I have been looking at the use of storage space, specifically in the
curation of archaeological collections.  Arch. collections are typically
quite large, some comprising thousands of formed tools, lithic shards,
worked bone fragments, etc. etc..  These collections have a scientific value
as they are the only record of the excavation, and the only check on the
original research.  For those following a processual paradigm, they are
curated in order to provide some measure of 'replicability', the ability to
repeat the experiment of archaeological investigation of a site.

However, these are often viewed by non-archaeologists as bags and boxes of
dirt and rocks, having little intrinsic value and taking up a lot of space.
As such, they are prime candidates for off-site storage.

Reserve collections are often very crowded places.  Archaeological
collections research and reanalysis requires the use of layout space near
the collection storage, preferably in the collection room.  These layout
tables are sometimes seen as a 'waste of space' by administrators who seek
to store as much of the collection in as small a space as possible.

Some archaeological collections are very large, numbering in the tens of
thousands of pieces, occasionally more.  Curation practices designed to deal
with smaller collections must be amended to adequately deal with such large
quantities.  To many administrators, valuable high quality, expensive
storage space cannot be justified for large numbers of non-diagnostic,
similar artifacts.

Many collections managers have sought to make their reserve collections more
efficient through the strategic classification of materials.  Those which
have a high potential for research, exhibition or other use are often
removed from the site boxes and stored separately.  The benefits and dangers
of this practice bear examination.

Most repositories divide their archaeological collections into two groups,
diagnostic or formed artifacts such as recognizable points, and bulk or
non-diagnostic materials such as unmodified flakes. Inevitably,  with
growing collections and shrinking space, curators have removed the
non-diagnostic materials from the high quality storage areas, and put them
in less expensive storage.

Commonly then, diagnostic artifacts are removed from the site archive, and
stored as individual artifacts, numbered and catalogued individually, and
stored laid out in trays in cabinets for easy access.  The cabinets are
located in high use areas of the collection storage rooms, those areas which
have better security and easier access by researchers.

Non-diagnostic materials are boxed, often in level bags, but occasionally
re-bagged, and stored in less costly facilities.  Many museums store
diagnostic artifacts in individual plastic bags, numbered and identified
with both a card and computer record, in cabinets ranged by geographic
region.  These receive heavy use by exhibition preparators and researchers.
The offsite storage is less accessibly, for example, a  museum which stores
non-diagnostic materials in a mechanical room located under an underground
parking lot.  Access is via several sets of stairs and air handling tunnels
with low ceilings.  Boxes must be moved individually.  The salt leaching
through the concrete ceiling from the parking area above has formed
stalactites.  Collections staff are careful to position shelving and boxes
away from the major drips, but some damage is inevitable.

In another Canadian example, a government ministry office stores its most
valuable diagnostic artifacts in a vault within the ministry offices located
in a renovated bank.  Non-diagnostic materials are stored in the basement of
a building nearby where they are vulnerable to flooding.

Several museums and universities store non-diagnostic materials off site.
These are generally some distance away, stored in  unheated buildings at a
historic site or research facility.  Normal security is a perimeter fence.
Some of these off-site storage areas are not monitored by staff, and at risk
of vandalism.  One museum where I worked had a boat house located some
distance from the museum which was occupied by children with blankets and
candles, hopefully only as a play area.

A more drastic form of off site storage involves the reburial of
collections.  In this scheme redundant collections are labeled, sealed in
permanent containers and buried, often on the grounds of the repository.
Detailed records are kept, ensuring the potential retreival of collections
so reburied.  They may be placed in a gravel or cinder block lined crypt,
with a surface marker.  While there is much anecdotal rumour of these
practices in other countries, as far as I was able to determine (with the
exception of human remains), no repository in Canada has reburied
collections in this manner.  Human remains are normally reburied in
conjunction with the appropriate First Nation or other ethnic or religious
group.  While the reburial of human remains has become standard practice in
Canada, the reburial of artifact site archives or partial artifact site
archives is being resisted by curators and archaeologists alike.

Advantages of off site storage
There are advantages to this arrangement.  A researcher may get an overview
of the collections from a site or region quickly and easily by going through
only the diagnostic materials. As space is more available, artifacts are
more likely to be laid out in trays or drawers.  Where non-diagnostics and
diagnostic materials are included in one storage location, generally all are
in boxes, or all are in bags with cards in trays,  with thousands of
artifacts per tray.  Under these conditions it is difficult to  visually
access the collections.

This approach is fiscally more discriminating.  Collections managers are
spending resources where they can be justified in terms of public and
research use.  However, bulk collections are rumored to be visited or used
for research purposes at most once a decade.

If collections are divided in this manner, it is critical that excellent
records of those materials in bulk storage be recorded, inventoried
carefully, and the inventory of these materials be kept with the diagnostic
materials as well as in the main information system.  Ongoing vigilance is
required, as bulk collections may be moved, culled or deaccessioned,
possibily without the knowledge of the curator, causing the pointers in the
diagnostics storage to become out of date.  It is essential that these links
are maintained.

Disadvantages
A researcher re-examining a site archive needs to study all materials and
documentation, not only the materials which were initially judged to be
significant.  By separating the collection into more valued and less valued
portions, the collections manager may be finally separating an artifact from
its context.  Once isolated in better quality storage or in an exhibit it
may never be re-integrated into its site archive.

By making what can be interpreted as a value judgment, curators may be
exposing the bulk collections to a risk of deaccessioning by administrative
personnel who do not have an appreciation for the importance of the materials.
Bulk materials usually gets less quality preventative conservation.  Theymay
be kept in level bags, or stored on acidic bubble pack rather than a
non-acidic medium such as ethafoam.  One institution pads their artifacts
with facial tissues, under the mistaken impression that they are acid free.

In addition to these logistical problems, this arrangement may promote a
continuing interpretation of the site, negating the possibility of a
reassessment.  With this arrangement, we are asked to trust that the
original sort was accurate, that no important artifacts have been missed.
Given the frequent occurrence of formed artifacts in detritus bags, this
assumption is in error.

We are forced to go along with the initial sort, which may have the result
of reinforcing the interpretation already formulated.  If 'noise' artifacts
are consigned to bulk storage by the original researcher, subsequent
research based on those artifacts in high quality storage will likely
reinforce the original analysis.

In many repositories all points were automatically kept in high quality
storage, while the majority of scrapers were consigned to bulk storage with
the flakes. This may reflect a gender bias among previous generations of
archaeological curators who valued points and hunting equipment over
domestic artifacts.  By consigning scrapers to bulk storage, this bias is
perpetrated.

In summary, there are advantages and disadvantages - and much relying on the
fiscal environment.  Has the repository got the resources to curate the
collection as a unit?

In addition, one should consider the legislative environment.  In Canada,
heritage legislation is most commonly found at the provincial level.  In
some provinces there is no requirement to reposit or curate collecitons.  In
one province the legislation has been interpreted to force curation of all
artifact found on the site.  This means every culturally formed object must
be kept by law - even the beer caps and tennis balls found on the surface,
all chipping detritus, however small.  The curation of the massive
collections which result have clogged the curatorial departments of most
repositories and museums, and some archaeologists have been forced to set up
private curation facilities to care for the collections arising from their work.

If any one has managed to read this far, congratulations!

If you have any comment or feedback, I would appreciate hearing from you.

The above is a rough draft of a paper I intend to publish.  Copyright reserved.

Barbara

______________________________________________________

Barbara J. Winter, Curator                            tel: (604) 291-3325
Department of Archaeology                          fax: (604) 291-5666
Simon Fraser University                               email:  [log in to unmask]
Canada  V5A 1S6

"There is no rule; there is only risk of contradiction." U. Eco 1986:xii
(Travels in Hyperreality)
_____________________________________________________