Getting back to the original question:

Nick works just down the hall from me, so I gave him my response in person,
figuring that it would be reiterated by others on the list.  Since I've seen
my opinion sort of danced around but not completely repeated, here's my
original response:

The purpose of any (scholarly) citation system is to allow someone to go
back and replicate your work.  The complex listings for books, manuscripts,
magazines, newspapers, etc. in the writer's manuals establishes a formula
for presenting that information with as much detail as possible in a
reasonably compact form.  With that in mind, my response to Nick was to cite
the holding institution (or person), collection name (if applicable), and
accession or catalog number.  If the institution's policy is to identify
donors, then include that as well, otherwise, it's up to you (assuming you
have that information).  Basically, as much information as possible to allow
someone who wants to see that artifact in person to find it with a minimum
of fuss.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerrie Clarke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: citations for artifacts


Once again the conversation has grown bigger than the question and has taken
a slight turn; ....

About captions in published works, I agree with David they should include at
least the name of the Collection, which is usually the donors name.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).