May 3, 2007
The Washington State Curation
Summit was held at the Hydro Administration Offices, Wanapum Village on May 3,
2007. Seventeen 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.
Steven Denton welcomed
attendees and thanked everyone in attendance for their participation. Angela
Buck and Angela Neller of the
Angela Buck, Wanapum Museum Director, welcomed attendees and thanked them
for gathering to discuss important issues surrounding the curation of
Archaeological collections.
Denton briefly explained the history of the
curation summit. The topics identified as highest priority at the first meeting
(9/9/2003) were:
1)
Current location
of existing collections;
2)
development of statewide curation guidelines;.
3)
cost of curation.
Two workgroups were
established at the second meeting (1/12/2004) to address the two primary issues:
1)
Collections
database development - Peter Lape, Point of Contact.
2)
Curation
guidelines – Laura Phillips, Point of Contact.
At a subsequent meeting
(5/10/2004) a third work group was established aimed at Education and Outreach
with
Curation Guidelines
The group determined in
previous discussions that statewide curation guidelines are not a possibility
as there are neither current regulations nor a governing body to enforce curation.
Individual contractors need to consult with contracting agencies to decide the curation
of each collection, and work with individual repositories to ensure compliance
with repository curation guidelines. Laura Phillips, Paula Johnson and Mary
Collins created a draft document based on 36 CFR Part 79 aimed at helping
contractors and agencies identify appropriate repositories. Concern about the
document being too one-sided by the work group prompted their request for input
by other individuals.
Collections Database
The collections database
workgroup identified both the fiscal and other resources necessary to hire a
position to generate and manage a database detailing the current location of
collections from systematic surveys and excavations. At the time of the last
meeting (1/25/2005), DAHP had volunteered to provide workspace for the position,
which may no longer be possible. The group agreed that the project would be
shopped around in hopes of finding possible funding sources.
A budget of $184,000 was
identified as necessary to fund this position for two years; $100,000 for the
first year of data collection and database construction and $84,000 for the
second year of updating and maintaining the database. Peter Lape and Stephenie
Kramer made progress in developing an informational description, however no
detailed job description has been written and no funding sources were
identified.
Future of Curation Summit
Denton explained the current
goal is to restart the projects. He suggested setting deadlines for various
phases of each project to facilitate progress. At the last curation summit it
was agreed that another meeting would be scheduled once progress was made and
there was something to discuss. However, projects stalled without deadlines and
follow-up. As it has been more than two years since the last meeting,
Denton explained that in 2005
DAHP changed their permitting requirements, mandating all collections resulting
from permitted projects be curated at repositories meeting 36 CFR Part 79.
Pam Trautman explained WSDOT recently
applied for grant funds for a position and that grants should be considered as
an option for the collections database position. Applying for multiple smaller
grants to fund the position incrementally may be necessary. If funds were
secured WSDOT may be able to provide office space and a computer to that person.
Peter Lape added that two years ago David Rice suggested he could tap into
annual federal funds (USACE) that could help. Cook suggested that Lawr Salo, USACE be invited to
the meetings. There is also the possibility of tribal financial support. Numerous
smaller funding sources exist, but someone is needed to coordinate and pull
together the various people and resources. Lape suggested that perhaps instead
of trying to fund one individual in one position for the collections database
we could divide the work amongst several people as funding and space becomes
available.
Collins stated ultimately it
is the state’s responsibility to track where collections are located; therefore
the database should be maintained at and by a state agency, ideally DAHP. Collins
suggested identifying and lobbying our friends in the legislature, with WSDOT
as part of the initiative, and without shifting responsibility away from DAHP. Maureen
Zehendner added that from a contractor’s perspective it is critical that the
mandate to provide collection location information come from DAHP as part of
the regular scope of work.
Denton introduced Katie
Chobot, a recent UW Museology Program graduate who
completed a archaeological collections database for
Clark County as her thesis project. The Burke has commissioned her to convert
the database into a format that can be utilized by the Burke Museum to increase
research access to museum collections.
Chobot explained she reviewed
permit files, site forms and reports at DAHP to identify which sites produced
collections. Chobot spent 120 hours researching over 400 sites from Clark County,
and identified 113 collections at CRM firms, historical societies and
repositories. She used Microsoft Access to create the database, and is in the
process of converting the database for web use. All sensitive material will be
excluded from publicly accessible information. Additionally, the web database
will allow those from outside agencies to add data about other collections. Chobot
stated that she did not include publication information, as it often contained
sensitive information in the title. Lape agreed, stating that the database is
meant to locate and give a broad sense of the collection, and that researchers
need to contact repositories to arrange access or get more specific
information.
The Burke Museum offered to
host the site temporarily on its site. New information can be e-mailed to Phillips.
Burke Museum, who will confirm the information, approve
the changes to the database and post them to the website. Lape added the online
database should be available mid-June. It is possible that in the future a
research position could be created to conduct research and confirm and enter
new data.
Collins inquired whether this
database is capable of tracking collections from individual sites with multiple
excavations at multiple repositories and whether it is keyword searchable. Chobot
replied the database is keyword searchable and contains a distinct entry for
every project so tracking multiple excavations is not a problem. Similarly, if
collections are at multiple repositories, each repository would receive a
unique entry. Phillips added that looking at Burke Museum collections to
determine and extract information pertinent to researchers has been an
informative process. Lape added the database is meant to be a research tool
more than a collection management database; however other fields could be added
to help manage collections.
Cook expressed concern about
people being able to add data online since the Colville curate federal
collections. Everyone who requests to research both Colville and federal held-in-trust
collections must go through their lengthy approval process which includes
obtaining approval from the Tribal Council. Cook was not sure how this database
could fit into that process. Lape asked whether she was concerned about who
would have access to the information. Cook confirmed that was her concern as
she needs to know who is accessing their collections and they need to go
through the approval process.
Trautman inquired what the quality-control
process would be for adding and editing data. Chobot responded access can be
restricted using logins and all changes can be recorded and tracked
electronically. Zehendner asked if adding data would be restricted to
repositories, or if private firms could add to the database as well. Lape and
Phillips replied the objective is to provide the ability for everyone to add
data as information changes. The initial pending status would allow the Burke Museum or
future database managers to confirm all data before posting to the web. Phillips and Lape stated that as a research
institution the Burke Museum is committed to maintaining the site, but would
ultimately need state support, possibly sharing funding with multiple agencies.
Neller asked that the
location of project associated documentation be recorded for sites from which
collections were not generated and that the database include historic collections.
She also asked if the repositories will confirm when collections arrive, if
information is entered from permits prior to project completion. Diana LaSarge asked if it is permit or collection oriented. It
was decided that collection is more thorough, as it includes Section 106 work. The
Oregon SHPO recently completed a review of curation compliance for state
permits, which did not include Section 106 projects, adding credence to the
thought that collections-based inquiries will be more complete.
Johnson asked if the database
would be helpful to agencies, to which Trautman replied it would be very
helpful to WSDOT and that they need to participate in the process. Noble stated
new NAGPRA regulations require updating every 6 months and that money may be
available to fund this type of streamlined system.
Conversation
turned back to DAHP and making their involvement a priority. All agreed that DAHP management of database
monitoring and maintenance is appropriate, as they now track collections as
part of the permit process. Lape proposed making data entry a part of permit
requirements.
The group decided that the
DAHP and other stakeholders need to be brought in to the discussion to obtain
approval and move forward. Cook felt it important that THPOs be involved and
offered to try to introduce the issue to the next THPO meeting in Palm Springs.
The group agreed that support by state THPOs and DAHP would increase funding
opportunities.
The work group was
restructured with participation by the following:
Laura Phillips – Point of
Contact
Stephenie Kramer – appointed
in her absence
Pam Trautman
Jackie Cook
Katie Chobot
The group determined at the last meeting that guidelines should help contractors and agencies identify appropriate repositories, rather than present detailed information on collection curation. It was felt at that time that DAHP should provide a list of repositories accepting collections. New state regulations incorporating 36 CFR Part 79 makes identification of repositories easier and more clear cut. Discussion focused on involvement by DAHP in enforcing the new regulations.
Noble asked if the new regulations extended backward in time, enabling DAHP to pull collections from poor repositories. The question then arose over who decides who meets the federal regulations. Cook stated that USACE and USBOR inspected facilities curating their collections and published results. Denton noted that repositories with no federal collections have likely never been inspected, including state agencies that store collections (e.g. WSPRC).
Discussion turned to what is required to meet federal regulations. The following ideas were presented:
Dedicated staff trained in management of archaeological collections.
Staff with background in archaeological practices and methods and who are able to assess research requests, especially destructive analysis requests, provenience information, implications of access and exhibit, and associated documentation.
Suitable environmental requirements for collections and associated documentation.
It was proposed that DAHP publish a list of approved repositories similar to the list of CRM firms currently maintained by them. Johnson asked if space is more of a concern that competent curation right now. Zehender expressed concern that work will be stalled if no acceptable repository is willing to take a collection due to lack of space. Lape suggested making collective recommendations to DAHP for repositories and space issues. Lape also stated that a mechanism must exist to approve repositories without federal collections. Phillips noted that the most recent draft of guidelines created by the work group was formatted as a checklist and could be used as a starting point. Collins felt that meeting 75% of the requirements would be sufficient to approve a repository. Cook and Phillips noted that BOR and NPS both currently have rankings.
Johnson suggested that the role of the group now shifts to how to help DAHP implement new regulations. Lape recommended sending a memo to DAHP offering to consult/review proposed requirements. Johnson agreed and added that we make our expectations known. It was agreed that Johnson and Collins would draft a letter to DAHP.
Zehender questioned how this applies to private property owners. Lape felt that the state CRM law may apply, but that we need to review 0505 and clarify with Kramer what teeth the new regulation has with no federal involvement. Denton noted that cost is often an issue with private parties. Discussion then focused on providing a list of repositories to private parties that identify repositories close to project location, as many individuals and government agencies want collections close by. Zehender also added that such a list would give contractors a feeling of empowerment by letting them shopping around.
Johnson stated that attendance
at the NWAC curation workshop/session was better than anticipated and that she
would like to organize a similar informal panel next year. Proposed topics
include what to do with collections still in possession of archaeologists, both
academic and CRM, discussion of the new state law and how to deal with
associated documentation.
The following future topics
were suggested for the group:
Olympia was proposed as the
next meeting location. As no DAHP staff were present,
Denton said he will contact Kramer to inquire about DAHP hosting the next
meeting sometime in September/October.
|
Name |
Organization |
|
Angela Buck |
Wanapum Heritage Center |
|
Angela J. Neller |
Wanapum Heritage Center |
|
Larry Ross |
Squaxin Island Tribe |
|
Peter Lape |
Burke Museum |
|
Steve Denton |
Burke Museum |
|
Mary Collins |
Washington State University |
|
Kelly Meyers |
Burke Museum |
|
Laura Phillips |
Burke Museum |
|
Megon Noble |
Burke Museum |
|
Randy Hert |
Burke Museum |
|
Maureen Zehendner |
Archaeological
Investigations Northwest, Inc. |
|
Paula Johnson |
Paragon Associates, Inc. |
|
David Powell |
Yakama Nation |
|
Jackie Cook |
Colville Confederated Tribes |
|
Pam Trautman |
WSDOT |
|
Katie Chobot |
Paragon Associates, Inc. |
|
Diana LaSarge |
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation |