Vol. I/1: Spring/Summer 1998
- [Contents | Home | Previous Article | Next Article | Submit | Archives | Mail ]
Cindy Stankowski
San Diego, CA 92101
Vol. I/1: Spring/Summer 1998
The curation crisis: can we afford the future?
Abstract
Natural history, ethnographic and archaeological museums and repositories are facing a curation crisis which will significantly impact museum practices in the future. An enormous amount of the nation's prehistoric and historic legacy is poorly catalogued, stored in inadequate environments and in danger of destruction. Proper curation (preservation, management and appropriate use) of these collections is an expensive and daunting task. Reducing curation costs by decreasing the size of existing collections by deaccessioning raises many ethical questions and may ultimately prove short-sighted. The author proposes a paradigm shift in the way we think about collections: not a storage problem, but a valuable resource for public education, scientific research and cultural use.
Natural history, ethnographic and archaeological museums and repositories are facing a curation crisis. An enormous amount of the nation's prehistoric and historic legacy is poorly catalogued, stored in inadequate environments and in danger of destruction. Sinking under deteriorating boxes of unused artifacts and documents, museums have begun to wonder if they can afford the future.
Adequate curation, including the preservation, management and appropriate use of collections, is an expensive and daunting task. Sally Shelton, Curator of Collections and Conservation at the San Diego Natural History Museum, aptly defined the curation crisis during the Society for California Archaeology 1998 Annual Meeting in San Diego, "We are using eighteenth century budgets for nineteenth century storage technology and hoping to preserve artifacts for twenty-first century research."
History of the Curation Crisis
The history of the curation crisis began at the turn of the century when the "salvage" collecting practices of museums resulted in the acquisition of millions of ethnographic and natural history specimens in the name of Victorian progress and science. The "Nation's Attic," the Smithsonian Institution, now holds more than 140 million items, more than 122 million are natural history objects (Heyman 1997). Smithsonian anthropologists and ethnographers collected most of the one million Native American objects which need to be moved from storage to the new National Museum of the American Indian's Cultural Resource Center (Heyman 1997). Museums and repositories were inundated with another influx of artifacts starting in the 1960s with the passage of federal and state laws aimed at mitigating the loss of archaeological and environmental sites. These laws mandated the "rescue" of archaeological and paleontological artifacts but were short-sighted in that they did not provide for long-term funding for curation.
The extent of the curation crisis was recognized in the 1980s as a result of several external forces affecting museums and repositories. Decreased funding compelled museum directors to take a closer look at collections management costs. Storage rooms were full, collections were deteriorating and conservators were recommending expensive archival-quality supplies and equipment to preserve existing collections. Museums which had not inspected collection storage rooms in a while were forced to do so with the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. Ethnographic and archaeological collections were required to be inventoried, revealing the magnitude of disorganization and decay. In 1984 the American Association of Museums' Commission on Museums for a New Century reported that, "Museums . . . have not fully lived up to their responsibility to provide adequately for the care of their holdings."
The federal government was just as remiss as the private sector in providing adequate collections management. The 1986 Government Accounting Office report based on a questionnaire sent to non-federal repositories housing federally-owned collections, Cultural Resources--Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources, revealed the following:
Twenty-four percent of the respondents had no inventory of their collections; 30 percent had never inspected them for conservation needs.
Most records of excavations on Forest Service and BLM lands prior to 1975 and 1968, respectively, had been lost or destroyed.
Although the Park Service curated most of its own artifacts and records, here was an estimated cataloging backlog of 15.5 million objects requiring $19.7 million to rectify. (Revised 1992 figures show that the Park Service owns 24.6 million archaeological artifacts of which 16.8 million need to be catalogued. This will required $46.9 million through the year 2000, or 20 years at the current funding levels.)
Thirty percent of non-federal facilities have already run out of room to store or exhibit archaeological objects (Childs 1995:12).
Col. James E. Corbin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, wrote, "Over the past 15 years, the Corps of Engineers has spent approximately $165 million on the recovery of archaeological resources, but we have rarely addressed curation and conservation needs for these collections. The result is that many of our collections cannot be accounted for; and most show considerable evidence of neglect and deterioration. In point of fact, we appear to be walking a tightrope of compliance that may unravel on us" (Trimble and Meyers 1991:1). Once the federal government realized the magnitude of the curation crisis, the Department of the Interior formulated curation standards for federal agencies in the Code of Federal regulations, Curation of Federally-Owned and administered Archaeological Collections, 36 CFR Part 79, in 1987. Finalized in 1990, 36 CFR Part 79 establishes minimum requirements for repositories and the care, documentation, inspection and use of collections. However, 36 CFR Part 79 is an unfunded mandate. The regulation states Congress may fund a variety of curatorial activities, but does not establish appropriations. There are no provisions for federal funding of curation at this time; however, those facilities housing federally-owned collections will be required to maintain collections at 36 CFR Part 79 standards (Trimble 1991:9).
Is the past disposable?
Natural history and archaeological collections are expensive to care for. The collections take up a lot of space in storage areas and require environmental control and careful monitoring. The collections are extremely labor-intensive to catalogue because of the sheer number of artifacts. The collections are not usually "wage-earners" for the facility and are usually considered cash drains. Ironically, artifacts spend 99 percent of the time in storage, versus on exhibit, but very few collections management budgets are as large as exhibit resources. It may appear that the only way to reduce curation costs is to reduce the amount of material curated. Deaccessioning is one of the most sensitive issues challenging museums today. Some fine arts museums have set the trend by deaccessioning objects for sale to "improve" collections. Stephen Weil (1997) in his article, "Deaccessioning in American Museums: I," explains the motivation for this philosophy.
Periodically to shape and reshape such a collection in order that it may better serve the museum's purpose--to rid the collection of objects which, although relatively useless to its needs, continue to drain the museum of the resources required for their care--may be more than merely permissible or appropriate. In such a museum, the process of shaping and reshaping its collection, or pruning and winnowing to the end that the collection may be upgraded and supplemented, might well be the hallmark of a sound, dynamic and farsighted approach to collections management.
Deaccessioning in museums and repositories whose main focus is the maintenance of large collections with emphasis on public education and research potential raises different ethical questions. Weil (1997) differentiates between the two kinds of facilities pertaining to the issue of deaccession, "For the museum that is chiefly depository or archival--one that takes its principle mission to be the preservation of specimens and artifacts that might otherwise be lost to posterity--the issue of deaccessioning will scarcely arise . . . The very notion of refining its collection must per se be antithetical to such a museum's basic vision of its mandate." Thus, there is a strong case against deaccessioning of natural history and anthropological collections. There are also convincing reasons for the preservation of existing collections.
Federal Mandate
Federal regulation 36 CFR Part 79 not only sets standards for the care of federally-owned collections, but also mandates that collections be "available for scientific, educational and religious uses." Non-federal funding sources are also
urging museums to use non-federally owned collections in the same manner, and it makes sense to curate all collections according to 36 CFR Part 79.
Future Research Applications
Improving investigative technologies means that a specimen that is "worthless" today, may be diagnostic in the future. For example, recent strides in DNA analysis have made moth-eaten taxidermy specimens of now-extinct species quite valuable.
Public Trust
Non-profit institutions hold collections in the public trust and deaccessioning cannot be taken lightly. Although there are no laws governing non-profit museums in the United States with regards to deaccessioning practices, the "public court" has convicted those museums which have not taken public trust seriously. Steve Brezzo, Director of the San Diego Museum of Art, took considerable public heat for his extravagant spending and loose accounting practices. Courts of law and the Internal Revenue Service have held museum trustees accountable for dereliction of fiduciary responsibilities.
Fund Raising
Steve Miller (1997) sums up the potential consequences of deaccessioning by sale, "What potential donor will trust a museum that sells collections? How can museums garner sustained public support if they appear to inexplicably wander off course?. . .These are critical considerations if we understand that the vast majority of museum collections have been donated and that most museums survive on public good will."
High Cost of Excavation/Acquisition
It is no longer financially feasible to conduct excavations and expeditions just to acquire specimens. In addition, government jurisdictions and land developers are recognizing that it may cost less to modify plans to avoid cultural and
environmental resources rather than mitigate through retrieval.
Cultural Legacy
NAGPRA has mandated the return of human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects to culturally affiliated Native American tribes. However, there are many items in collections today which do not fall under NAGPRA and any method of deaccessioning which removes objects of cultural significance from the use of ethnic groups or the public is unacceptable. Francis P. McManamon (1998:2), National Park Service Consulting Archaeologist, explains, "Many Americans are intrigued by the ancient history of the continent--despite their lack of direct biological or cultural relationship--as well as with preserving its remains . . . An anchor to the past, in this case one embedded in place rather than biology, helps individuals balance their modern life through reflection and comparison."
Title in Question
Many museums and repositories may possess collections whose title is in question because the land developer or environmental firm is no longer in business, or through time the exact provenance of the collection was lost. Without proper legal title, it is more difficult to deaccession collections.
Antiquities Market
Deaccessioning for sale removes objects from the public domain and spurs the antiquities market. The recent highly publicized auction for "Sue," the Tyrannosaurus rex, and the ever escalating prices paid for Native American objects, prove that the marketplace for natural history and ethnographic objects exists. The antiquities market serves only to enrich a few, removes objects from the public domain, many times to a foreign country, and leaves us all poorer.
Non-Renewable Resource
Many existing natural history and archaeological collections contain unique specimens from environments and cultures which no longer survive, or are close to extinction, and collection is no longer possible.
Incomplete Scientific Evaluation
Many existing collections have had only cursory identification and cataloging and more research remains to be done. For example, the Burgess Shale specimens collected in 1909 by Charles Doolittle Walcott, were reevaluated by H.B. Whittington in the 1970s which led to a total revamping of evolution since the Cambrian Explosion (Gould 1989). Future archaeology graduate students may conduct original research using existing anthropological collections in
much the same way, in effect, "archaeology without the dirt."
Ethnic Use
Many archaeological and natural history collections would be of interest to culturally affiliated living descendants. Historic preservation societies could also garner information from historic and comparative collections. At the San Diego Archaeological Center (SDAC), we plan to offer paid internships to Native Americans interested in training as archaeological observers where they can see and learn to recognize long forgotten prehistoric artifacts.
Cultural Tourism
The travel and tourism industry provides a significant amount of revenue in many states. Heritage and cultural tourism are a new industry, attracting many national and international visitors in search of history. Even armchair travelers are interested in archaeology and natural history. The Southwest Natural and Cultural Heritage Association (SNCHA) is producing People in the Past, an interactive multimedia computer program, bringing new life to a puebloan village in cyberspace (Flanagan 1998:36). SNCHA plans to market the program in museum shops and mail order, and will use proceeds from sale of the CD to fund other projects (Flanagan 1998:37).
Global Village
The concept of the global village has at the heart of it the idea of celebrating cultural diversity. The Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California recognizes the influence of cultural diversity, "California is known for its diversity, and that diversity is evident both in the state's many cultures and peoples and in the resources they have created. The state is indeed fortunate to retain such a rich and varied heritage represented by peoples from virtually all quarters of the globe" (California State Parks 1997:8). Brian Fagan (1998:16) notes, "Archaeology is important because it inculcates respect for other cultures, other people. The Canadians call this 'heritage.' I think we American archaeologists need to spend a lot of time thinking about the issue of heritage, about cultural diversity, and respect."
Preserving the Historiography
Retention of collections, as well as archival records, documents the past trends of scientific disciplines. Speaking of anthropological collections, Krech and Sturtevant (1992:124) comment, "Clearly, archival materials are the basis of the intellectual history and biography, the history of anthropology and of anthropologists. Growing numbers of studies have made evident how vital archived personal papers are for the history of the discipline and its figures."
Reducing curation costs
If we consider collections a resource for the future, not just a storage problem, we can deal with the high cost of curation knowing that the money is well spent. It is easier, and perhaps more productive, to address factors affecting the cost of curation which do not tread so closely to the ethical issues of deaccessioning.
Curation of collections should be considered part of a continuum of decisions starting from the moment of acquisition onward, and each decision should undergo constant reassessment. The following ideas for reducing curation costs were generated at a workshop co-chaired by the author at the Society for California Archaeology 1998 Annual Meeting in San Diego. The workshop addressed archaeological artifacts, but the suggestions are also relevant to natural history collections.
Funding collection curation
The general lack of understanding of the need for curation requires curation professionals to educate legislators, potential funders and the public about the need to preserve existing collections. This presents some degree of difficulty in avoiding blame and pointing fingers at museum directors, repository managers, cultural resource management firms and others who were responsible for the care of collections. In most cases, it's nobody's fault. Funding for curation was simply not set aside, and now is the time to set things right. SDAC has permanent and traveling exhibits with "before and after" pictures, which clearly demonstrate the need for revitalization of collections.
The Department of Defense is now considering a federal partnership program to fund regional repositories to provide curation for federally-owned archaeological collections. As federal recognition of the extent of the curation crisis continues to build, it is important to maintain contact with local, state and federal legislators to apprise them of the need for curation.
Funding for curation in the private sector will require community outreach and imaginative proposals. Since corporate giving usually relies on a "naming opportunity," move the storage facility to the front of the facility. Visible storage is making a comeback and is popular with visitors, "In addition to upgrading the level of care of these objects, exhibitions drawn from the collections focus the museum goer's attention on works not usually seen and encourage the viewer to think about those works in new ways (AAM 1984). A novel approach to secure funding for curation of previously excavated collections is a community-oriented "Adopt a Box" program. This could be very popular with youth groups, such as Boy and Girl Scouts, and would give school-age children the opportunity to have hands-on experience with history.
The key to finding funding for curation is to actively use the collections and seek funding in related fields. For example, a local research and development company may fund innovative scientific research, a retail company could underwrite public education exhibits, building developers could subsidize history information centers, and cultural societies may finance curation of artifacts affiliated with ethnic ancestors.
The curation crisis is a national problem, and now there are some national answers. Hillary Rodham Clinton is serving as honorary chair of the Millennium Committee to Save America's Treasures, an organization dedicated to the preservation of artifacts, documents and structures that symbolize the American experience (Ross 1998). President Clinton's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 contains $50 million for historic preservation (Ross 1998). Ultimately, however, it is up to each one of us as museum professionals to make a difference in preserving the past for the future.
