Washington State Curation Summit
Central
Washington University, Ellensburg
May
12, 2008
The
Washington State Curation Summit held its biannual meeting at Central
Washington University on May 12, 2008. Twenty one 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
Curation Summit Purpose and Current Status
DAHP Collection Survey Results
Spring 2009 Curation Summit and Workshops
Steve
Denton welcomed attendees and thanked everyone in attendance for their
participation as well as Lynn Bethke for generously providing the meeting space
and refreshments. Denton explained Stephenie Kramer would be arriving late and provided
a brief history of the summit and introduced the
agenda for this meeting:
• Review
of past activities
• Review
of NWAC curation session
• Update
on status of collection database
•
Presentation and discussion of draft DAHP repository requirements
•
Discussion of DAHP collection survey results
• Presentation on Spring 2009
Curation Summit meeting, including curation workshop hosted by Fort Vancouver
National Historic Site
• Katherine
Dickson of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (CTUR) is
looking for notes from Joel Shriver’s River Basin Survey. If anyone has
information as to their whereabouts please contact Katherine. Phillips and
Neller thought perhaps the Phoebe Hearst or the National Archives.
Denton
briefly explained that 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. Current workgroups evolved from past workgroups and discussions as
the implementation of statewide curation guidelines proved impossible and
additional needs were identified.
Collections
Database
Possible
sources of funding were discussed at the last meeting with no definitive plan
established. Laura Phillips agreed to continue working on the Burke Museum
collections database and attempt to have both the Burke and Katie Chabot’s
Clark County databases on the Burke website by December.
Curation/Repositories
Discussion
at the last meeting centered on the need for a list of approved repositories
that meet acceptable repository standards. An approved repository list will not
only aid repositories in establishing and maintaining quality curation, but
will assist contractors in justifying the expense of curation. Laura Phillips
and Steve Denton prepared a draft “DAHP Repository Requirements” document for
review and discussion at this meeting.
DAHP
Collection Survey
In an
effort to identify collections that are being stored by contractors (homes,
offices, etc.), DAHP agreed to distribute and post an anonymous survey on their
website asking specific questions about what collections contractors have and
why. The results will be presented at this meeting.
Historic
Collections
In prior
meetings the lack of space for curation of historic collections (currently the
Burke is the only repository that meets federal standards accepting collections
with only a historic component) was identified as a critical issue. A survey to
assess who has and who is willing to take historic collections has been
discussed; however, a plan to complete the survey has not been formulated.
Paula
Johnson led a well-received panel discussion at the Northwest Anthropological
Conference in Victoria, B.C attended by 20-25 people. Attendees seemed to
prefer the open format over the more standard format of paper presentations.
Panel
topics included:
•
Collection culling, with an emphasis on historic collections
• How to
effectively deal and communicate with government agencies (this discussion
evolved into a discussion of compliance issues)
•
Specific issues relating to curation of historic collections
• Health
and Safety – privy and dump sites
• Repositories
– how to help agencies find an acceptable repository
Laura
Phillips explained there have been discussions about creating a collection
finder database for years. King County Roads (KCARD) and Katie Chabot created
collection databases for King and Clark counties which now serve as templates
for a statewide database. Current issues, including funding to expand the
database and who will be responsible for updating and maintaining the database are
still under consideration.
Work on
the Burke collection database is progressing. The collections require research
which is slowing the process; however, data for approximately half the state
(Burke collections only) has been compiled and was presented at the NWAC in
Victoria.
Identifying
what is appropriate to post on a public forum has taken considerable
deliberation. Katie Chabot helped develop the criteria for what information is
useful to researchers. This data is being compiled for the remaining Burke
collections. Currently publications are not being linked to collections, as it
could make accessing sensitive information too easy; however, links could be
established in the future.
Funding
needs to be addressed. Pam Trautman (not in attendance at this meeting) informed
the group of a grant WSDOT may receive to create a similar database for WSDOT
collections that could be expanded statewide. We need to inquire as to the
status of that grant as well as consult with DAHP regarding possible funding.
Denton added that other funding possibilities are still being investigated.
Finally,
a procedure to check the accuracy and functionality of the database, and a
login system for approved users needs to be developed before going live.
Steve
Denton explained the repository requirements being presented evolved from the
need for statewide curation guidelines. Nuances at different repositories made
statewide curation guidelines problematic; however, a minimal standard for
repositories that will lead to a list of approved repositories at DAHP will
help contractors select appropriate facilities. Laura
Phillips and Steve Denton developed the current draft.
Phillips
explained the DAHP approved contractor list is a template for the approved
repository list. She started at the
beginning of 36 CFR Part 79 and worked through the regulations to develop the
current draft, keeping in mind smaller repositories and others that want to
participate need an opportunity to be included. Denton added that this list will help to
inform institutions what is required to properly care for archaeological
collections.
The
group reviewed and revised the draft requirements noting:
• A
timeline for completing document submission to DAHP is necessary;
• A
rating system needs to be established for DAHP evaluation of applicants. (What
percentage of the requirements must be met to be approved?)
*See original
and revised DAHP Repository Requirements for complete revisions.
Paula
Johnson suggested curation professionals may need to provide on-going assistance
to DAHP to review applications and establish what standard practice is. She
asked if the Burke can provide a sample to determine how, or to what extent,
they meet the standards. Johnson added that we should provide a specific amount
of space for each section of the application to help guide applicants in how
much information to provide. Phillips
replied NPS has all this information available and could be referred to for
examples. She added that DAHP should be able to review the application
internally and the application process should be established accordingly. There
will be some grey area for which DAHP could consult with curation
professionals.
Peter
Lape asked whether an applicant for the approved contractor’s list could figure
out the correct answers from the survey on the DAHP website and if approved
contractors have to renew their approval at regular intervals (no
representatives from DAHP were present to answer these questions).
Theresa
Langford stated institutions do not always meet their own standards due to
funding challenges. Phillips and Lape agreed there will be some grey area, but
a minimum standard must be met. Johnson added that the most critical
requirement should be at the beginning of the application so those that do not
meet even the minimum standard will not waste their time completing the
application.
What
level of DAHP follow up will be necessary was discussed. Denton asked if DAHP
is willing to perform inventories and checks. Angela Neller responded that
follow up is necessary for the standards to be effective. Lape added that we
need to establish what level of inventory should be conducted.
Diana
LaSarge asked what will happen to collections already split between
repositories. Phillips responded there is an IMLS grant that could help fund a
national database as a long term goal. Phillips asked, and Denton confirmed,
that Stephenie Kramer has said the new permit requirement that collections go
to a repository that meets federal standards cannot be retroactively applied.
Denton suggested requiring reporting for the collections database could be a
part of permitting regulations which Stephenie Kramer is now tracking.
LaSarge said
Katherine Dickerson of CTUR sent her with a few questions, including whether
tribal notification of research will be a component of the collection database.
Phillips replied that research on federal collections is already reported to
the controlling agency quarterly and/or annually. The Burke reports updated
summaries to tribes in accordance with NAGPRA regulations every six months. Certainly
that information would be provided to any tribe upon request, with transparency
being vital to maintaining good relationships. Denton added that tribes are
requesting this information from government agencies with more frequency.
Conversation
shifted back to the approved repository requirements with Johnson asking
whether an approved facility should have a trained archaeologist on staff. Lape
asked if a master’s degree should be required. Phillips stated many competent
museum professionals have been in the industry longer than graduate programs
for museum studies have been available. Certainly those individuals have the
requisite skills without the formal degree. Lape suggested a master’s degree in
Archaeology, Museum Studies or a related field or equivalent experience be the
minimum standard. LaSarge stated most historical societies will not be able to
meet that standard and that being the case they are not suitable repositories.
Denton
stated that requiring at least one full time paid staff member is important as
it demonstrates dedication to the collections. Lape thought a permanent
part-time staff member is sufficient. Johnson said the Issaquah Historical
Society did not have paid staff in the past, but is doing a good job now.
Michele Parvey suggested an on-call consultant with the appropriate experience
and credentials could bridge the gap if there was not a full time paid staff
member. Neller questioned what would happen to collections in small
repositories with minimal staff if the repository closed. Lape added that
establishing and maintaining provenance and provenience for archaeological
collections is challenging and historical societies are not the appropriate institutions
to handle this. Denton added that many historical societies want access to
collections for exhibition, but do not necessarily want the entire collection
for permanent storage.
Lape suggested
discussing how to help tribes meet these standards. Neller added that some
tribes need to be educated in curation methods, as some do not have the
background or requisite experience, but do have the desire to care for
collections appropriately. Lape responded the standards need to be easily
accessible and clearly state how to become. Neller suggested developing a list
of mentors that tribes can call on.
Phillips
commented interested parties may want or need specific information for building
repositories. Johnson asked if two half time employees with three months of
experience working with archaeological collections each should be sufficient
experience for staff, adding we should steer away from requiring a master’s
degree and be more specific about what specific qualifications are necessary.
Could a director with appropriate experience negate the requirements for
operational staff? Denton asked if we should require submission of an organizational
chart with the application. Johnson replied we want to know more about the
collection manager’s qualifications which would not be included in the
organizational chart, although the chart could still be useful. Denton and
Phillips were in agreement that the collection manager’s curriculum vitae
should be included in the application.
Discussion
shifted to how NAGPRA compliance should factor into the application and
approval process. Facilities not receiving federal funding are not required to
comply with NAGPRA. Neller suggested compliance with state permitting
requirements regarding burials could be required. Lape asked if we should
require compliance with NAGPRA, stating he did not think so. Denton added if
the institution receives any federal funding then they are already required to
comply. Johnson added that many institutions think they are in compliance, but
she would disagree. As such, compliance should not be a minimum standard for
approval. Maurice Major suggested requiring a policy for dealing with human
remains could be required. Johnson added we should be more specific in this
example to help applicants understand what an acceptable policy would include.
Phillips suggested adding a question such as, “If you are required to comply
with NAGPRA, have you submitted the required bi-annual updates? If not, Why?
When was the last time you sent an update?” Answers to these questions would
help evaluators understand the institution’s broader efforts and attitude
toward NAGPRA compliance.
Conversation
transitioned to how to address evaluating and approving destructive analysis.
36 CFR 79 addresses this so that criteria could be adopted. Approved
repositories should have a process to address requests for destructive
analysis. It would be acceptable if that policy included consulting a
specialist if the repository staff is not qualified to evaluate the validity of
the analysis. This could be addressed in the collections management section of
the application.
Stephenie
Kramer arrived at approximately 11:40am during the discussion of destructive
analysis.
It was
suggested the questionnaire should include repository policy regarding historic
collections, as it is acceptable to decline historic collections, but not to
split historic and pre-historic components from one site. This would likely not
be a minimum standard for approval. Denton asked if there is a current
mechanism for the splitting of collections in the DAHP permitting process.
Kramer replied DAHP does not explicitly prohibit the splitting of collections.
It might be acceptable if it were specified at the beginning of the project.
Langford suggested adding a question to the emergency preparedness section
asking if the repository will take both historic and prehistoric components if
from the same site. Neller stated the emergency preparedness requirements will
be a minimum requirement whereas accepting historic collections will not.
36 CFR
79 has a section dedicated to culling of archaeological collections that should
be incorporated into the repository requirements.
Minimum
facility requirements points of discussion included:
• Does
the facility have to be open year round?
• The
facility must be staffed on-site several times per week.
• Should
a facilities report be required?
• The
building must have temperature control, but perhaps an acceptable relative
humidity range should be determined.
•The
location collections are stored and exhibited must be identified with
environmental data for those areas detailed.
• Does
the facility have space for researchers? Is the research space in the
collection area and does that pose a security problem? The language of this
should be changed to include others who might want to access the collection.
• Does
the facility have a security system? A description of the system for the
overall institution and specifically the archaeology areas should be required.
This is a minimum requirement; if a facility does not have a security system
they cannot be approved.
Johnson
asked what the goal of today’s discussion is. Denton replied the goal is to get
through the first draft so necessary revisions can be made. Phillips will edit
the document and send it to DAHP for review. There will be an educational
component prior to the implementation of the new requirements. It was agreed
the meeting would adjourn for lunch and continue the discussion afterward.
After
lunch, supporting documentation to be included with applications was discussed.
Phillips will provide examples of collections management policies to Stephenie
Kramer. Phillips suggested the plan view/map along with accompanying
documentation demonstrating the facility has adequate space to accept
additional collections should be moved to the facilities section as updates will
not be required and long term tracking will not be in place. Kramer asked if
all interested facilities will already have this information compiled. Phillips
said they will not. We need to discuss how to implement the requirements as
people will need time to make necessary changes and gather requisite
documentation.
Additional
information to be included in the facilities report:
• How
much room is dedicated to collection storage? This data will also help
strengthen our case for state funding to increase storage space.
•
Institution organizational chart.
It was
agreed that the plan for the archives management section should be removed as
this will be included in the collections management section.
Lape
questioned whether intrusion detection and deterrent referenced in the
facilities section means an alarm system or just a lock and key? It was agreed
some sort of emergency detection and notification system must be in place to
insure emergencies can be attended to immediately. Whether requiring facilities
meet building, fire, etc. codes means current codes, or codes at the time the
facility was built was also questioned. Consensus was code requirements should
be grandfathered with new facilities being required to meet current codes.
Kramer
questioned what comprises an acceptable emergency plan. Phillips will provide
samples of emergency plans and an American Association of Museums facilities
report to DAHP.
The next
step is to revise the requirements. Phillips will try to have the revisions completed
by June 15th. Denton will
distribute the revised requirements and leave them open for comment until
August 1st, at which time a final draft will be provided to DAHP.
DAHP will distribute the requirements via their website, e-mail, WMA and AWA
meetings, the Heritage Research Center, etc. The Western Museum Association
meetings are in Vancouver, B.C. from June 18th through June 20th.
If the revisions are complete, an abstract or announcement could be offered at
the WMA meetings.
Whether
curation fee information should be part of the application was questioned with
the group deciding it should not be included; however a copy of the
institutions curation guidelines should be. If an applicant does not have
curation guidelines how do they inform contractors how to prepare the
collection?
The
topic of tribal notification of research was raised again. Langford questioned
whether full disclosure was possible as researchers may expect a level of
confidentiality. Lape responded that for state repositories a freedom of
information act suit would compel the institution to provide all information to
the plaintiff. Additionally, if a researcher is being granted access to sensitive
site data they should be okay with their information being provided to
interested parties. Lape asked what information tribes want. LaSarge replied:
who the researcher is, what they looked at and whether any DNA or destructive
analysis was conducted. LaSarge added she cannot speak for all tribes, but
objects and human remains do go missing and knowing who accessed the collection
can help locate missing items. Hull added that different tribes will want
different information.
Lape
asked if we can tie the repository requirements to the collections database to
force participation in the database. Once the database is operational we can
ask tribes what information they want included. This will enable tribes to
identify problem collections and contact the repository. Neller added that once
the information is available through the database tribes can proactively
contact museums to request information.
It was
questioned whether participation in the collections database should be added to
the minimum requirement for repository approval. Denton questioned whose
responsibility it would be to submit the information: the controlling agency,
contractor, DAHP? For state owned collections the contractor or DAHP could be
responsible. Johnson stated it should reported by the repository when it
arrives, with an annual report submitted to DAHP. The collections database
could be tied to the permitting database.
Stephenie
Kramer explained there was a fairly low completion rate with only 27 completed
surveys out of 339 sent out. Kramer asked how much space each repository has
now. Neller explained the Wanapum Heritage Center has approximately 50 square
feet of available space. Denton added the Burke has approximately 150 square
feet. Lynn Bethke said CWU may be in a position to take collection in the
future, but not now. Hull explained that is true for the Yakama Museum, as
well.
The collection
survey results were presented by Kramer (see survey results for complete text).
Kramer explained the survey is no longer on the DAHP website, but can be put
back up. Johnson asked if we should refine the survey to increase participation.
Phillips asked what the issues with the survey are. How should it be refined?
Denton asked how we should use the information gathered. Kramer responded it
should be used to support a request for state funding to curate collections.
Phillips
thought that including retired archaeologists with collections, we can estimate
there are twice as many collections out there as the survey indicates. The
Burke has offered amnesty for these sorts of collections in the past. Kramer
asked if the Burke is willing to do that again. Phillips responded the first
course of action is to request funding from the state.
Johnson
asked what the status of funding for the collections database is. Denton
replied we need to speak to Pam Trautman (not in attendance) regarding the
grant WSDOT applied for. If DAHP is to ask for state money the request must to
be submitted by July 1st. Lape explained he discussed putting
together a proposal to deal with state collections for the next legislative
session with Allyson Brooks last February. Perhaps the collections database
could be worked into that proposal, as well as funding for other collections.
The proposal would need to be submitted by the end of the summer with lobbying
to follow. Kramer suggested getting a line item added to the governor’s budget
would be a better course of action. She will talk to WSDOT about a joint
request. Lape added that any funding request will need this group’s support. We
will need to formulate an argument why funding is vital, including beefing up
the survey and doubling the response. Detailing the current crisis of the Burke
being the only repository accepting historic collections would support our
case. Explaining the high likelihood of future discoveries of large sites with
projects such as the viaduct and sea wall on the horizon would also be helpful.
It was
decided to go forward with the request for funding as asking and being denied
once often increases the chances of approval of future requests. There are
three Native American legislators whose support we should try to obtain.
Theresa
Langford informed the group that Fort Vancouver has applied for a grant through
the City of Vancouver to conduct curation workshops with an emphasis on
discussion, possibly in small groups. If awarded the grant they will try to schedule
a key note speaker, perhaps Terry Childs of NPS. The grant would include a
stipend for 5-6 people, one person in each workgroup, to develop a workshop.
They will be notified if they are awarded the grant after June 5th, so
will know at the next meeting. If awarded the funds the workshops could be
offered in conjunction with the curation summit in the spring of 2009.
Denton
informed the group the next summit in October will be held in Olympia. The
meeting adjourned and Lynn Bethke led a tour of the CWU collections storage
area.
• Stephenie
Kramer and Peter Lape will work on generating a request for curation funding
from the state.
• Laura
Phillips will revise the approved repositories draft per today’s discussion.
• Steve
Denton will research venues to notify institutions of the new repository
requirements.
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Organization |
|
Angela |
Neller |
Wanapum
Heritage Center |
|
David
|
Powell |
Yakama
Nation |
|
Diana
|
LaSarge |
CTUIR
DNR Cultural Resources Protection Program |
|
Heidi |
Pierson |
NPS
– Fort Vancouver National Historic Site |
|
Katie |
Chabot |
Paragon
Research Associates, Inc. |
|
Kelly |
Meyers |
Burke
Museum |
|
Kelsey
|
Doncaster |
US
BOR – Upper Columbia Area Office |
|
Larry |
Ross |
Squaxin
Island Tribe |
|
Laura |
Phillips |
Burke
Museum |
|
Lynn
|
Bethke |
Central
Washington University |
|
Maureen
|
Zehender |
Archaeological
Investigations Northwest |
|
Maurice |
Major |
Washington
State Department of Natural Resources |
|
Michele |
Parvey |
Northwest
Archaeological Associates |
|
Paula
|
Johnson |
Paragon
Research Associates, Inc. |
|
Peter |
Lape |
Burke
Museum |
|
Stephenie |
Kramer |
Department
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation |
|
Steve |
Denton |
Burke
Museum |
|
Theresa
|
Langford |
NPS
– Fort Vancouver National Historic Site |
|
Tom |
Becker |
Association
for Washington Archaeology |
|
Christina |
Aucutt |
Applied
Archaeological Research, Inc. |
|
Heather
C. |
Hull |
Yakama
Nation Museum |