Thanks, Linda Tanaka, for the great teaching example of why it is NOT a
    good idea to renumber artifacts when you change numbering systems.
    (Someone did that here in the 1930's and it has led to considerable
    confusion; sounds like your case is 4 times worse).  We did change from
    sequential numbers to trinomial numbers in 1977, but left the old
    system in place, preceding the new numbering series in the files. In
    computerizing (in Paradox for Windows) there are two data fields for
    the artifact number, named ObjID1 and ObjID2 --the computer keys on
    one, then the other to create a totally sequential list. The earliest
    system numbers (overlaid in the '30's) are recorded in a third data
    field (named 'Other record numbers') which can be searched for a match
    for ANY other number including collector's personal numbering, Univ.
    Inventory numbers, etc....this is probably the best way to handle your
    problem, ....though I'm not familiar Filemaker Pro, it can probably do
    something like this.
          I am frequently asked about converting collections to "new"
    numbering systems. To all who read this...help discourage the practice,
    please, to preserve the sanity of those who come after us!!! (Not to
    mention for the sake of the artifacts!)
 
    Lucy Skjelstad, Director
    The Horner Collections, Oregon State University
    [log in to unmask]