I would use one number as the 'primary' accession record, and note on
the second (and most recent) that this number was allocated in error.

However, if the object came into the museum as two different accessions,
then the two accessions should stand in their own right, and be treated
as related records, but with different database records.

In article <v01530500af3cbd1cff91@[128.135.89.18]>, "Education
Department, Smart Museum" <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Has anyone tackled the accessioning dilemma that crops up when a fragment
>is accessioned individually from the larger piece it came from?
>
>We have a Hellenistic statue of a girl with one accession number and the
>bird that broke off her arm was accessioned as a lone fragment.  NOW the
>two have been reunited again.
>
>Does anyone have any ideas of how to accurately catalog the object still
>maintaining the clarity of records in a database?
>
>MCS

David Dawson                    email: [log in to unmask]
- - - - - - -
Outreach Manager, Museum Documentation Association
67 Spring Street, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, OX7 5NN : telephone 01608
645576
- - - NEW ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS FOR MAIN OFFICE - - -
MDA, Jupiter House, Station Road, Cambridge, CB1 2JD
Tel: (+44) 1223 315760 Fax: (+44) 1223 362521
- - - - SEE OUR WEB PAGES - http://www.open.gov.uk/mdocassn/index.htm - - - - -