In response to Ken Perry's <[log in to unmask]> request:
>This is to inquire about the status of the Accession Book in museum
>record keeping. It has been recommended by one of our staff to abandon
>keeping this book in favor of computerized records with a hard copy work
>sheet.  The worksheet information would be entered into the computer.
>I would like to get some feedback as to making a fundmental change such
>as this.

I could not agree more with the responses from Janice Klein and Pat
Reynolds.  I see the role of the accession register primarily as
evidence for audit and accountability purposes.  If that evidence is to
be considered reliable, then surely it is essential that future
generations have absolute confidence that they are seeing the _original_
record of acquisition plus a clear audit trail of any subsequent
amendments.

Re-writable digital storage media give no such safeguard.  Write Once /
Read Many times (WORM) data storage might appear to offer a solution but
as far as I am aware, there is at present no digital storage medium
which can offer the longevity of paper records.  Even if such a medium
emerges, can we be sure that the equipment to read back the data will be
readily available in 500 or 1,000 years time?  How many of us can now
read the 8 inch floppy disks of the first generation desktop computers?

Since digital data has such a short shelf life (in archival terms), it
must be constantly recopied and passed on to new storage media.  Until
we have an absolutely reliable means of watermarking data to prevent
changes (malicious or accidental) during this process, can digitised
data really be trusted for audit purposes?  The misplaced skills of
forging paper documents are being supplanted by new skills of hacking
through digital security systems, so I question whether we will ever be
able to rely on computer storage media for audit purposes.

Certainly, it seems to me that with our present technology there is
simply no reliable alternative to paper.  As both Janice and Pat clearly
state, a pre-printed bound accession book is the only type of document
which cannot be changed without leaving a record of that change.  A
skilled forger might, given the opportunity, manage to do it but this
seems far less likely than tampering with digital data.

So I strongly urge people to stick with the traditional high quality
bound ledger using archival quality paper, sewn binding, pre-printed,
numbered pages and completed with permanent black ink.  Keep it in a
fireproof safe, make a security copy (ideally microfilm or fiche) and
store this on another site (this backup copy might arguably be in
digitised format, I would be interested in hearing views on this).  Do
not handle the original other than for audit purposes (a photocopy might
be useful if you need to consult the register for other reasons).  Note
any significant subsequent changes (e.g. loss or disposal) by adding
clear annotations, dated and signed.  Do not obliterate the original
entry or remove pages.

Keeping a manuscript register up to date can be a painful chore, and is
easily put off in favour of seemingly higher priorities (to my undying
shame, at one museum I left my successor a nine year backlog to write up
- although I did leave a legacy of improved documentation overall and I
have now seen the error of my ways!).  Pat's suggestion of using
computerised data to generate a printed register is one way round this
but as she says the printed pages must be permanently bound as soon as
possible.  This technique can be an ideal way of creating an accession
register for a large and previously unaccessioned backlog.  It may not
be so good for ongoing acquisitions where the growth rate is slow.  I
suggest that if you do not accumulate enough pages within a year to
justify binding, then you should stick with a traditional manuscript
register.

I have written at some length on this subject because it is something
which worries me.  I sense a disturbing change in the attitude of the
profession toward the traditional accession register.  Here in the UK
our Museums & Galleries Commission has recently relaxed the guidelines
for their museum registration scheme.  They now allow the accession
register to be computerised.  Admittedly they qualify this by stating
that where accession information is wholly computerised it should be
supported by a copy of key accession information produced in an
alternative medium which meets proven archival standards.  So in reality
the change is not so radical as it first appears.  However, for the
reasons outlined above, I cannot accept that a computer file can be a
satisfactory accession register.  For me, the primary source is still
the paper copy and they don't sufficiently stress the need to bind these
permanently and treat them as an inviolable archive.  As a result, I
feel that they are creating a loophole to be exploited by lazy curators
like me (see above).

Can anyone produce a convincing counter argument?  Despite everything I
have said, I would still like to find a safe alternative!  Could someone
give an auditor's perspective on this?  I have heard of supposedly
secure audit systems based on duplicate loose-leaf registers, one copy
held by the museum and one by an independent auditor.  This dual key
approach might be extended to magnetic media, although accidental
corruption of one copy would engender suspicion of deliberate tampoering
whilst collusion between museum and audit agency would easily circumvent
the system.  Any thought on this?

My apologies for making my second long posting in two days!

Stuart
------
Stuart Holm, Heritage Documentation Projects     Tel: +44 1603 870772
2 New Road, Reepham, Norwich NR10 4LP, UK     E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-------------   World Wide Web - http://www.holm.demon.co.uk   -------------