Curation Summit

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Vancouver, WA

5/11/2009

10:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.

Welcome by Tracy Fortmann, Superintendent, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

- Curation crisis

- Public needs to understand curation and the value of collections

- Responsibility to train in collections care

- Create understanding, gain support

Curation Summit Business - Steve Denton, Burke Museum

- Training/marketing are recurring concerns

- Introductions

- Collections database, curation guidelines

- Repository requirements

Repository Requirements Update - Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, DAHP

- Repository requirements are posted on DAHP web site

- Currently receiving comments

- Make an announcement – WMA meeting, contact Mary Collins – Heidi Pierson, point of contact

- Notification for AWA newsletter – Kramer to check

Collections database update – Laura Phillips, Burke Museum

- Katie Chobot collections database project for King Co.

- Brooke Shelman database project

- Collecting data issue (collections from sites), issue of updating info

- Datasets are important for archaeologists

- Should be protected data

Question - Checklist of information to collect for new collections – would this be posted on web site, mailing list?

- Getting buy-in from everyone to participate

- Issue of entering information twice – type in as collections are received

Q - Repository info on GIS?

Lynne MacDonald, Bureau of Reclamation – being better stewards of collections – already collecting data on locations, etc. – public outreach, activities that enhance public access; in the spirit of requirements, without sacrificing security – helps with funding

Require contractors to fill out checklist – easy for PIs to answer questions

Already reporting information for NAGPRA – This can be trigger/opportunity to collect information for database

Grants this summer?

Terry Childs, NPS Archaeologist

- Advantage to database – dealing with growth of collections – encourage work on other collections/sites in light of information in database – do you need more collections from a site that has been extensively excavated?

- Filling gaps in archaeological record, but until information is available, it is difficult to make those decisions

Contractors – how difficult to make a standard report about collection info?

- Easier to do when it’s being analyzed rather than later

- Standardize information as much as possible – a checklist is quicker

- Add checklist to site forms

- Figure out a way to capture all data that is available

o Make checklist part of site form?

Submitting site form online – in the future – will have pull-down checkboxes for information

L. MacDonald

- Repetitive information – project may contain multiple sites

- But collections will be different for each site, so the information is not repetitive

Database includes associated documents – for sites with no collections

Museum person on site form checklist update – Laura Phillips

DAHP would be notified when collections moved or were transferred – this doesn’t always happen – have someone contact museums every 6 months to find out if collections were received

L. MacDonald - Missing items – once collections are accessioned they’re stuck with it – may start culling collections in future – could be confusing to have had forms filled out before, and have missing objects later – wait until end point to file records, otherwise there will be a lot of updating, people forgetting to update, collection will not match form

Repository would check off list – would want notes on discarded items

“turbotax” format – easy way to update

S. Denton – permits – sending letters – making sure contractors are including curation costs

How to send comments for developing form for database?

Something that should go out to AWA?

L. Phillips Point of contact – set date to discuss before next Curation Summit meeting.

Terry Childs Presentation – 11:22 am

The Costs of Archaeological Curation: Trends and Issues

No other states are doing this! (Curation Summit, statewide database)

Is this something needed on a national level?

Costs of curation - 3 studies in last decade on curation fees

1997-98 , 2002, 2007-08

- In 2007-08, 221 repositories contacted, 180 responded, 166 in analysis, 96 (58%) charged curation fees

Key survey questions:

- What criteria used to determine fee structure? Calling neighbor to see how much they charge

In general fee types identified by repositories include:

- registration

- processing

- Curation (1 time, annual, etc)

- NAGPRA

- Single artifact

- Maintenance (new)

- Digital data (new) – need dedicated server, migration of data (by gigabyte $6-$30 per) too low? -One time fee

- Combinations of above

There is great variation in fee ranges across country

Key issues related to repository fees:

More repositories are charging annual fees – gradual increase; agencies able to pay fees?

- Certain projects can’t pay annual fee

Criteria used to determine fees:

- Building management and repair

- Professional staff salaries

- Purchase of new storage equipment

- Rental of offsite storage facilities

- Environmental controls

- Housekeeping

- Computer maintenance

- Inflation and overhead

- Also – what are neighbors charging?

They know they’re not charging enough – cost benefit analysis

Fee structures for Associated Records:

- Separate fee for records – 45% of repositories charging in 2007-2008

- 55% of repositories were charging one fee for both records and artifacts in 2007-08

Repositories are starting to charge more for associated records – 45% have higher fee for records than artifacts in 2007-2008

Effects of fees on field practices and policies

- Changes in agency field collection policies

- Only collect diagnostics related to project goals

- More culling and sampling in field and lab – must have right experts in field to do culling

- More “no collection” surveys – there are still related records that need to be curated

- More flotation in the field

- Encourage private land owners to take collection

- Larger objects recorded and left in field

Colorado – repositories are not accepting collections

Issue of historic v. prehistoric collections – issue in the West – not many historic archaeologists in the region

Culling in field v. in lab/repository

Key questions related to costs of curation

- How can repository fees be sustainable? Arizona State Museum– regional repository – prioritize collections, state collections highest priority, fed collections 2^nd priority as far as fees, and where collections are stored; registration fee when permits signed, about to raise to $3000

- If repositories charge fees, should they be accredited/approved by oversight group?

- What happens if only annual fees are charged? High end lobbyist to change NHPA to eliminate annual fee is one possibility

- Is the lack of curation space affecting the rise in fees? Is shelf space a commodity?

- Where should the digital records be curated?

- Legacy and orphan collections?

- Regional repositories?

- Will deaccessioning help?

Key issues for other states

- Funding

- Professional staffing

- Space

2:30 pm

Q for Terry Childs – Are there other models out there?

- Coming back to issue of culling/sample - Need to be sampling in field or in lab, but has to be done with a real research design by professionals

T. Childs - What is your definition of culling? Is sampling the same as culling?

- Analyst cull before collection goes to museum

- “culling” can be misused, and it means different things to different people

- Childs prefers “sampling” – because there is some sort of methodology that is professionally devised and hopefully you have the right people doing it

- Example: 10% of highly redundant material, based on a typology from expert

- Sampling strategy

- Culling could be much more haphazard

May need to be a case by case situation for sampling/culling

Arizona State Museum argument – CRM companies often don’t have expertise to sample in field, and it must be done in the lab

L. MacDonald – ideas on sampling

- In defining process, linking it to research design – funding limits have to be worked into research design

Possibility of sharing sediment samples with other disciplines – they have research potential

Is there any research value left in them if they have been sitting in a repository for 20 years?

-- Organics could be gone

Bob Cromwell, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

- Historical archaeology

- Mechanically made artifacts sampling example: California hwy project where 400 identical milk bottles were found in a basement – what is the utility of recovering all those bottles? Collected 10, left the rest, and thoroughly documented uncollected bottles

What about brick?

Wire nails?

The problem of sending a mixed message to public with education kits – handling real artifacts without gloves can be misleading

- Solution could be to include cotton gloves with the education kit, then you are teaching about curation as well

L. MacDonald - What to do with collections that are deaccessioned – objects that tribes might want/value

- T. Childs - A systematic process for deaccessioning for federal collections is in place.

- Maintain integrity of systematically collected collections!

T. Childs - Repository requirements – getting more museums and archaeologists to comment

- What happens if repositories say “no” to certain requirements?

- Are some requirements more important than others?

- The 4 main requirements are good

- Can certain unmet requirements mean that they cannot be certified?

- What happens if there is not a formal group to do this? Or no one has time?

o S. Kramer – comment – Repository calls DAHP and says “we’ve got our letter from a federal agency, isn’t that enough to get on the repository list?” – no

Alex Gall, Archaeological Services of Clark County

Private land issue – corporation land v. private individual

- Education – talk about curation as responsibility of archaeologist

- A. Gall – what about insignificant sites, cost of curating “insignificant” collections?

- Childs – part of education, should be part of plan from beginning of project!

Workshops – why we do what we do – to CRM firms and archaeology programs

“What to say to client when…”

A. Gall – resource to show where curation fees go, the value of curation, online resource to do this?

S. Denton – The sum of these “small” “insignificant” collections can create a larger picture

A. Gall – what is worth of excavating all these plow-zone sites?

T. Childs – This is the value of the database – filling in the gaps

- SAA – museum collections – Great Britain policy, certain types of sites won’t be excavated, just basic documentation

- Someone must be synthesizing this information, until then, we need to care for the collections

S. Denton – Identifying repositories that are likely, or going to submit – can this be posted on DAHP web site?

- Useful to have this list, shows where collections will potentially go

- Many repositories will take years to comply

- Good repositories for private collections

Give potential repositories a deadline for completion of form

A.Gall – What is the motivation for them to meet the standard?

Tribes – desire to have the materials associated with their ancestors

Review time period –

- Should there be a review committee? Tribal, NPS, small museum?, etc.

- Anyone can comment, but you have committee that must review

- Make comment period longer?

- “informal review panel”

Next meeting – East side of mountains

- Moses Lake?

- October – Archaeology month!

Tour

Meeting concluded with tour of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site curation repository conducted by Theresa Langford and Heidi Pierson.

ATTENDEES

Name	Organization
Alex Gall	Archaeological Services of Clark County/Association of Washington Archaeologists
Alicia Woods	Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Allison Deep	Burke Museum
Angela Neller	Wanapum Heritage Center
Bob Cromwell	Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
Dennis Griffin	Oregon SHPO
Diana LaSarge	Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Elizabeth Kallenbach	University of Oregon, Museum of Natural and Cultural History
Gail Celmer	US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
Gay Hunter	Olympic National Park
Heidi Pierson	Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
Jenna Peterson	Bonneville Power Administration
Kendal McDonald	Applied Archaeological Research
Larry Ross	Squaxin Island Tribe
Laura Phillips	Burke Museum
Lauren Hawkins	University of Oregon, Museum of Natural and Cultural History
Lynne MacDonald	Bureau of Reclamation
Maureen Zehender	Archaeological Investigations Northwest
Megon Noble	Burke Museum
Paula Johnson	Paragon Research Associates
Stephenie Kramer	Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Steve Denton	Burke Museum
Terry Childs	National Park Service, Archaeology Program
Theresa Langford	Fort Vancouver National Historic Site