At 01:26 PM 12/3/96 -0500, Sally Baulch wrote:

>In article <[log in to unmask]>, "Robert A.
>Baron" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I've run into situations in which a multi-part item (portfolio, teaset,
>> etc.) is donated in parts -- a year at a time.  For these items the
>> numbering system proposed above does not work well because the accession
>> number scheme attempts to track two potentially dispirate concepts: date of
>> acquisition and acquisition group.  For this reason, in one collection
>> management system I built, I provided for a separate group number.  The
>> accession number was left to record the logic of attribution and items were
>> united by reference to a group number that could be attached to any number
>> of items.  If the group number is recorded in a multi-valued field, it can
>> also be used to track groups within groups.  When using the group number,
>> the first entry would catalogue the group name and successive entries, e.g.
>> 1996.50.1, 1996.50.2 would define the parts.  In addition, accessories
>> associated with the group, a case or a frame can also be catalogued in this
>> way.  A query for Ben Shahn Portfolio would produce the top number
>> (1996.50) and a subsequent query for 1996.50.* would bring up every item in
>> the group.
>
>I may be missing the point.  If you wanted to find your Ben Shahn
>material, wouldn't you perform a find in the Artist field.  And if you
>wanted to find material donated by a certain person, wouldn't you perform
>a find in the Donor field?  I think there are enough numbers in the world
>already.  Finding aids in your catalog and donor cards and on your
>computer (country, maker, object type, etc.) should eliminate the need for
>layers of numbers.  Your computer can also find multiple fields (ex. donor
>and object type).
>
>And don't forget the power of the mind.  A certain institution transferred
>material from one donor to us at four different times.  After being here a
>year, I knew by heart three of those numbers (and we have 2600+ accession
>groupings.)  After three years, I can list many of the objects in those
>transfers (not all 1000 though).
>
>Sally Baulch
>Collections Manager
>Anthropology and History Division
>Texas Memorial Museum
>
>PS I favor having a collection number, an individual number denoting a
>group, and then a part designation.  We do employ the alphabet to list
>individual parts and usually don't end up with alphabet soup (with a few
>exceptions.)  My closest example would be Curtis prints that were grouped
>by the artist into 20 portfolios.  Each portfolio got a number and then
>each photo was assigned a letter (1192-69 A: collection number, object
>number, part letter).  We've kept the same accessioning system as was
>decided upon when the Museum opened.  It's not my favorite, but it works.
>I cringe when someone numbers one shoe 1996.1.1 and the other 1996.1.2.
>

I believe that Sally IS missing the point.  She tracks series and accession
numbers as a single entity, whereas I suggest breaking them apart for
continuity and logic.  The examples she provides do, indeed, show that
there are some circumstances when an independent numbering system for
series objects is redundant.  But when one must link objects that have no
common thread save that they belong in a collection, queries by maker name,
collector name or other criteria tend to fail.  For example, a portfolio of
engravings published as a unit may contain works by several artists.  The
common thread is the Portfolio name, editor, publisher, etc.  Some database
systems can support multiple levels of object names, but simpler systems
must identify the group by other methods.  Numbering systems here are
useful if not elegant.

Sally brings up a more important point, that is, the importance of memory
when working with collections.  While no collection manager can work well
without having an intimate knowledge of the collection, and certainly will
have memorized the accession numbers and other data pertaining to key
objects, the science of systematics is predicated on the fact that
knowledge of collections is fleeting.  People die, and with them pass into
the ether important bodies of knowledge.  A good documentation system
encourages collection managers and curators to document their knowledge so
that others after them will be able to take advantage of their accumulated
knowledge and expertise.

I know of a university museum with a collection of around 35 thousand
objects that has no object location and storage data preserved in files.
The collection managers just know where any object is to be found -- most
often.  Such a collection is in a precarious state of documentation,
dependent upon the availability of the individuals who know it.  Memory may
be fine for everyday needs, but documentation is needed for the eternity.




===========================
Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93
Larchmont, NY 10538 (USA)
[log in to unmask]