On 1 July 1997, we sent postings to the Archives & Archivists
list, Conservation DistList, and Museum discussion list asking
for advice for our process of associating each of our artifacts
with a unique bar code number. We asked how people would
recommend attaching the bar code label to the object. Also, we
asked whether museum registrars still recommend permanently
marking objects with an accession number (cf. *Museum
Registration Methods*, p. 51-53). Coming at this from an
archival perspective we were wanting to abide by the principle of
never doing something that's irreversible.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to each of you who took the time and thought to reply.
Your answers and experiences can be of help to many of us, I'm
sure. Following is an extract of more than 20 replies submitted
to the three various lists and to me personally [Todd Ellison],
basically in the order received.
William P. Scott, Collections Manager, Mathers Museum
Indiana University Bloomington, "[log in to unmask]" wrote on 1-
JUL-1997: We are in the early planning stages of a similar bar
coding project, and currently use acid free tags as part of our
everyday registration system. Often, it is true, the tags do
not attach easily to certain objects, but they can be
associated. I much prefer cotton string to wire--wire is to
prone to scratching, and with string, you can encircle a small
object easily and safely on a shelf or in a box. When there is
a question of association, one can check the tags with the
numbers on artifacts themselves. It is not a perfect system, but
it has proved itself effective here and at numerous other
museums (including, if I remember correctly, the Field Museum).
Also, I think tags are more effective than the storage boxes
that you mention for artifact tracking since they move with the
objects and since they can be seperated into evelopes in exhibit
files for quick exhibit inventories.
Concerning artifact numbering (labeling on the object, itself),
you may want to look into a semi-permanent system for most
pieces. We use a layer of Soluvar, then the numbers in
permanent ink, then another layer of Soluvar. It is permanent
enough that most people could not remove the number, but is
removable through a simple chemical process. I have a very nice
article about numbering options that addresses most of the
important issues..
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Phelps Curator of Anthropology Houston Museum of
Natural Science "[log in to unmask]" wrote on 2-JUL-1997:
If the bar codes you are working with are the small pieces of
mylar film, they could be attached directly to the object using
Acryloid B-72 (an acrylic resin available from Conservation
Materials, Ltd. 702/331-0582) For textiles you could adhere the
barcode to a small piece of cotton twill tape which is then
stitched to the textile, carefully stitching between the wefts
and around the warp threads.
This is not to rule out the idea of putting the bar codes on the
storage boxes or on object labels or tags (no wire please, cotton
string works on just about everything). During the periodic
inventory process, access to the bar codes without having to
physically handle each object would be great.
Tiny Objects For very tiny or oddly shaped objects, you might put
them in polyethylene bags which can easily be labelled. Not every
material can be safely stored in a sealed bag though so you may
need to punch some ventilation holes. For some things (large
smooth stone objects for example) if they have no place to affix
a tag we might tie a piece of cotton twill tape around the entire
object and then affix a tag to that.
To Mark or Not... I still think it is important to mark each
object "permanently" in some way with the accession # (or
catalogue # or whatever the key # is) so anyone in the future can
track the object back through the institutional registration
records. Despite our best intentions and careful actions,
objects do occasionally become disassociated from their place on
the shelf ,the storage container, or the tag . The number on the
object may be your (or a future staff member's) only clue to what
the object is/where it came from, etc... Permanent marking is a
relative term. Numbers painted on a base layer of B-72 are
soluble with acetone. Textile numbers properly sewn in can be
removed without any evidence they were ever there.
I think the AAM Registrar's Committee has recently done a
workshop on numbering. Also, I know that there was a poster
session on numbering at the American Institute of Conservation
meeting recently. The presenter was: Gayle Clements
Conservator at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa (918) 596-
2780
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn W. Koenig Curator Kitsap County Historical Society
Museum "[log in to unmask]" wrote on 2-JUL-1997: I recently
posted an inquiry about METHODS of applying accession numbers to
artifacts, but got no response. During my internship in college
(about 4 years ago), we painted a small strip of clear nailpolish
on the artifact, then wrote the number with black ink or white
paint (I'm not sure what kind); a top coat of clear polish was
added when dry. One publication I looked at (Registration
Methods, I think) stated that nailpolish is a refined form of
laquer, and is therefore suitable. I have yet to find any
supporting documetation on this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Leake [log in to unmask] wrote: *is your
library circulating? If not, then option one is viable as long as
your public service staff can keep track of items you have in
mind, as for items too small for the string option, why not try
the put the barcode label on the box method?
*the string label ID system works very well for us for many
objects such as cups, models, silverware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Young Conservator, National Air and Space Smithsonian
Institution "[log in to unmask]" wrote on 3-JUL-1997: ...with
our 3d objects we put one barcode on the exterior of the packing
material (i.e. box) so moves can be tracked with out opening
boxes and in addition we are using acid-free tags with strings
and are attaching a smaller barcode to the tag and tying it to
the object, in addition to still permanently marking the object.
We are running a pilot program on this as this is all new to us.
It seems to be working well right now. In addition we are
pursuing barcoding textiles with sewn-in textile cotton barcode
tags, which will work better for uniforms, flags, etc. For
fragile objects where the tag cannot be tied to the object, we
lay the tag (i.e. in a pot) inside the object, and hope it does
not run to far away, but that is why it is most important to
permanently mark the objects in addition.
Hope this is helpful, let me know if you want any more info on
this. Oh, I forgot to mention, the barcode number we use in the
actual catalog number of the object.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim May "[log in to unmask]" wrote on 6-JUL-1997: In your
case, you should also be thinking about how much information you
want on the item. There are codes out there today that will carry
a surprisingly large amount of information. Couple this with a
vinyl or polyethelyne label or tag and you might be in business.
Our business is Bar Code. If you are interested in learning more,
send a reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Jewess Curator Ancient Monuments Laboratory English
Heritage 23 Savile Row London "[log in to unmask]" "C.Jewess"
wrote on 8-JUL-1997 Your post to the conservation discussion
group on bar coding has been passed on to me by a collegue. Here
at the Ancient Monuments Laboratory we have been using bar codes
for recording object locations from about 5 years now and have
found that it has saved us a huge amount of staff time.
We use 2 types of labelling - small adhesive labels and
polypropylene tags for our bar codes. When we started using bar
codes we had to buy a dedicated printer because it was not
easy/cheap to get bar code design packages for ordinary printers
and this influenced the type of labels we could use. The printer
is a thermal transfer model so the carbon on the ribbon is heat-
bonded onto the labels and tags.
The labels are high quality paper with a syntheic adhesive. Since
we cannot guarentee the content of either the paper or adhesive
these labels are only ever applied to the outside of boxes and
used for recording accession numbers or individual box numbers.
The vast majority of the material analysised the the AML is
archaeological and therefore too small to have labels tied to it.
It is also bagged individually. The accession details and bar
code for each number can be printed on a polyproylene tag and the
tag placed in the bag with the object. We are much happier doing
this than using labels on cards because the polypropylene will
outlast the paper and there is no danger of the adhesive failing
and the label falling off the card. The printed tags are fairly
robust - we have even soaked them in PEG and then freeze-dried
them successfully.
If you want more information on this work you can read about it
on our WWW page at 'http://www.eng-h.gov.uk'.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On the Conservation DistList Wednesday, July 9, 1997
Instance: 11:7, there were two replies--
Barbara Appelbaum <[log in to unmask]>, who evidently had not
been able to get a grasp of the nature of this particular project
from our brief posting (accession numbers and bar code numbers
are two different issues for us) wrote on 3 Jul 97: I can't
give an answer to the questions on the barcode issue, but it
certainly is a case study in how not to make decisions. What was
the point of initiating a barcoding project without deciding in
advance how it would relate to normal object marking protocols?
[Note: in our case, we need to assign a bar code number for each
catalog record-- we are cataloging our artifacts on the College's
online catalog so we need a bar code for each artifact. Todd
Ellison.] The idea for museum objects, and, I assume, archival
ones as well, is that marking should not be easily reversible,
either on purpose or by accident. Tying on paper tags might seem
less troublesome than marking objects directly, but the ties fall
off and, if an object is stolen, it is certainly very easy to
hide its origins. *If* very small objects are not to be labelled
directly, in whatever manner, then this is a policy of the
collection and needs to be discussed in terms of all of its
ramifications. It is difficult to understand how barcoding can
take the place of "normal" accession numbering systems [we didn't
say it would!] if the barcodes will only be applied to the boxes.
I know that very often institutional decisions are made without
consulting the very people who will be most influenced by them,
but tactically speaking, it make be better over the long term to
make the decision-making process be the subject of discussion
rather than expend a great deal of time and energy attempting to
administer a flawed or inappropriate system.
AND J. Claire Dean Dean & Associates Conservation Services
Portland, OR<[log in to unmask]> wrote on 3 Jul 97 wrote: With
regard to Todd Ellison's request for ideas on marking objects, it
is worth noting that objects that have been "permanently" marked
(in our tradition of marking objects in collections), and that
are due to be repatriated under the terms of NAGPRA, have posed
some problems of removal. Many Native American communities
object to objects having been numbered and now request that the
marking be removed as part of the repatriation process. This
underlines the need for us to use methods of marking that can be
safely and easily reversed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On the Conservation DistList Thursday, July 10, 1997
Instance: 11:8, there were again two replies-- Helena Jaeschke
Archaeological Conservator <[log in to unmask]> wrote on: 10
Jul 97: Following the debate on barcoding objects, a recent
product from security firms may provide a new approach worth
developing.
Alpha-Dot is a lacquer containing microdots with a unique PIN
number which can be painted onto a concealed area of an object.
The dots are described as barely visible and only a tiny amount
of varnish containing one or two dots is required for the object
to be identifiable. The dots are decoded by an electronic
reader. At present the kit costs 24.95 pounds sterling in the UK
and the company telephone number is +4 345 573329.
The idea was developed for home security. The owner purchases a
kit, paints a small splash of varnish on each valuable item and
registers a splash of their varnish (with the PIN number) with
the company. Obviously this is not entirely suited to museum use
(though it would be very useful in the case of the theft) but
could be developed to provide a museum with a series of PIN
numbers for individual object identification.
In the cases of repatriation it is worth remembering that an item
may be stolen from its new home and an irreversible means of
identification could be vital to prevent its subsequent sale on
the art market. This peril has been clearly demonstrated in Mali
and Nigeria where returned items have hardly been placed in the
museum case of their new home before they have been stolen and
vanished via auction into private collections. Whilst reverence
is due to an item of a religious nature or human remains, the
museum labelling may help to protect it in future. If the
labelling is not offensively conspicuous then I would strongly
urge that it be retained. If it is too obvious (as sometimes
happens with items numbered at the turn of the century) then it
should be resited in a more discreet area.
AND Annie Armour University of the South Sewanee, Tennessee
37383<[log in to unmask]> wrote on 10 Jul 97: I read several
years ago about how the "Biltmore" was barcoding museum objects.
I can't even remember the magazine I saw it in. At any rate,
they probably have more reliable information now that they've
been doing it for awhile. Contact them. They'd probably be
happy to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***The Museum list posting brought much discussion, which led
into a discussion about storing small objects in bags, as
follows.
Janice Klein The Field Museum Chair, RC-AAM
[log in to unmask] wrote on 1 Jul 1997: The Registrars
Committee has a professional practices sub-committee on object
marking which recently held a full- day workshop on the subject
at the AAM meeting in Atlanta. We will also be sponsoring a
session on bar-codes and microdots in Los Angeles. We are also
(also) revising Museum Registration Methods with a truly terrific
chapter on object marking by Terry Segal from the Detroit
Institute of Arts. MRM is due out next spring. In the meantime,
information about object marking (and bar codes) can be obtained
from the chair of the subcommittee, Marianna Munyer, Curator of
Collections, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Historic
Sites Division, 1 Old State Capitol, Springfield IL 62701.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Dawson David Dawson, Outreach Manager, Museum
Documentation Association 67 Spring Street, Chipping Norton,
Oxfordshire, England, wrote on 2 Jul 1997 : We have a labelling
and marking factsheet on our website that looks at recommended
ways of marking objects. WEB PAGES -
http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Lane, Curatorial Assistant, Museum of York County, Rock
Hill, SC [log in to unmask] wrote on 2 Jul 1997: You might
consider putting small objects into polyethylene zipper bags and
affixing the label to the outside; but many objects should not be
sealed in completely, so we either use a paper punch to ventilate
the bag or leave a bit of the seal undone.
The important word there is "permanently." This does not mean
"irreversibly." We use the layer of B72, permanent ink, top
layer of B72 method, which I understand is removeable. If, as
is all too possible, your object becomes disassociated from its
box, bag or tag, you will have to have something on the object
itself to let you know what it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Humphrey, Collections Data Manager, Anthropology
Dept, National Museum of Natural History Smihsonian Institution,
[log in to unmask] wrote on 2 Jul 199: The AAM Registrar's
Committee sponsored a workshop on marking collections during the
1997 conference in Atlanta. Topics covered included labels,
attachments, pens, inks and barcodes. A sourcebook was produced
containing articles on these topics. Contact the Committee or the
workshop Chair (Marianna Munyer, Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency, Fax:217-785-8117, tel: 217-785 5056) for information on
obtaining a copy. I highly recommend this manual-particularly
because it contains Helen Alten's excellent review of materials
and products used for "marking" objects. As for attaching barcode
labels, the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution
barcoded the collections (about two millon items) as part of our
move to a new storage facility. We related the barcode tag to the
artifact in a variety o f ways, depending on the type of
artifact: archival string tags tied onto the item, as a gummed
label placed on the outside of a box, placed in a box with the
item, in a zip lock bag with the item, on a synthetic "sleeve"
slipped over the shaft of a spear etc... These labels are
considered supplemental, for tracking and inventorying the
artifacts, and DO NOT replace writing the number on the artifact
itself. If the label is misplaced, the artifact may still be
identified by the "permanent" number on the artifact.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Pathe, Assistant Collection Manager, History &
Technology Collections Museum of Victoria, Australia,
<[log in to unmask]>, wrote on 3 Jul 1997: Here at the Museum
of Victoria, Australia, the majority of our barcodes are attached
to the objects acid free tag. With documents the barcode is
attached to the poly envelope that the document is stored in. If
a tag cannot be tied to an object then it is stored with the
object.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Nicholson, Curator of Collections, Museum of the
South Dakota, State Historical Society, Pierre,
[log in to unmask], wrote on 3 Jul 1997: While there is
absolutely nothing wrong with putting small objects in zipper
bags and numbering the bags, allow me to suggest the following
(true) scenario:
Object is too small (apparently) to number. Object gets put in
small bag with number on bag. Object then goes on exhibit, sans
bag. Object is stolen off exhibit. How do you then prove
ownership in the unlikely event the object is recovered?
(Enterprising thieves may indeed try to erase the number on small
object, but in my experience, you never entirely remove the
evidence.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gutenkauf (wearing my Registrars hat today)
[log in to unmask] wrote on (3 Jul 1997: One proves
ownership using one's accession files. If the object is well
documented with clear descriptive information and perhaps a
photograph or two, and one can document that the object was both
on exhibit at one's institution and no longer in one's
possession, then one has proof of ownership. Your insurance
provider will attest to this. It's not easy to number tiny
objects, but I've yet to meet an object so small that I can't
write a number on it somewhere. Although there are a f= ew types
of objects that some registrars do not number (coins and stamps
come to mind.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Shelton, Director, Collections Care and Conservation
President-Elect, Society for the Preservation of Natural History
Collections <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Re the practice of
putting objects in bags and then punching holes in those bags:
DON'T! The idea that some objects need to "breathe" is an old
curator's tale. We had this discussion at the recent course on
anoxic enclosures and microenvironments course in Santa Fe. When
you punch a hole, you no longer have a bag or any real physical
protection for the object. You have a piece of plastic with a
hole in it that looks like, but does not act like, a bag. As
people in the NPS found out the hard way, this is especially
disastrous in a flood. It's also bad news in a pest infestation.
If you need to bag the object, take the time and trouble
(minimal) to find out if you have an archivally acceptable
plastic or not. Then put the object in the bag and close it. No
holes. No punches. No nothing to get in the way of the bag giving
you that little physical protection.
I'm not sure where the idea that some objects suffer if they
don't have air-holes started (live grasshopper collections at
summer camp, maybe? ;-)), but it's just not true. They're not
alive. Most of the stuff we work with can be left in anoxic
conditions for a long time with no perceptible damage. If the
object is highly reactive in a microenvironment, then you need
another strategy besides bagging. In no case should you make
holes in bags for museum storage. Leave the hole punches in the
desk. Let the bag do its job.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Lavrencic, Collections Manager, Historic Houses Trust
of New South Wales, <[log in to unmask]> , wrote on 4 Jul
1997: The idea of not completely sealing paper items in plastic
enclosures came from research that the Library of Congress
undertook in the late 70s/early80s. Their research showed that
acidic paper deteriorated more rapidly if completely encapsulated
(ie. no gaps) than unencapsulated paper, hence the recommendation
that paper be deacidified before encapsulating and that gaps be
left at the corners of the encapsulate. However from the point
of disaster prevention (potential water damage) it is preferable
to seal objects completely in archival quality enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Lane, Curatorial Assistant Museum of York County, SC
wrote again: We have very few objects too small to number. The
bag would serve the same purpose as a tie-on tag - and in this
case as a vehicle for the bar-code label. I am well aware of the
propensity for objects to get shed of their numbers at the
slightest excuse and go off to party together in the nude,
incognito.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia S. Anastasiadis, Curator, Richard Nixon Library &
Birthplace, Yorba Linda, CA , [log in to unmask], wrote on 7 Jul 1997:
Yeah, those small objects always complain about their bags; they
get too sweaty. But seriously, this discussion about marking has
reach great heights. I am soo glad to hear that we don't have to
put a hole in the bag anymore. The more we outlive our elders,
the more we can debunk the old theories. True about photography,
if you are able to keep good records and photography of your
objects, then you have great proof of ownership. If you cannot
afford photography of every item, a good description of the
object as well as its condition report would enormously help in
identifying your wayward nude little friend.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Baulch, Collections Manager, Anthropology and History
Division Texas Memorial Museum, Austin,
<[log in to unmask]> , wrote on 11 Jul 1997: I can think
of one really good reason to not seal a bag: multiple materials
that hate each other like patent models made of oak, rubber and
metal. Seal that bag and you are setting up a situation where
the off-gassing of the rubber and wood eat at the metal. Sure
it's going to happen, but why speed up the process? Also I have
found "archival polyethylene" bags purchased in the 80s that are
sticky and/or yellowing. Do you trust your plastic know-how?
About the tags...just a brainstorm for someone to debunk. B-72
is also used as a glue. Could you stick the dot or tag onto an
object using this reversible acryloid? Theoretically you are
sealing the object surface away from what you are attaching...but
would that be enough to keep one metal from contributing to the
other's rust? If the object is a textile, could you perforate
the side of the metal tag to sew to cloth tape and then attach it
to the textile?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori M. Garst Registrar Biltmore Estate Asheville, NC
28801, "[log in to unmask]" "Lori Garst" wrote on 15-JUL-1997:
I am the Registrar at Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North
Carolina. In the past, we have used barcodes to number our
objects. We printed the barcodes on mylar and attached them
directly to the object with a reversible glue. To make a long
story short.we are no longer using the barcodes because they
routinely fell off of the objects!!! When this occurred, we were
left with no accession number on the object and impossible record
keeping.
Our primary concern was to adhere the barcodes in a reversible
manner. We tried several different adhesives and isolating
layers, all which failed after 1-3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
***This topic had been discussed on the Archives list previously
(starting on 20-July 1992), as pertains to barcoding books and
other items, not artifacts--
One reply back then was: David Malone Wheaton College
Archives and Spec. Coll. <[log in to unmask]> wrote: At
the Wheaton College Archives and Special Collections we utilize a
3"x10" acid-free card, to which is attached the bib info and the
barcode. It the book and the card are ever permanently separated
we simply do a replace function and give it a new barcode. We
never attach a barcode to a work physicaaly, except for
videotapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
***A very rough summary of others' responses in 1992-1993 is as
follows-- Several Special Collections repositories wrote that
they chose not to use the barcode stickers--at Arizona State
Univ. in Tempe the bar code number is entered as part of the
online catalog record only, and was never attached to the book.
Others, such as Texas Tech U.'s Southwest Collection, planned to
place the barcode stickers on acid-free lignin-free markers in
their books and on cards for manuscript collections--or (as at
Southwest Texas State University) on ident-a-strips on books or
in a steno notebook for manuscripts collections. Others (Univ.
of Louisville) put the barcodes on the back of the shelving
slips.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Again, many thanks for your replies to our query.
*********************************************************
Todd Ellison, Archivist and Associate Professor
Center of Southwest Studies Ph.: 970/247-7126
Fort Lewis College FAX: 970/247-7422
1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO 81301-3999
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web site: http://academic.fortlewis.edu/~ellison_t/
|
