of curation in NSF grants) and what impact they may play in similar
future cases. Collections must be properly prepared during the original project
when money is available. Ruby felt clear guidelines were necessary to
facilitate locating proper collection facilities.
Peter Lape, point-of-contact for this work group, provided
an update on the groups activities. Lape reiterated the two previously
identified funding sources: fixed term federal grants with end product and
approaching the state legislature for funding. He also stated that no progress
has been made on the project definition since the last meeting.
Kramer stated that approximately $100,000 is necessary
to fund the position for a year.
$44,000 salary
$ 9,700 benefits
$11,000
state indirect costs
$22,000 agency indirect costs
$ 6,000 travel
$ 6,000 supplies, rent, etc.
Total $98,700
Kramer said that OAHP is preparing to hire another
archaeologist, so the space previously identified as available for this
position may no longer be available.
The dialogue then focused on how to present the
project to agencies. It was decided that a clear project description is
necessary. Discussion of project benefits ensued. Tromly stated that a single
contact at the state would be a cost benefit in time when trying to locate
collections. It was also felt that such a database would help reduce site
destruction and survey costs by reducing duplication of effort. Williams said
site preservation would appeal to agencies, as it would minimize future
expenses. Neller said that resulting site protection would appeal to tribes.
Johnson felt that the interest of original groups responsible for excavations
(e.g. avocational groups) could result in public interest and pride by making
old collections accessible again.
Funding issues were discussed next. Lape asked the
group who benefits most. Kramer replied by saying whoever saves the most money,
most likely federal agencies. She clarified by saying that Section 106 results
in more collections than state permitting. Tromly stated that the BPA does not
know where collections are, but that they are not a managing agency. Rather,
they fund compliance work for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers. Williams pointed out that most agencies do not have discretionary
funds and that they are scared about allocating funds due possible future
budget cuts or political fluctuations.
Ruby pointed out that the project should have a large
appeal for grant agencies due to its broad scope of locating all collections.
Tromly stated that BPA can do grants. Lape felt that federal agencies are in
better funding position than state agencies due to federal curation
regulations. However, the project has broad application at the state level, so
state funding should also be investigated. It was generally felt that now is a
good time to pursue this, as the Graving Dock and other recent projects have
raised awareness of archaeology statewide. Williams suggested the BPA as a good
place to start, especially if the project is slated to look at all collections,
including federal, state and others. Lape mentioned the Corps Mandatory Center
of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections in
the St. Louis District. Neller pointed out that they are contracted by federal
agencies and probably do not have discretionary funding available for this type
of project.
Various low-cost alternatives were discussed. Ruby
suggested using volunteers with office space and materials provided by an
agency or other group. Noble suggested approaching the project on a county by
county basis and extending it over a longer period of time. The group generally
felt that funding a dedicated person to tackle the project is the preferable method,
though possible funding difficulties may alter opinions.
Discussion on generating interest among tribal groups
followed. Tribal involvement is important, but coordination by tribes with
divergent interests and curation involvement complicates getting feedback. Lape
stated that little progress has been made in this arena so far in the project.
Kramer said that tribal involvement can have a lot of influence. Simply having
tribal statements on the current lack of knowledge of collection location may be
enough to mobilize federal and state agencies into taking action to solve the
problem.
Lape and Kramer will write a project description and
submit it to the group for review. The next step is to circulate the project
description to agencies and tribes to generate interest in the project and get
feedback on potential funding sources. The deadline for the project description
is March 15, 2005 to enable presentation at the upcoming Northwest
Anthropological Conference in
Johnson gave a brief overview of the last meeting and
the resulting document. The guidelines are not intended to be a comprehensive
document detailing how to prepare a collection, as each repository has unique
requirements. Rather, it addresses base-level curation standards and presents
information on selecting appropriate repositories.
Johnson stated that Phillips, Collins and herself
created the document, resulting in a one-sided perspective. She feels it is
important for all stakeholders to provide input. Hogerhuis stated that tribes
and historical societies are important stakeholders and that an effort must be
made to reach out and involve smaller repositories. Lape agreed that input from
multiple sources is important, but that if input is not provided in a timely
manner, then the opportunity for input is lost.
He also said that development of the archaeology guidelines requires a
level of expertise that is not present in many smaller museums.
Hogerhuis expressed concern over defining a proper
repository, thus leading contractors away from local repositories to larger,
state-wide facilities. Many communities are concerned with losing local
heritage to larger museums. Lape pointed out that most small museums are exhibits
driven, not research driven, making archaeological collections with little
exhibitable material of little use to them. Donna suggested creating contracts
with communities to enable access when collections are moved to larger
repositories to maintain community involvement. Lape replied that loans can be
complicated, especially with small museums without adequate security,
environmental controls and proper staffing. He suggested possibly providing
training to small museums, but stated that such training cannot be expected to
overcome fundamental problems, such as lack of proper staffing.
Discussion ensued over why the federal regulations (36
CFR Part 79) are not being used. Johnson stated that they are too broad and
that regional differences make local regulations preferable. New guidelines
will also be in a more accessible format, making finding answers easier. Neller
agreed that federal regulations are far too broad and do not answer questions
that commonly arise. She added that the SAA Committee on Museums, Collections
and Curation recently discussed the need for state groups to address curation
issues locally as they arise. (See her detailed description on the website.) Farr
suggested that a clear curation statement could be useful in approaching the
state legislature for curation funding or new legislation. The group agreed
that the document needs to be user friendly, not too specific, and provide
examples of guidelines from other repositories in appendices.
Johnson suggested an off-site work session to
facilitate project completion. Possible funding was discussed. Lape felt that
group writing is frequently unproductive and suggested dividing the project
into segments and having each member write their respective segments before
having the group reconvene.
Johnson ended the session by asking the group if the
project is headed in the right direction. Parvey thought it was and that such a
document would remove guesswork by showing what was expected before problems
are encountered. Farr asked for a completion date. She felt that a year-end
deadline was acceptable. No agreement was reached, however.
The work group is going to reorganize, as some members
have had unexpectedly high work loads over the past several months and have not
been able to contribute. The group will identify new members by March 16, 2005.
The group will then identify a timeline for project completion. A draft will be
sent to all interested parties for comment when available.
As there are no clear deadlines at this point, the
group decided to put off scheduling the next meeting until more progress is
made. Angela Buck thanked the group for addressing issues she feels are
important and offered to host the next meeting at the
Assigned action items: