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:
Mark Clayton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:26:10 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Paul Eisloeffel wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> Marni Welsch of the Judah L. Magnes Museum, Berkeley, CA, inquired about
> integrating the registration and cataloging functions of archival and
> artifact collections.  I've had the fortune of having done some work along
> those lines.  Take a look at AASLH Technical Leaflet #179, "Archival
> Materials in the History Museum: A Strategy for Their Management" (1992), by
> Lisa Gavin and me.  Lisa and I experimented with an integrated collections
> managment system at the Kansas City Museum (Kansas City, MO) with great
> success.  We later found that other institutions were struggling with the
> same dilemma.  And so they should:  The traditional rift between archives
> and museum collections management techniques is based on a mutual
> misunderstanding of the others' needs.  True, there ARE differences --
> archival collections DO require arrangement and desciption, weeding,
> preservation copying, etc., that museum artifacts do not.  But all the
> differences kick in AFTER the basic collections management functions of
> accessioning and cataloging (and here I'm using the museum definition of
> "cataloging") take place.  After all, archival materials and artifacts are
> collected from the same sources, according to the same mission statement,
> are often interrelated, are stored and managed under the same conditions,
> and are used by the collecting institution for its common outreach and
> interpretive programs -- why shouldn't they come into the institution
> through the same procedural door?  The traditional rift has no relevance any
> longer, especially with automation at our disposal and the material
> culturists telling us that objects can be "read" just like documents can.
>
> Can you tell I'm a bit passionate about this?!  I'd welcome the chance to
> kick ideas around with anyone.  And, Happy New Year!
>
> Paul Eisloeffel
> Curator of Manuscripts and Audio-Visual Collections
> Nebraska State Historical Society
> P.O. Box 82554
> Lincoln, NE  68501
> (402) 471-4750
> [log in to unmask]

Paul,

My staff are struggling with this same dilemma although I happen to
share your perception that the differences are more imagined than real.
We will next month begin transferring our archival and artefact
collections to a single database which, as you can well imagine, has
generated much discussion about language and classification.

How can I get a copy of that article which you co-authored?

Mark Clayton
Executive Director
Hawke's Bay Cultural Trust
Box 248
Napier
New Zealand

ATOM RSS1 RSS2