MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Gerrard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:03:56 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Melissa,

I agree you need to place some indication on the file of what the situation
was when you arrived.  If for no other reason than to begin the forensic
audit trail.  I experienced something similar in my job.  We operate several
museums which were formerly operated by local history societies prior to our
creation in 1960.  At which point the entire collection was re-accessioned
with 1960.XX.XX numbers.  Over the last decade we have located previously
unknown, and often unconventional, collection documentation, which has
allowed us to re-construct the provenance (and legal title - a different
series of headaches!) of these earlier museum collections.

I suggest you start by stating what is there, what should be there, and what
you think happened to what is missing.  Be clear in the record to separate
fact (a chair with this number is in storage) from your expert opinion (a
chair which closely matches this description is in storage, or I believe has
been deaccessioned to XX based on the following evidence).  It is slow,
labor-intensive detective work.  If possible question those directly
involved, but always interpret their evidence with caution - eye witnesses
are notorious for being wrong, unless supported by physical evidence
(documentation, photographs, etc.).

Richard Gerrard
Registrar
Heritage Toronto

Melissa L Heyman wrote:

> please excuse the cross postings
>
> Dear colleagues,
> I am in the midst of a post-deaccession mess and am seeking advice on
> proper documentation.
>
> The following is a summary of the situation:
> Museum staff reviewed the collections for objects to deaccession, sorting
> them into categories (items that needed more research, items to be
> returned to collections storage and items for review by the deaccession
> committee.)
> After the curator left the museum, the categories were consolidated,
> accession numbers were removed, some items were returned to storage and
> some items were sold (without review of the committee.)  None of these
> transactions were documented.
> After coming on staff I completed a full inventory of the collections,
> created a computerized database, and determined which items were probably
> sold or disposed of.
>
> At this point I would like to put some form of documentation in the
> accession files for the items that I suspect were "deaccessioned" -- and
> am wondering how I can best document their removal "after the fact."
>
> Thank you in advance for any information/advice that you can forward.
> Please send your thoughts to [log in to unmask]  I look forward
> to hearing from some of you.
>
> Melissa Heyman
> Museum Curator
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2