Viva:
We had a similar problem. We had four different numbering systems which we
recently converted to a tri-nominal system with letter extensions for some
items. We had numbers that were simply the item number listed in a 1942
catalog without accession date records that we converted. Some numbers used
a tri-nominal system with fewer places than some numbers needed. We made
individual files each item lettered separately with notations in the files
that each item was a part of a whole. The place for the lot number remains
a triple zero for items we don't have that information on, so our database
searches more efficiently.
Examples:
2403 became 1942.000.2403
2305a-z became several files 1942.000.2305.a
607 accessioned in 1981 became 1981.000.0607
81.1.23 became 1981.001.0023
Hope this helps.
Becky Fitzgerald
Registrar
Mabee-Gerrer Museum of Art
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Viva Fisher [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 12:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: object numbering questions
>
> PLEASE EXCUSE CROSS POSTINGS
>
> Hello All!
>
> In the course of standardizing our object numbering system, we have
> encountered some irregularities. If other list members have addressed
> similar situations, would they be willing to share the benefit of their
> knowledge? Your expertise would be much appreciated!
>
> In 2000, we changed our numbering system to conform to the standard
> registrarial practice of assigning numbers as Year.Lot.Item.Element . . .
> (Example: 2000.4.2.1).
>
> However, from 1867 to 1999, we used an accession number and catalogue
> number combination. In some instances, a single number would be assigned
> to an entire box or tray of sherds or lithics. Letter suffixes were
> sometimes appended to the catalogue number to distinguish unique objects
> that might be meaningfully associated (e.g. left and right shoes or vessel
> body and lid) or might not be meaningfully associated (e.g. group of 10
> different spoons). No individual record was created for the object as a
> whole (e.g. pair of shoes or lidded vessel).
>
> Because not all of our older (1867-1999) collections have been catalogued
> at the item level, we are now considering how to address their
> retrospective numbering. One possibility is to bring the older system
> more into line with standard practice by attaching as a suffix .#
> (Example: .1, .2, etc.) to the existing catalogue number or letter suffix
> whenever an additional suffix is required. This numerical suffix would be
> applied to objects with a unique number composed of elements which have
> individual loan, exhibition, location, etc. histories or which are parts
> of a composite object.
>
> Have other institutions addressed these issues? Did you find that your
> computerized database could accommodate a string of suffixes? And are you
> able to relate the different parts of an object, all of which might carry
> unique numbers, into a record for the whole object? If so, what type of
> numbers and/or letters do you use?
>
> Thanks very much for your input!
>
> Viva Fisher
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Genevieve Fisher
> Registrar
> Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
> Harvard University
> 11 Divinity Avenue
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> T: 617-495-4298
> F: 617-495-7535
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> <http://peabody.harvard.edu/registration>
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
