various kinds of sites, features, and materials must be
represented in sufficient, yet practical, quantities to al-
low meaningful comparisons. Because the nature of the
sample collected by cultural resource management pro-
jects is driven largely by development needs, the repre-
sentation problem for curated collections becomes one
of relating accumulating individual collections to a long-
range plan based on long-term research needs.

Defining the composition of a representative sample is
fraught with difficulties, but is not entirely impossible.
Categories must be used to structure the sample, and any
sampling plan will need to consider various categorical
levels, such as kinds of sites, contexts, (e.g., features,)
and artifacts/samples. Definition of representative sam-
ples of site types has been accomplished successfully in
certain regions, as Glassow (1977:414) demonstrates. He
also makes the important point that the criteria for defin-
ing categories must transcend as much as possible the
restrictions of current archeological concerns and biases.
The problem of assuring representativeness when blind
sampling is necessary is discussed by Dunnell (1984:71-
72). He suggests that a spatial frame of reference can
provide an independent control.

A complementary problem inherent in obtaining repre-
sentative samples is determining the proportions of the
categories. This can present difficulties when samples
must be drawn from numerous, broadly distributed re-
sources as well as rare or localized occurrences (Dunnell
1984:72). For example, in the hierarchical settlement
systems of complex societies, large sites with rich depos-
its form a small proportion of the sites in a region. Yet,
given the diversity of materials and data potential of these
sites, a strong argument could be made for curating
collections from a larger proportion of such sites than
other types of sites. There also may be multiple reasons,
ie., scientific, humanistic, educational, and artistic, to
curate the aesthetically and culturally significant artifacts
that often are found at such sites. Such artifacts merit
special consideration for scientific reasons because of the
wide variety of information that can be derived from
them (Brown 1982:181-183).

Aneven larger problem in defining samples is the inability
to predict the kinds of biases that future researchers will
discover, even in the collections resulting from today’s
most carefully designed data collection strategies. While
it is not possible to predict the future, it is possible to
evaluate the past. To not correct existing recognizable
biases in the curated data bank is counterproductive.
Such biases severely limit the kinds of research problems
that presently can be addressed with collections, and
these limitations are apt to become more profound over
time. As was discussed above, periodic review and evalu-
ation of collections is necessary to identify and correct
biases so that collections management becomes respon-
sive to new information and changing research needs. An
important component of a review and evaluation process
is comparison of the curated sample with the overall
composition of the archeological record.

The New York State Museum’s
Collections: A Case Study of the
Present Sample

A logical beginning place for developing plans aimed at
better managing collections is to determine the nature of
the sample of the archeological record presently repre-
sented in curated collections. The nature of the present
sample generally is unknown, largely because of prob-
lems in collections accessibility. A chronic problem in the
management of archeological collections has been access
to information about what is in a particular institution’s
collections. This situation is beginning to change as mu-
seums are being required to become more accountable
for their activities, and as the information management
capabilities of modern computers are applied to collec-
tions management. Support from programs such as the
NSF Systematic Anthropological Collections Program is
also a critical element of this change.

An NSF-sponsored collections inventory recently under-
taken by the NYSM provided an opportunity to assess the
nature of the curated sample of archeological material
held by that institution Gullivan 1987, 1989). The pri-
mary goal of the collections inventory was to make these
collections more accessible for research, but the com-
piled data on collections composition also allowed rec-
ognition of information gaps.

The NYSM is a 150-year-old institution that has been
“home” to a number of distinguished archeologists, in-
cluding Arthur C. Parker, M. R. Harrington, and William
A. Ritchie, who made collections that are still curated by
the museum. It also serves as the repository for collec-
tions resulting from many cultural resource management
related projects. The archeological collections include an
estimated 1,000,000 objects and associated records with
statewide coverage. As such, the NYSM archeological
collections are the most extensive for the State of New
York, and represent a century and a half of archeological
research in the Northeast (Sullivan et al. 1990).

The representativeness of the State Museum’s collections
in relation to present knowledge of the nature of archeo-
logical resources in the State was assessed by asking the
following questions. How well do the curated materials
represent the archeological resources of the geographic
region, i.e., the State of New York, from which the
museum curates collections? Are all the known types of
sites included? In what proportions? At what level of
recording/investigation? How well are the investigations
documented? Currently it is neither feasible to compile
precise statistics nor to directly compare the contents of
the NYSM collections with expected distributions of
archeological resources in various regions of the State,

but several patterns are suggested by the inventory data.

A series of maps and graphs showing collection distribu-
tions by geographic area, time period, and volume serve
to illustrate the extent of coverage of the NYSM collec-



The following general guidelines for research collections
acquisition are proposed for consideration:

1) Define the geographic area(s) that is encompassed by
the repository’s mission and accept materials only from.
that area;

(2) Assess the present coverage of the area in terms of
space, time, kind, and quali

@) Define priorities for acquisition based on the present
character of the collection, the institutional mission, and
gaps perceived in the database;

(4 Question whether potential new collections contrib-
ute to the information base being developed;

(S) Refuse to accept collections that have severe spatial
sampling, materials recovery, or documentation problems;

(©) Develop standards and guidelines for collections
preparation that must be followed by archeologists plan-
ning to have the repository curate collections; and

(@) Stay informed as to projects being done in the de-
fined collecting area while actively seeking those collec-
tions that fit identified priorities.

Developing plans to guide growth and content of curated
archeological collections can be a complex process, but
the lack of such plans will perpetuate the curation crisis.
Some collections will be preserved to the detriment of
others without regard to research needs and information
potential. If there is to be a future for the past, research
collections must be built with adequate and appropriate
consideration of long-term information needs.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was read at the 1990 annual meeting
of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference in Mobile, AL.
Veletta Canouts provided the encouragement to discuss these
issues in a national forum, She also served as chief critic and editor.
Francis P. McManamon, Michael K. Trimble, and seven anonymous
reviewers read carlier drafts and made many helpful suggestions.
Lisa Anderson, of the New York State Museum’s Anthropological
Survey, prepared Figures 1 and 3. The support of the National
Science Foundation for the inventory of the New York State
Museum's archeological collections under Grants BNS-8709135
and BNS-8907268 also is gratefully acknowledged.

References Cited

Bender, Susan J., and Edward V. Curtin

1990 A Prehistoric Context for the Upper Hudson Valley: Report of the Survey and Planning Project. Report submitted to the
New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation by the Dept. of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work,

Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY.

Brown, James A.

1981 The Potential of Systematic Collections for Archacological Research. In The Research Potential of Anthropological
Museum Collections, edited by Anne-Marie E, Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild, pp. 65-77. The New York

Academy of Sciences, New York.

1982 On the Structure of Artifact Typologies. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by Robert Whallon and James A.
Brown, pp. 176-189. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston, IL.

Burcaw, G. Ellis

1975 Introduction to Museum Work. The American Association for State and Local History, Nashville.

Cantwell, Anne-Marie, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild, editors
1981 The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Carnet, Carol

1991 Legal Background of Archeological Resources Protection. Technical Brief No.1, Archeological Assistance Division,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Christenson, Andrew L.

1979 The Role of Museums in Cultural Resource Management. American Antiquity 44(1):161-163.

Dunnell, Robert C.

1984 The Ethics of Archaeological Significance Decisions.

pp. 62-74. The Free Press, New York.

n Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Ernestene L. Green,

Engelbrecht, William, Lynn Ceci, Leonard Eisenberg, Dolores Elliot, Charles Hayes, III, Peter Pratt, Wendell Rhodes, and Dennis

‘Wentworth

1988 A Guide to Anthropological Collections from New York State. Compiled by the Collections Inventory Committee, New

York Archaeological Council.

Ford, Richard [.

1977 Systematic Research Collections in Anthropology: An Irreplaceable National Resource. Harvard University, Peabody
Museum of American Archacology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.

Funk, Robert E.

1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir 22. The State Education Department,

Albany.



DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIONS BY
TIME PERIOD*
PALEO-INDIAN ff) g
EARLY ARCHAIC
MIDDLE ARCHAIC

LATE ARCHAIC

gary woonLano [i 2,

mippLe woooLann [I :,,
Late wooo.and [7

17TH CENTURY ie

yetH century [.,
19TH CENTURY

20TH CENTURY

*Number of Sites Represented

Figure 2. Representation of the New York State Museum collec-
tions by time periods.

prehensive coverage suggests that because the bulk of
the NYSM collections was made by its in-house archeolo-
gists, the collections are more reflective of these scholars’
personal research interests rather than actual distribu-
tions of archeological resources. For example, Arthur C.
Parker (1907, 1922) conducted much of his field research
in extreme western New York and the Finger Lakes area.
liam Ritchie and Robert Funk continued work in the
Finger Lakes region and also spent considerable time in
the Hudson Valley and southeastern section of the State
Ritchie and Funk 1973; Funk 1976). This assessment is
not intended to be a criticism of pursuit of individual
research objectives by archeologists, but, as has been
discussed, preservation of a database that can be used for
future research is an important consideration for cultural
resource management (Dunnell 1984; Glassow 1977;
Milner 1987; Salwen 1981).

In general, cultural resource management projects have
not begun to fill in the gaps in areal or site type coverage
that are characteristic of the older collections. The lack
of intensive investigations of what could be considered
small-scale sites is especially noteworthy. This finding is
consistent with a recent assessment of all archeological
work conducted in the Upper Hudson region of New
York State (Bender and Curtin 1990). Even though such
sites are extremely important for modeling regional hu-
man landuse patterns, these sites often are difficult to

interpret on an individual basis which makes case by case
justifications for intensive investigations troublesome.

Other repositories may have collections that fill in some
of the gaps observed in the collections curated by the
NYSM. Data are not readily available to assess whether
this may be the situation, although the New York Archae-
ological Council has made some progress toward a gen-
eral inventory of extant collections for the State
Engelbrecht et al. 1988). Some of the gaps in areal
coverage may correlate with the rate of modern develop-
ment in certain regions. Areas with few archeological
investigations may indicate areas with the least develop-
ment activity. If this is indeed the case, then, in theory, the
archeological record for these areas persists as intact sites.

The situation at the NYSM probably is typical in terms of
the collections in its care vis-i-vis its area of coverage. The
specific nature of biases in collections, however, may
vary from institution to institution, and from region to
region, depending upon the kinds of archeological prob-
lems historically investigated in specific areas and the
local characteristics of archeological resources.

Mechanisms for Effecting Collections
Management by Museums

In order to correct gaps in the curated data bank such as
those observed in the collections of the NYSM, there
must be coordination between archeological research,
cultural resource management, and collections manage-
ment. Even if an ideal goal of having comprehensive,
well-considered plans for data collection and curation is
reached, such plans must be compatible with museum
policies or there is no guarantee that repositories will
curate the resulting collections. Coordination with muse-
ums at the “front end” of decisions concerning manage-
ment of archeological resources—those decisions
concerning what to collect—would help ensure that
repositories will accept the resulting collections and that
these materials are appropriate for building regional data
banks (Marquardt ct al. 1982:413). When collections
involve the cultural heritage of Native American tribes
these groups also should be involved in the decision
making process.

A requirement of Federal Antiquities Act® and Archeologi-
cal Resources Protection Act (ARPA)’ permits, and
agency equivalents, is that prior arrangements must have
been made with a repository to accept and curate result-
ing collections. In practice, since curation usually is re-
garded as a storage problem, decisions concerning
project design already have been made by the time re-
Ppositories are contacted. The logical links between pro-
ject design, collecting strategy, long-term research value,
and curation are either overlooked or unrecognized by
those involved in making such decisions. Thus the critical
parameters that control the kind of collections that will
be made already are set without input from the reposito-
ries. In some cases repositories are contacted after collec-



Sites by County
in the

NYSN Collections

Figure I. Distribution of sites by county as represented in the New York State Museum collections.

tions. First, as shown by Figure 1, a map of sites repre-
sented in the collections by county, the collections do
not provide even geographical coverage across the State.
Although potential distributional differences in site den-
sity in various areas of the State cannot be discounted, it
is clear that the archeological resources from some coun-
ties and regions are very well represented and others are
not represented at all.

The same kind of distributional pattern appears truc for
time periods, as shown in Figure 2. Although one would
expect better representation for later prehistoric periods
than for earlier ones because there are many more of the
former, a graph of collections associated with general
time periods indicates that certain periods are better
represented than others.

Another collecting pattern is indicated when Figure 3, a
map showing the volumetric distribution of objects by
county, is compared with the distribution of sites by
county shown in Figure 1. Differences in these distribu-
tions generally are related to the level of intensity of
investigation. Those counties with few sites, but many
objects, are indicative of large scale excavations having
been conducted at one or more sites. In contrast, those
counties with numerous sites, but few objects, are indica-
tive of areas where some survey work was done, but litle

in the way of excavations. Thus the intensity of coverage
also is variable across the State.

A fourth type of collecting bias was apparent in the
course of the inventory work, but is difficult to illustrate
quantitatively due to poor information about the nature
of individual sites. This bias is related to kinds of sites that
have been investigated intensively. By far the majority of
sites that have been systematically and intensively inves-
tigated are large habitation sites or deeply stratified sites,
the latter type usually being located in floodplain environ-
ments or rock shelters. Very little information exists in
the NYSM collections from upland sites, lithic scatters,
small habitation sites, and the like, even though such sites
constitute the majority of the archeological record. There
also is very little information from systematic regional
survey. Instead, the collections are heavily biased toward
those sites that are rich in terms of artifact content. This
bias is largely a function of the history of the development
of archeological research since stratified and artifact rich
sites are necessary for building chronologies.

To summarize, the inventory of the State Museum's col-
lections provides very basic qualitative and quantitative
information about the representativeness of the present
archeological database for New York State as contained
in extant collections. Scrutiny of the areas of most com-



documentation required, or the kind of sites or projects
from which collections can or should be accepted.

Development of such active collections policies is one
response museums have made to pressures to become
more accountable to the public for their activities. The
recent controversy concerning the curation of Native
American remains and funerary objects and controversies
over art exhibitions, such as the Maplethorpe photo-
graphs, are two highly publicized examples of pressures
being placed on museums to justify their activities. Ex-
plicit formalization of collections management policies i:
a very positive development, because it helps upgrade
the level of professionalism of museums in general. De-
velopment of these policies by individual institutions is
becoming standard museum practice. For example, in
New York State existence of a collections management
policy is required before a museum can be chartered by
the State Board of Regents, and NPS requires its park units
with museum collections to have such a written policy
(National Park Service 1990).

Archeologists and other public officials employed in
regulatory agencies should become familiar with collec-
tions management policies and the role of repositories,
through these policies, to assist in managing archeologi-
cal resources. If collections management policies are to
be used effectively and positively, archeologists must
become actively involved in policy formulation. The po-
tential exists for these policies to be detrimental to future
research efforts if the needs of archeological research are
not principal considerations in policy formulation.
Archeologists can neither afford to “leave off’ when it
comes to managing collections nor to invest often costly
and scarce curation resources unwisely.

Steps Toward Coordinated Regional
Planning

Regional variation in the archeological record suggests
that the most logical arena for developing plans for col-
lections growth is at the regional level. As discussed
previously, State plans for managing cultural resources,
which are required by Federal regulation,® historically
have not incorporated curated collections as elements of
these comprehensive management plans. As has been
argued here, the accumulating data bank in the form of
curated collections should be considered explicitly in
such planning efforts. Developing plans to manage better
what is curated will require coordination between those
Federal and State agencies charged with making deci-
sions about which sites are to be excavated, the archeo-
logists who make and use the collections, the public and
private repositories that ultimately curate the collected
materials, and Native American tribes whose cultural
heritage may be represented in the collections.

The best coordination of regional planning efforts may be
initiated by statewide, archeological professional organi-
zations working in conjunction with State Historic Pres-

ervation Offices. Task forces that bring together the re-
positories and archeologists having long-term research
and collecting interests in specific regions would be one
means of accomplishing this synthesis. The repositories
should solicit Native American involvement. Many muse-
ums now have or are in the process of forming Native
American advisory groups. Representatives of Federal
programs having major influence in the regions also
should be included. For example, if the Forest Service,
NPS, or Bureau of Land Management have major land
holdings in a region, input from these agencies is neces-
sary for coordination with their cultural resource manage-
ment master plans. Such regional task forces may prove
of benefit to collections policies in general, as a wider
constituency becomes aware of and involved with collec-
tions issues.

A major goal of such regional task forces would be to
work with the repositories to draft collections manage-
ment policies that could be used to shape the sample of
the archeological record that will come to be contained
in curated collections. In some cases, interinstitutional
agreements may have to be made where there is overlap
in the geographic areas covered by two or more muse-
ums. Such plans would neither require nor preclude
designation of regional repositories (Marquardt 1977) as
it is the plans that would be regional in nature, not
necessarily the repositories. Periodic review and revision
of the plans and muscum policies would also be neces-
sary as collections grow, and as archeological knowledge
expands and evolves.

A preliminary step in the planning process is to know
what already is contained in curated collections. Reposi-
tories must inventory and assess their collections. Re-
gional task forces potentially could assist with these
inventories and assessments, The current repatriation
concern may well prove to be a benefit to these steps, as
repositories begin to form cooperatives with wider con-
stituencies and to conduct required inventories and as-
sessments of the collections in their custody. Once the
strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and biases of existing infor-
mation are known, particular kinds of collections that are
needed can be identified.

In the interim, repositories must continue to make deci-
sions about what to curate without benefit of such com-
prehensive plans. Since this is the case, it is in the best
interest of both the museum and archeological profes-
sions for repositories to take an active approach to acqui-
sitions. They must become critical collectors and seek
actively those materials for curation that result from
well-conceived and systematically conducted and docu-
mented projects. Repositories that do not have archeolo-
gists in positions of responsibility for managing
collections should seek advice from archeologists about
acquisitions. Archeologists should respond to such re-
quests both with sensitivity to the problems of managing
collections and thoughtful justifications for curating spe-
cific collections.



————

OY

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Cultural Resources

Technical Brief No. 13
April 1992
ISSN 1057-1574

Federal agencies are responsible for archeological col-
lections acquired from Federal lands and through Fed-
erally sponsored or permitted projects. With the
promulgation of 36 CFR Part 79, Curation of Federally-
Owned and Administered Archeological Collections,
Federal agencies now have formal guidance about how
to meet their statutory obligations for collections man-
agement. Archeological collections must be managed
effectively if they are to continue to function as impor-
tant resources for science, heritage education, and the
humanities. Archeologists will need to make thoughtful
and explicit decisions about the composition and
growth of collections. The problem is not simply one of
securing adequate storage space. Difficult decisions
have to be made in committing scarce and sometimes
costly resources to maintain accessibility to collections,
as well as to safeguard them from theft, loss, or deterio-
ration.

One important management decision is the choice of
an appropriate repository. Some Federal agencies have
in-house facilities; others need to initiate contracts and
agreements with repositories that house archeological
collections. In this country, state and university muse-
ums have traditionally served as major repositories for
Federal archeological research collections. The author,
who is a curator of anthropology at one of these insti-
tutions, points out that archeologists, as resource man-
agers, need to work in concert with repositories in
planning for the long-term maintenance of research
collections.

Introduction

Archeologists are beginning to rely more and more on
curated collections as sources of research data. This trend
is inevitable as the number of intact archeological sites
decreases. Yet, just as it is not possible to either preserve
or investigate every archeological site, it is not feasible to
preserve every artifact and sample in a museum! in per-
petuity. Informed decisions must be made about what to
curate and these decisions will in effect determine the
composition of archeology’s future database. As a conse-
quence, the nature of the sample of the archeological
record represented by curated collections and the suit-
ability of this sample for long-term research must become

Departmental Consulting Archeologist » Archeological Assitance

Managing Archeological Resources
from the Museum Perspective

By Lynne P. Sullivan, Associate Sctentist Archaeology and Curator of Anthropology

New York State Museum

major considerations in the management of archeological
resources. The significance of curated archeological ma-
terials to research, education, and cultural heritage, the
diversity and magnitude of these materials, and the asso-
ciated costs of curation in perpetuity, all provide strong
arguments for conceiving plans and enacting policies to
help guide decisions regarding the composition and
growth of collections.

‘The primary purpose of this Technical Brief is to examine
the reasons for curated archeological collections to grow
by design rather than haphazardly, and to stimulate criti-
cal thinking about the nature of the database represented
in curated collections, especially in relation to the range
of future research that may be possible with these mate-
rials. A recent inventory and assessment of the New York
State Museum’s (NYSM) archeological collections was
the impetus for raising these issues. The results of this
project provide an example of the kinds of problems that
future researchers may encounter in the extant sample
of the archeological record, as represented in curated
collections, if long-range planning and strategic thinking
are not tied to curation decisions.

Asecond purpose of this Technical Brief is to encourage
a dialogue between archeologists and museum profes-
sionals about the management of archeological collec-
tions. If the national curation crisis is to be resolved, both
archeologists and museum staff must become active par-
ticipants in making decisions about managing archeologi-
cal collections. Dialogue is necessary because museum
staff members who curate archeological research collec-
tions often are not archeologists and, conversely, not
many archeologists are trained in collections manage-
ment. Archeology has become a diversified field and few
archeologists now work in museums as compared with
the earlier days of the discipline. The museum profession,
too, has changed. Especially in large research museums
archeologists often have little or no direct involvement in
managing collections, as collections management in itself
has become a professional occupation.

The intent of this Technical Brief is neither to provide
definitive answers about what or what not to curate nor
to propose a uniform national approach for making such
decisions. A collaborative effort ona regional basis among
archeologists, repositories, government agencies, Native



Sullivan, Lynne P., Edward V. Curtin, Lisa M. Anderson, Penny Ann Perrella, and Stuart Mendelson
1990 A Guide to the Archaeological Collections of the New York State Museum. New York State Muscum Circular 53. The
State Education Department, Albany.

Towle, Linda A., and Darcie A. MacMahon, editors
1986 Archeological Collections Management at Minute Man National Historical Park. Volumes 1-4. Division of Cultural
Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boston.
Trimble, Michael K. and Thomas B. Meyers
1991 Saving the Past from the Future: Archaeological Curation in the St. Louis District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St.
Louis District, St. Louis, MO.
U.S. General Accounting Office

1987 Cultural Resources: Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources. U.S. General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.

Endnotes

1. The terms “museum” and “repository” are used interchangeably to indicate any facility as defined in Curation of Federally-Owned
and Administered Archeological Collections, 36 CFR Part 79, Section 79.4@).

2. Itis important to note that fully one-third of the states have yet to enact some form of state-level curation legislation to ensure basic
care for those collections which do not fall under Federal jurisdiction (Carnet 1991, Fig. 1).

3. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013)

4, 36 CFR Part 79.5(d), 79.12, Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Collections; Proposed Rule. Published in the Federal
Register 55(177):3767 1-37672. (1990)

5. At present, there is no centralized site file that contains listings of all known sites that are recorded in various institutional (museums,
universities, etc.) files for the State of New York.

6. P.L. 59-209, 16 U.S.C. 431-433 (1906); 43 CFR Part 3.
7. P.L. 96-95, as amended by P.L. 100-555 and 100-588, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm (1988), 43 CFR Part 7.

8. 36 CFR Part 61.4(b\3). Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs.

aniodronr QM%
pup pajroas uo pajujid aav Sfatag jv21UYyIAT yree J

“LELL-€100Z OC ‘WorTuryse sd ‘LZLLE KOM “O'd “WOTSTA
Iq a0UN)SISSV [e>!BoPOIYPIy ‘S9}AIIg Ysed [PUONEN
‘go}s9;U] 9~p Jo juoUNsedaq “s°7 sHEPeds uoNYD
“Hang :01 so1doo 104 sisanbas pur ‘syotuq aamany 105 so1dor
‘sluaWOS mung “EYEL, “O OnDHNf s} soUBisop o1ydvsd
dup ss9pusKoTy “D urof st soups Adoo sy ~IOnEgpIEA
“D pavySRA pur uoweur oH “A sfoURIY IIe sIONpo 9
-H9S D1], “DAIS Ysed [LUONLN Ip Jo UoISTAIG JouRIsIssy
TeorBojooyssy oy pur astZojooyszy Bupjnsucy jrauowe

00e$ "381 SIVAIUd HOS ALTYNId
#80 SLVAIUd HOS AL -urdoq ayn Aq poonposd pur poudisap air syaug eoruys2L-
£9 On UMS eietioer 7a woLoMHSYM
re
dvd $234 Ny aovisod OUAU3S XU TYNOILYN,

one Z66T Tdy ‘ET Jona

12



Glassow, Michael
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Sig

icance of Archacological Resources. American Antiquity 43):413-420.

Green, Ernestene L.
1984 Introduction. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Ernestene L. Green, pp. ix-xii. The Free Press, New York.

International Council of Museums
1987 Code of Professional Ethics. In ICOM Statues/Code of Professional Ethics. COM, Maison de !’Unesco, Paris, France.

Jelks, Edward B.
1990 Curation of Federal Archcological Collections in the Southwest: A Status Report. Paper presented in a symposium entitled,

“Using and Abusing Archeological Collections,” at Preservation Challenges for the 1990s: A Conference for Public Officials,
June 5-7, Washington, D.C.

Lindsay, Alexander J., Jr., Glenna Williams-Dean, and Jonathan Haas
1980 The Curation and Management of Archeological Collections: A Pilot Study. Interagency Archeological Services, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Lipe, William
1974 A Conservation Model for American Archacology. The Kiva 39 3-4).

McManamon, Francis P.
1990 A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historic Period Sites. Historical Archacology 24(2):14-22.

Malaro, Maric
1979 Collections Management Policies. Museum News 58(2):57-61

Marquardt, William H.
1977 Regional Centers in Archaeology: Prospects and Problems, Missouri Archacological Society Research Series No.14,
Columbia, MO.

Marquardt, William H., Anta Montet-White, and Sandra C. Scholtz
1982 Resolving the Crisis in Archaeological Collections Curation. American Antiquity 47(2):409418.

Milner, George R.

1987 Contract Excavations, Collections Management, and Academic Archaeology. Paper presented at the Annual Mecting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago.

New York State Association of Muscums
1974 The Ethics and Responsibilities of Muscums with Respect to the Acquisition and Disposition of Collection Materials.

National Park Service
1990 Chapter 2: Scope of Museum Collections. Museum Handbook, Part I, Revised. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Parker, Arthur C.
1907 Excavations in an Erie Indian Village and Burial Site at Ripley, Chautauqua Co, N.Y. Bulletin 117, New York State
Museum, Albany.

1922 The Archaeological History of New York. Bulletins 235, 236, New York State Museum, Albany.

Pearce, Susan M.
1990 Archaeological Curatorship. Leicester University Press, London.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum Memoir 20. The State Education Department,
Albany.

Salwen, Bert
1981 Collecting Now for Future Research. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Anne-Marie
E, Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild, pp. 567-574. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Schiffer, Michael B., and John H. House
1977 Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research: The Cache Project. Current Anthropology 18:43-68.

Society of Professional Archacologists
1982 Standards of Research Performance (V). American Antiquity 47(1):162.

Sullivan, Lynne P.
1987 Renovation of the New York State Museum’s Archaeological Collections: Phase I (NSF Grant BNS-8709135).

1989 Renovation of the New York State Museum's Archaeological Collections: Phase II—Records Documentation, Organization,
and Assessment (NSF Grant BNS-8907268).

1



tions are made. When either of these scenarios happens,
repositories are placed in the unflattering role of cri
rather than partners in resource management.

Museum collections management policies are instru-
ments that can effectively coordinate involvement of
repositories in archeological resource management, as
well as shape the curated archeological resource sample.
Collections management policies incorporate sets of poli-
cies for all activities a museum undertakes in regard to
collections, including acquisitions, loans, research, exhi-
bition, and deaccession. A major goal of these policies is
to insure that activities related to collections are inaccord
with a museum's mission (Malaro 1979; Pearce 1990:67-
68; National Park Service 1990). Museum boards of trus-
tees, or similar administrative bodies, set the general
parameters of a museum’s collecting activities by setting
the museum's mission. Generally, the mission statement
embodies considerations of geographic area, subject mat-
ter, and time period, and how the collections will be
used, e.g. education, research, exhibition. Museum staff
must then take these general parameters and translate
them into more specific plans for building the collec-
tions. These plans are articulated in collections manage-
ment policies. Thus, individual institutions exercise a
considerable degree of control over what they acquire,
and the policies of individual institutions differ.

The scope of collections and acquisitions portions of
such policies are of special concern if collections are to
become appropriate for long-term research needs. These
policies guide decisions concerning the kinds of materi-
als an individual museum will accept and the circum-
stances under which they will be accepted (Pearce
1990:70-74). Codes of ethics, such as the previously cited
codes of the International Council of Museums (1987)
and the New York State Association of Museums (1974),
guide formulation of such policies. Two ethics in particu-
lar have direct bearing on what an individual museum will
collect. The most encompassing is that a museum should
accept only those collections related to its mission. A
second important ethic is that a museum should be able
to curate properly those materials it accepts.

An active rather than passive approach is inherent in a
good museum acquisition policy (Burcaw 1975:50). With
an active approach, a repository makes conscious deci-
sions as to how its collections will grow, based on long
term goals, and seeks to obtain those materials that meet
these goals. In contrast, passive collecting means that a
museum merely decides what will be in its collections
based on what it is offered. Collections management
policies based on an active approach can thus shape the
overall character of a repository’s collections and even
provide quality control over what is curated. Such poli-
cies can be specific, for example, as to the kinds of
artifacts or specimens a museum will accept, the level of

Objects by County
in the
NYSN Collections

[-] e-sea
[] se1-25ea py
2501-5888 [J >z9000

E> see1-19008
10861-26088

Figure 3, Distribution of objects by county as represented in the New York State Museum collections.



‘The designs of field projects are important considerations
in assessing the future research potential of archeological
collections, because these plans structure the ways in
which information and materials are collected. In the past
individual archeologists essentially controlled which
sites they investigated and under what circumstances.
This is not the case with most cultural resource manage-
ment projects. Decisions concerning contracted field-
work often are compromises (Green 1984:ix-xi). The
correspondence between the archeological record rep-
resented by collections and the intact sites is not always
the most compelling force behind these decisions.

For the purposes of this discussion it is important to
distinguish between the ways in which the scientific or
research value of collections is assessed and the ways in
which site eligibility for the National Register of Historic
Places and other legal requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act are determined. Even
though archeological research problems and cultural re-
source management problems clearly are linked, the
goals of the two endeavors are not necessarily the same
(Dunnell 1984). Although the agendas of either endeavor
can lead to creation of collections suitable for long-term
research, the long-term research value of collections
must be evaluated separately from the eligibility of sites
for the National Register and other aspects of the Section
106 process.

National Register eligibility for archeological sites gener-
ally is based on research significance, but there are rela-
tive “degrees” of significance and ongoing debate as to
what constitutes National Register significance. It prob-
ably is fair to say that, in general, documenting National
Register significance is much easier for large, complex
sites or sites of great antiquity than for sites with limited
assemblages and no clear chronological information,
such as upland lithic scatters. In fact, basic research
information often can be acquired from the latter type of
site during a comprehensive site evaluation program that
determines that the site is not eligible for the National
Register. This does not mean that the collections ob-
tained from such sites have no research significance. The
same argument can be made for collections resulting
from many survey projects. On the other hand, cdepend-
ing on the scope of a specific project, it is entirely
possible for collections made from a National Register
site to have little or no research value. For example,
collections from highly disturbed areas on such sites
would have little or no contextual integrity, and thus
limited research value. If the future research potential is
found to be extremely limited or nonexistent, then there
is no justification on a scientific basis for curating collec-
tions for long-term research, no matter under what con-
text the collections were made.

Basic descriptive and contextual data must accompany a
collection ifit is to have future research potential. A major
factor in assessing adequacy of documentation is whether
a systematic collecting methodology was used (Brown
1981). Even in the context of modern professional inves-

tigations, there is a wide range of performance in basic
recording and recovery techniques. Although documen-
tation may be legally acceptable, the minimum level of
adequacy may or may not ensure long-term research
value, especially those collections that lack associational
data or any consideration of sampling biases. Curation
decisions in these cases may depend on the type of
archeological resource from which the collections came.
Other non-scientific considerations such as humanistic or
educational values also may influence curation decisions
for those collections or materials found to be lacking in
scientific value.

While a certain level of redundancy in collected informa-
tion is necessary for research purposes, excessive redun-
dancy in collected materials may exist for some types of
sites and projects. Sites with large and highly redundant
sets of materials, ¢.g., quarry sites and brickyards, pose
questions of trade-offs between large samples and costs
of facility space (Salwen 1981:570-571; Jelks 1990). What
constitutes a sufficient sample of material from these
types of sites? Regional variation in the archeological
record must be considered since redundancy at the re-
gional level, ¢.g., regions with many quarry sites, may
allow conservatism in sample size at the site level. Con-
sideration of sample size and composition leads to a
second key factor in ensuring a satisfactory database for
future research—the overall representation of the
archeological record in curated collections.

Curated Collections as Samples of the
Archeological Record.

Not only must individual collections possess charac-
teristics that make them useful for continuing research,
the aggregate sample of the archeological record pre-
served in collections must allow continuing study of the
broadest possible range of research problems. Preserva-
tion of a representative sample of regional archeological
resources was suggested in the mid-1970s by Lipe
(1974:414) in regard to preserving intact sites. More
recently, Dunnell (1984) and Salwen (1981) have sug-
gested that, because archeological resources are nonre-
newable, preservation of a representative sample is the
most ethically defensible strategy in terms of general
management of archeological resources.

This same argument can be extended to curated collec-
tions. Preservation of such representative samples in
collections would insure persistence of the inherent vari-
ation in the archeological record and thus preserve the
ability of future archeologists to study variation and its
causes. The goal of managing collections growth would
then be to move toward curating more representative
samples of archeological resources for specific areas. A
central point to be made here concerning the repre-
sentative sample concept is that if a broad range of
archeological studies of cultural characteristics and proc-
esses through time and across space is to continue, col-
lections from one type of site/resource must not be
curated to the exclusion of other kinds of sites, and that



rated collections have not been incorporated as explicit
elements in archeological resource management plans,
so museums are finding themselves in the position of
determining archeology’s future database. Because the
present situation of case-by-case reviews of individual
collections is not tied to long-range planning efforts,
curation decisions unfortunately are being made without
an overall strategy to ensure preservation of information
for long-term research needs.

Over the long term, a strategy of informed decision
making, including a process of critical evaluation of the
composition of the curated data bank, could lead to more
productive collections-based research. Scholars certainly
have made and are continuing to make valuable contribu-
tions to archeological research through studies of extant
museum collections (Cantwell, Griffin, and Rothschild
1981), but such projects often face limitations because
of the nature of the curated sample. To a certain extent,
these problems are inevitable; new ideas may require
different kinds of data for testing, or new techniques may
make recovery of new information possible. In other
cases, limitations are caused by nonmethodical or unsys-
tematic collecting or poor curatorial practice with the
result that critical provenience information is irretriev-
able (Brown 1981). As more and more of the archeologi-
cal record takes the form of curated collections, these
collections will need to contain the range of materials
required for continued research.

Recent technological advances in information manage-
ment of museum collections are for the first time making
it possible to evaluate the range of data that is contained
in curated collections—to identify gaps in the data, to
assess curated materials in terms of their research poten-
tial, and to take steps to correct obvious biases. Imple-
mentation of a process of continuing assessment and
reassessment of collections in relation to research needs
is critical for ensuring that data collection is responsive
to changing information requirements. The management
of archeological collections must become as dynamic as
the process of scientific inquiry. Responsive manage-
ment of collections is urgently needed because there is
little time to correct problems as site destruction continues.

The Ethical Dilemma in the Context of
Research Museums

Ideally, the decision to collect materials should imply the
decision to curate them. A long-standing ethic of profes-
sional archeology in the United States, implied in the
ethics code of the Society of Professional Archeologists
(SOPA 1982), is to curate all materials resulting from a
professional investigation. Adherence to this standard
already is difficult since resources for curation are lim-
ited. In the context of a museum with a mission to
preserve research collections, it is poor practice to ac-
quire collections having limited research potential. The
ethics of the museum profession require critical collect-
ing and justification of acquisition decisions (New York

State Association of Museums 1974, International Coun-
cil of Museums 1987, National Park Service 1990).

Because the context of much archeological research has
changed asa result of the necessity of managing irreplace-
able cultural resources, it may be time to evaluate the
“goodness of fit” of present ethics to the current situation
(Salwen 1981; Dunnell 1984). Formulating plans for con-
trolled growth of curated collections may mean that not
all professionally collected materials will be curated (Sal-
wen 1981). The proposed amendment to the Federal
curation regulations,” which provides deaccessioning
guidelines, implies that this will be the case under certain
conditions. If it is necessary to bend to practicality in
deciding what can be curated in perpetuity, then there
must be a wellarticulated basis for making these deci-
sions. As Milner (1987) has pointed out, “archeologists
today...are faced with the considerable problem of ensur-
ing that future researchers inherit a satisfactory data-
base.” Perhaps this goal is the most compelling ethic from
a scientific point of view. There also is a need to balance
this worthy goal with the equally compelling need to
preserve materials for their value to the nation’s cultural
heritage and education.

Research Potential and Curation

Two key factors for ensuring that future researchers will
inherit a satisfactory database are ascertaining (1) that
those collections curated for research purposes have
characteristics that make them appropriate for research
use, and (2) that the repositories responsible for curating
archeological research collections are capable of main-
taining that research integrity. Even though there are
several kinds of institutions that may curate archeological
materials, e.g., university museums and research centers,
public and private museums and historical societies, spe-
cial Federal facilities, etc., not all repositories are appro-
priate for or capable of curating research collections. For
example, although all museums have some degree of
involvement in heritage preservation and education, the
missions of many institutions do not include curation of
scientific research collections as a central tenet. As a
result, such institutions are unlikely to have either the
appropriate staffing or facilities necessary for curating
such collections.

In those institutions that do have curation of research
collections as a fundamental responsibility, and thus are
the appropriate institutions for curating most archeologi-
cal collections, questions concerning research value arise
when collections are considered for acquisition. When
such criteria are applied to archeological collections,
questions of research potential revolve around three gen-
eral considerations: (1) project designs or plans; (2) qual-
ity of recording and recovery; and (3) redundancy of
information. Without the benefit of an overall context or
plan for making decisions about what to curate many of
these questions are difficult to address.



Americans, and other interested parties is suggested as
the most reasonable forum for developing plans for man-
aged growth of curated archeological collections.

Curation in the Context of Cultural
Resource Management

More than a decade ago the provision of information
relevant to long-term research needs and for management
of archeological resources was defined as an important
goal for cultural resource management (Lipe 1974; Schif-
fer and House 1977). Museums play an important role in
providing information for long-term research needs via
the care of a primary data source—curated collections.
This critical link between museums and cultural resource
management was identified by Christenson, who recog-
nized that repositories “carry on the job of cultural re-
source management after the archeologist leaves off”
(Christenson 1979:162).

At about the same time goals for cultural resource man-
agement were being defined, a crisis in curating archeo-
logical collections assumed national proportions for the
archeological profession as the tremendous increase in
the amount of material resulting from cultural resource
management-related projects exceeded the curatorial ca-
pacities of many repositories (Ford 1977; Christenson
1979; U.S. General Accounting Office 1987; Lindsay et al.
1980; Marquardt et al. 1982). Resolution of this curation
crisis is not yet in sight. The persistence of the problem
obviously is due in part to the inevitable process of
modern development and concomitant disturbance of
archeological sites. The volume of curated collections is
steadily increasing as the number of intact sites de-
creases. To quote Christenson (1979:161), “there are
only two logical ways that cultural resources can be
preserved for future generations: (1) they may be left
undisturbed in or on the ground; or (2) they may be
permanently housed in a museum or other storage facility.”

The need to cope with the preservation problems posed
by modern development was a driving force behind
enactment of today’s cultural resource management pro-
grams. While these programs have matured in their ability
to manage problems posed by intact archeological sites
(McManamon 1990:14-15), the same kinds of strategic
thinking and planning generally have not been applied
toward managing the collections. Thus Christenson’s
(1979:162) portrayal of the archeologist “leaving off”
when it comes to curated collections is a telling charac-
terization.

Curation as Resource Management

Because the focus of management and preservation ef-
forts has been on intact sites, there is a tendency for
archeologists, and other professionals charged with man-
agement de ns concerning archeological resources,
to regard curation as a “storage” problem rather than as

a “resource/data management” problem. This is not to
say that storage is not an issue. Collections will continue
to grow and collections care is an ongoing process. There
is now an urgent need for more and better facilities and
additional staff to curate archeological collections. It also
is the case that there is a wide range of options for storing,
many archeological materials. Recognition of these facts
has led the Federal Government to initiate several impor-
tant programs to help resolve problems in quality of care
and accessibility of collections. These efforts are both
necessary and highly laudable.

Of particular note are the National Science Foundation's
(NSF) granting program for Systematic Anthropological
Collections that provides funding to rectify problems
with extant collections. Equally important is the recent
issuance of governmentwide regulations for the Cura-
tion of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeologi-
cal Collections (36 CFR Part 79), which set standards for
collections care and use by Federal agencies. Updated
guidelines for management of collections held by Na-
tional Park Service (NPS) units (1990), and recent assess-
ment by the Southwestern Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) of the curatorial conditions of
collections resulting from COE water resources develop-
ment projects Jelks 1990) also are commendable. The
work of the Eastern Archeological Field Laboratory of
NPS to upgrade the collections from the Minuteman
National Historical Park (Towle and MacMahon 1986) is
particularly noteworthy, as is the effort by the St. Louis
District of COE to develop a program that will comply
with Federal curation regulations for collections admin-
istered by them. The report for the St. Louis District
documents costs in excess of $1.25 million necessary for
bringing these collections up to minimum standards.
These funds are separate from annual maintenance (“in
perpetuity”) costs (Trimble and Meyers 1991).

Despite the critical need for these programs, Federal
support and regulations for collections care do not fully
resolve the curation crisis.” Management of archeological
collections has become a much broader problem than
just that of making decisions concerning types of storage
containers, climate control, and cataloging systems. Man-
aging collections has become complex and costly, and
for some portions of archeological collections, such as
human remains and funerary objects, curation also has
raised ethical and moral issues.’ The present situation is
due in part to the increasing professionalization of muse-
ums, the diversification of the audiences they serve, and
the increasingly demanding roles of museums in preser-
vation efforts. Repositories can no longer afford to be
passive recipients of the “results” of archeological field-
work, i.e., collections. Repositories must justify what
they curate. They must be accountable to the public they
serve.

‘The curation problems now being faced concern deci-
sions about what types of materials can and should be
curated in perpetuity. Decisions about what to curate are
made by many repositories on a nearly daily basis. Cu-