Posts on ratios of staff to objects have lead to the following, rambling thoughts: The ratio of conservators to objects does, I think, vary from subject area to subject area. Perhaps it _is_ possible to say how many conservator-hours are needed for works of art on paper rarely consulted, or stable geological specimens, or mammals subject to 1,000 visitors per day handling ... The ration of curators/interpreters/educators to objects (taking the sets/ fragments problems into account) seems to me to be class-based. If the rich made it/used it, then it needs a lot of curation, if it was used by the servants or made by the poor, then it doesn't. Or rather, it does, but the funding just isn't there. Or to put it another way: should the monetary value placed on an object be an indicator of the ammount of curatorial time it deserves? What other mechanisism are used to determine which objects are more equal than others? Linda Tanaka said that visitor numbers were not as important to her question as the staff-object ratios. The staff-supporting population ratio is perhaps as important as staff-object. Finally: how many museums can say how many objects they have? With fine art, it's easy: you look at each painting or sketch and count one, two, ... With archaeology you look at a thousand tesserae and say 'is that one or a thousand?' Then, you may have no complete listing of your objects..... And what if you _know_ you don't have the material culture of a particular group - so you have a curator out there collecting - 1 staff member to no objects! -- Patricia Reynolds Keeper of Social History, Buckinghamshire County Museum / Freelance Curator 16 Gibsons Green Heelands Milton Keynes MK13 7NH ENGLAND [log in to unmask]