DOCSLIB.ORG

The Present Status of the Curation Crisis and Deaccessioning in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Present Status of the Curation Crisis and Deaccessioning in the United States The Present Status of the Curation Crisis and Deaccessioning in the United States by Marina Tinkcom B.A. (Archaeology), University of Wyoming, 2014 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Archaeology Faculty of Environment © Marina Tinkcom 2019 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2019 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Marina Tinkcom Degree: Master of Arts (HRM) Title: The Present Status of the Curation Crisis and Deaccessioning in the United States Examining Committee: Chair: Jonathan Driver Professor Mark Collard Senior Supervisor Professor Jody Clauter Supervisor Project Archaeologist, Supervisor Alpine Archaeological Consulting George Nicholas External Examiner Professor Date Defended/Approved: January 21, 2019 ii Ethics Statement iii Abstract Archaeological collections in the United States were deemed to be in crisis in the 1970s. Federal curation guidelines were issued in 1990 with 36 CFR Part 79, followed by a call for national standards by the Society for American Archaeology. It is not clear if these were successful because the current status of collections is generally unknown. Given this, I surveyed curation practices at 11 major US archaeological repositories, impediments to their implementation of modern curation standards, and their deaccessioning policies. Although many of the individual standards were being met, around one-third of the collections do not meet all the standards. Methods used to meet standards varied across institutions, and the major contributor to collections was heritage resource management. Funding and space were the most often reported impediments. Every institution reported deaccessioning, but not all had policies. Ultimately, collections have improved since the 1970s, but further progress is needed. Keywords: curation crisis; archaeological collections; curation standards; questionnaire; deaccessioning iv Dedication To my mother, Rebecca, who taught me to have fun, learn lots, and be happy. To my father, Ken, who I missed every step of this journey. v Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of LTA, Inc. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Tom Larson, for encouraging ongoing learning in the field, in school, and across the world. To Dori Penny, having you in my corner makes me feel invincible. To my supervisor, Mark Collard, for encouraging a positive outlook through the setbacks, and whose prompts strengthened my abilities as a writer, thank you. To Jody Clauter, thank you for selflessly taking me as a mentee. You are an exemplary archaeologist, curator, and woman. To George Nicholas, thank you for your questions in class and as my External EXaminer, they managed to at once challenge and empower me. Thank you, too, for the unexpected River Basin Papers. Finally, to my friends and family who had to hear a lot of “no” through this process, thank you for putting up with me. vi Table of Contents Approval.......................................................................................................................... ii Ethics Statement .............................................................................................................iii Abstract.......................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ....................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................. X List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................ xi Glossary......................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1. The origins of the curation crisis ............................................................................ 1 1.2. Previous studies on the curation crisis ................................................................... 4 1.3. Goals of the present study ..................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2. Background .............................................................................................. 7 2.1. History of archaeology and collections in the US ................................................... 7 2.1.1. Early history .................................................................................................. 7 2.1.2. New Deal archaeology .................................................................................. 8 2.1.3. River Basin surveys ..................................................................................... 11 2.1.4. The development of HRM as an industry ..................................................... 12 2.2. Laws and policies ................................................................................................ 14 2.2.1. The turn of the century: protecting and preserving sites and artifacts .......... 14 2.2.2. The Great Depression and post-World War II .............................................. 16 2.2.3. Federal accountability: the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s .................................. 17 2.2.4. 36 CFR 79 and NAGPRA of 1990 ............................................................... 18 2.2.5. Summary of laws and policies ..................................................................... 19 2.3. History of the curation crisis and accounts of progress ........................................ 20 2.3.1. The curation crisis leading up to 36 CFR Part 79 ......................................... 20 2.3.2. Changes in the curation crisis ...................................................................... 22 Chapter 3. Materials and methods .......................................................................... 27 3.1. Research protocol ............................................................................................... 27 3.2. Participants ......................................................................................................... 28 3.3. Data collection tools ............................................................................................ 31 3.3.1. The instrument and treatment of data .......................................................... 31 3.3.2. Survey structure .......................................................................................... 32 3.4. Procedures .......................................................................................................... 33 3.5. Curation standards .............................................................................................. 34 3.6. Correlations between research questions, survey questions, and modern curation standards ...................................................................................................................... 37 3.6.1. Assumptions ................................................................................................ 41 Chapter 4. Results.................................................................................................... 43 vii 4.1. Demographic results ........................................................................................... 43 4.2. Research Question 1: current status of the curation crisis ................................... 45 4.3. Research Question 2: modern curation standards ............................................... 45 4.4. Research Question 3: methods used to achieve modern curation standards ....... 54 4.4.1. Non-structured survey question response results ........................................ 54 4.4.2. Structured survey question response results ............................................... 55 4.5. Research Question 4: how curation crisis issues are being solved ...................... 57 4.6. Research Question 5: percentage of collections not up to modern curation standards ...................................................................................................................... 58 4.7. Research Question 6: deaccessioning policies .................................................... 58 4.8. Research Question 7: percentage of collections by project type .......................... 59 4.9. Summary of results ............................................................................................. 59 Chapter 5. Discussion and conclusions ................................................................. 61 5.1. Study findings ...................................................................................................... 61 5.1.1. Main findings ............................................................................................... 61 5.1.2. Modern curation standards implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations
    Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations March 2019 Update Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidance and Recommendations March 2019 For 25 years the Code of Ethics for Museums and accounting standards have been out of alignment regarding the use of proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned collections. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) updated its standard to bring the two into alignment: allowing for direct care as well as acquisition. The ethical principles regarding responsible governance and collections stewardship have not changed. In light of the updated FASB standard noted below, however, a museum should revise its collections management policy, as needed, to disclose its use of proceeds and its definition of direct care (if allowed). These disclosures are additions to the recommendations for Creating an Institutional Policy on page 8. The decision-making tools (pages 9-11) remain relevant guidelines for a museum to define “direct care of collections” depending on its mission, discipline and specific circumstances. Accounting Standards Update The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) updated Topic 958, Definition of Collections (previously addressed in FASB 116) in March 2019. The update was made to align it with AAM’s Code of Ethics for Museums regarding the use of proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned objects. The updated standard permits museums not to recognize as revenue, nor capitalize, “contributions of works of art, historical treasures, and similar assets” if the donated items meet all of the following criteria: “a. They are held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service rather than financial gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaccessioning Done Right by Jennifer Holt, Curator, Will Rogers Memorial Museums, Claremore
    technical bulletin Deaccessioning done right by Jennifer Holt, Curator, Will Rogers Memorial Museums, Claremore Oklahoma Museums eaccessioning is the process used to ered; private sales can be problematic due to Association Dremove permanently an object from a transparency and accountability issues. The Technical Bulletin #47 museum’s collection or to document the rea- use of all proceeds should comply with the Published January sons for an involuntary removal of an object professional ethics and the law. from such a collection. The deaccession- 2009 ing process is used only when accessioned Procedures should be developed along with objects are at issue. Deaccessioning should policies. Deaccession check lists should not be viewed as a routine way to manage follow policy parameters. The registrar/col- indiscriminate collecting. The first rule is lection manager/curator should oversee the Back issues of techni- careful, focused collecting. process and maintain permanent records of cal bulletins published all deaccessions. by the Oklahoma There are a number of reasons why a mu- seum may be prompted to consider deacces- Problems may arise with the deaccession of Museums Associa- sioning. The condition of the object may be an object. The title to the object may be in- tion are available free so bad that it threatens other objects in the complete. Restrictions may have been placed to members. For a collection. A collection may contain unneces- on deaccessioning the object when donated. complete list of tech- sary duplicates. These dupes take resources Other issues that may appear include pri- nical bulletin topics, that could be used for new objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS
    PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS BIOARCHAEOLOGY (ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY) Mario ŠLAUS Department of Archaeology, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia. Keywords: Bioarchaeology, archaeological, forensic, antemortem, post-mortem, perimortem, traumas, Cribra orbitalia, Harris lines, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, Treponematosis, Trauma analysis, Accidental trauma, Intentional trauma, Osteological, Degenerative disease, Habitual activities, Osteoarthritis, Schmorl’s nodes, Tooth wear Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of Bioarchaeology 1.2. History of Bioarchaeology 2. Analysis of Skeletal Remains 2.1. Excavation and Recovery 2.2. Human / Non-Human Remains 2.3. Archaeological / Forensic Remains 2.4. Differentiating between Antemortem/Postmortem/Perimortem Traumas 2.5. Determination of Sex 2.6. Determination of Age at Death 2.6.1. Age Determination in Subadults 2.6.2. Age Determination in Adults. 3. Skeletal and dental markers of stress 3.1. Linear Enamel Hypoplasia 3.2. Cribra Orbitalia 3.3. Harris Lines 4. Analyses of dental remains 4.1. Caries 4.2. Alveolar Bone Disease and Antemortem Tooth Loss 5. Infectious disease 5.1. Non–specific Infectious Diseases 5.2. Specific Infectious Disease 5.2.1. Tuberculosis 5.2.2. Leprosy 5.2.3. TreponematosisUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Trauma analysis 6.1. Accidental SAMPLETrauma CHAPTERS 6.2. Intentional Trauma 7. Osteological and dental evidence of degenerative disease and habitual activities 7.1. Osteoarthritis 7.2. Schmorl’s Nodes 7.3. Tooth Wear Caused by Habitual Activities 8. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of Bioarchaeology Bioarchaeology is the study of human biological remains within their cultural (archaeological) context.
    [Show full text]
  • Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical Archaeology of Anatolia
    MONUMENTS, MATERIALITY, AND MEANING IN THE CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANATOLIA by Daniel David Shoup A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Art and Archaeology) in The University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Elaine K. Gazda, Co-Chair Professor John F. Cherry, Co-Chair, Brown University Professor Fatma Müge Göçek Professor Christopher John Ratté Professor Norman Yoffee Acknowledgments Athena may have sprung from Zeus’ brow alone, but dissertations never have a solitary birth: especially this one, which is largely made up of the voices of others. I have been fortunate to have the support of many friends, colleagues, and mentors, whose ideas and suggestions have fundamentally shaped this work. I would also like to thank the dozens of people who agreed to be interviewed, whose ideas and voices animate this text and the sites where they work. I offer this dissertation in hope that it contributes, in some small way, to a bright future for archaeology in Turkey. My committee members have been unstinting in their support of what has proved to be an unconventional project. John Cherry’s able teaching and broad perspective on archaeology formed the matrix in which the ideas for this dissertation grew; Elaine Gazda’s support, guidance, and advocacy of the project was indispensible to its completion. Norman Yoffee provided ideas and support from the first draft of a very different prospectus – including very necessary encouragement to go out on a limb. Chris Ratté has been a generous host at the site of Aphrodisias and helpful commentator during the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Deaccessioning Policy
    Deaccessioning Policy Document No. CUR 4.0 – Deaccessioning Policy Page 1 Approved: December 2020 Approved by: National Gallery of Australia Council next review due: December 2022 Summary Name of Policy Description of Policy Deaccessioning Policy Policy applies to ☒ NGA wide ☐ Specific (eg. Department) Policy Status ☐ New policy ☒ Revision of Existing Policy (previously Art Acquisition Policy) Approval Authority Director Responsible Officer Assistant Director, Artistic Programs Contact area Artistic Programs Date of Policy Review* October 2022 Related Policies, Procedures, National Gallery Act 1975 Guidelines and Local Protocols Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Council Instructions including Financial Delegations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Rights and Engagement Policy Due Diligence and Provenance Policy Acquisitions Policy Research Library Collection Development Policy Research Archive Acquisition Policy The Copyright Act 1968 The Privacy Act 1988 Privacy Policy Australian Best Practice Guide to Collecting Cultural Material 2015 Collections Law: Legal issues for Australian Archives, Galleries, Libraries and Museums *Unless otherwise indicated, this policy will still apply beyond the review date. Approvals Position Name Endorsed Date Assistant Director Natasha Bullock Yes Director Nick Mitzevich Yes Council Ryan Stokes Yes Document No. CUR 4.0 – Deaccessioning Policy Page 2 Approved: December 2020 Approved by: National Gallery of Australia Council next review due: December 2022 Table of contents
    [Show full text]
  • Curator of Archaeology and Assistant Professor in Anthropology
    Curator of Archaeology and Assistant Professor in Anthropology The University of Colorado Museum of Natural History and the Department of Anthropology invite applications for a tenure-track, joint position as Curator of Archaeology and Assistant Professor. Applicants should have PhD with specialization in Archaeology, and museum experience. Strong preference for candidates with experience in Southwestern material culture research and publication, NAGPRA, collaborative research, and teaching, with strengths in contemporary archaeological and museological theory. The successful candidate will teach no more than one course per semester and be a part of the museum’s Anthropology Section, working closely with the Collections Manager and the Curator of Cultural Anthropology. Duties include establishing and executing a vital research program with extramural funding; curating archaeology collections (including a large collection of Southwest pottery); implementing NAGPRA; teaching in both units including graduate and undergraduate courses; and, advising MA and PhD students in Anthropology (http://www.colorado.edu/Anthropology) and Museum & Field Studies (http://cumuseum.colorado.edu). We offer a collaborative, intellectually stimulating, and supportive environment in which a new professor can thrive. Contact: [email protected]. The anthropology collections at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History include more than 1.5 million archaeological and ethnographic objects, and nearly 50,000 photographic images relevant to these collections. The geographic foci of the collections are the North American Southwest and Rocky Mountain-Plains. The anthropology collections are primarily archaeological materials resulting from the systematic work of Earl H. Morris and Joe Ben Wheat. Morris built the museum's anthropological collections from 1913–1956. Wheat served as Curator of Anthropology and Curator Emeritus from 1952–1997, and directed the Yellow Jacket field school from 1954–1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Digitization of Blocks and Virtual Anastylosis of an Antique Facade in Pont-Sainte-Maxence (France)
    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W5, 2017 26th International CIPA Symposium 2017, 28 August–01 September 2017, Ottawa, Canada DIGITIZATION OF BLOCKS AND VIRTUAL ANASTYLOSIS OF AN ANTIQUE FACADE IN PONT-SAINTE-MAXENCE (FRANCE) E. Alby*a, P. Grussenmeyer a, L. Bitard a, S.Guillemin a, V. Brunet-Gaston b, C. Gastonb, R. Rougier b a Photogrammetry and Geomatics Group, ICube Laboratory UMR 7357, INSA Strasbourg, France (emmanuel.alby, pierre.grussenmeyer, laurent.bitard, samuel.guillemin)@insa-strasbourg.fr b National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) (veronique.gaston, christophe.gaston, richard.rougier )@inrap.fr COMMISSION II KEY WORDS: Close Range Photogrammetry, Laser Scanning, Archaeology, Anastylosis, Simulation ABSTRACT: This paper is dedicated to the digitization of blocks and virtual anastylosis of an antique façade in Pont-Sainte-Maxence (France). In 2014 during the construction of a shopping center, the National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) discovered a Gallo-Roman site from the 2nd century AD. The most interesting part of the site for the study is a façade of 70 meters long by nearly 10 meters high. The state of the conservation of the blocks of the façade makes them exceptional due to the question raised by the collapse. Representative and symbolic blocks of this building have been selected for a virtual anastylosis study. The blocks discovered belong to different types: decorated architectural blocks, monumental statuary elements and details of very fine decorations. The digital reproduction of the façade will facilitate the formulation of hypothesis for the collapse of the structure.
    [Show full text]
  • SAA Guidelines for Preparing Legacy Archaeology Collections
    GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING LEGACY ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS FOR CURATION Michelle K. Knoll and Bruce B. Huckell ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to a number of colleagues for their advice and assistance in compiling and reviewing previous drafts of this document. Our first thanks go to volunteers nearing retirement who completed a preliminary survey about what kinds of collections, samples, and materials they had in their possession that needed to be curated. They helped us assess what topics might best be covered in this guide. Once we started the process of compiling sections and full drafts, we had the good fortune to receive editorial comments, suggestions, and thoughtful reactions from our colleagues on the SAA Committee on Museums, Collections, and Curation. In particular, we are most grateful to committee chair Danielle Benden, Terry Childs, Jenna Domeischel, Susan Gilliland, and Marybeth Tomka. Bill Lipe, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University, long concerned with the proper curation of legacy collections, provided us with much food for thought on both an initial and a revised draft of this guide. We thank Richard Talbot, Brigham Young University, and Janaki Krishna, Natural History Museum of Utah, who also reviewed drafts, and Andrea Knoll for assistance with designing the cover. Our thanks as well to our colleagues at the University of Utah and the University of New Mexico for important conversations about aspects of curation that came up as we worked on the guide. Finally, we are grateful to the SAA Board of Directors for their invitation to prepare the guide and for their review and final approval of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection Development Policy
    COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY Heather Saunders , Director of Library Leslie Cade, Director of Archives Collection Development Policy — Ingalls Library and Museum Archives July 25, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Ingalls Library I. Purpose of the Policy 3 II. Description of the Collections 3 III. Selection Responsibility 4 IV. General Collection Guidelines 4 V. Collecting Categories and Formats 6 VI. Collecting Levels 10 VII. Subject Qualification by Collecting Level 11 VIII. Gifts 13 IX. Exchange Materials 13 X. Preservation 13 XI. Replacement and Desiderata 13 XII. Deaccessioning 14 XIII. Relation to Other Library Resources 14 Museum Archives I. Purpose of the Policy 16 II. Description of the Collections 16 III. Retention Responsibility 17 IV. Deacce ssioning 17 V. Relation to Other Archive Resources 17 VI. Recommendations 17 Appendix A I. Mission of the Ingalls Library and Museum Archives 18 II. Description of the Ingalls Library 18 Appendix B I. Mission of the Museum Archives 23 II. History of the Museum Archives 23 Appendix C Guidelines for the Library Purchase and Processing of Books with Original Prints and Photographs 26 2 Collection Development Policy — Ingalls Library and Museum Archives July 25, 2018 Ingalls Library I. Purpose of the Policy Ingalls Library of t he Cleveland Museum of Art is a nationally recognized art research library with rich collections encompassing a wide range of published materials covering art from all geographic areas and all periods of art history and archival collections documenting the history of the institution. Materials are collected in many languages and in all formats. Throughout their history the library and archives have been committed to excellence in support of the museum’s current and future collections, research, exhibitions, publications, lectures, programs and activities by identifying, acquiring, organizing and providing access to relevant research mat erials and information .
    [Show full text]
  • Student Resource BOOKS: General Archaeology
    Student Resource BOOKS: General Archaeology Author & Title Publication Info Comments Archaeology. Eyewitness. Jane McIntosh. 1994, Dorling Kindersley, London, NY. Gr 4-8 2000. ISBN 0-7894-5864-0 A wide variety of examples (largely from the Old World) of archaeological data used to infer past adaptation and behavior. Archaeologists Dig For Clues. Let’s Read and Find HarperCollins, NY. Gr 3-6 Out Science. Kate Duke. 1997. ISBN 0-06-027056-X Archaeology for Kids: Uncovering Mysteries of Our Chicago Review Press. Gr. 5-8 25 stand-alone activities Past. Richard Panchyk. 2001. ISBN 1-55652-395-5 (including archaeological techniques, and technologies of prior cultures) spanning hominid ancestors to historic archaeology. Archaeology Detectives. Simon Adams. 2009 Barron’s. *Gr 5-10 ISBN-10: 0-7641-4273-9 Focuses on famous/ flashy sites around the world. Garbage, Waste Dumps, and You. Connie Colwell Edge Books, Capstone, Mankato, MN. Gr 3-5 Miller. 2009. ISBN-10: 1-4296-1996-1 Describes the history of waste accumulation and disposal. Archaeology. The Usborne Young Scientist. Usborne, EDC. *Gr 4+ Barbara Cork. 1986. ISBN-10: 0-8602-0865-6 Out of print, but available from 3rd-party sellers through Amazon. Student Resource Books: Southwestern Native Cultures Author & Title Publication Info Comments Apache. Indians of North America, Heritage Chelsea House. Edition. Michael Melody. (2005) ISBN-10: 079108597X Pueblo Boy: Growing Up in Two Worlds. [San Cobblehill Books, Dutton, NY Gr 4-7 A 10 year old learns how his Ildefonso]. Marcia Keegan. 1991. ISBN 0-525-65060-1 culture is expressed through feast days and dancing.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums
    Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums Introduction The following guidelines elaborate upon the principles of the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums concerning the deaccessioning and disposition1 of objects2 from museum collections. The guidelines consider deaccessioning within the context of acquisition and accessioning and are intended to assist in the practical application of the Code of Ethics’ principles. Acquisition The decision to acquire an object (whether it is offered for donation, acquired at sale or auction or found during an archaeological excavation) and accession it into a museum’s collection should be made thoughtfully, considering the nature of the object and its provenance, the museum’s mission3 and the resources that will be required to care for, display and provide access to the object. A museum’s collections policy should thoroughly define the acquisition process and address the legal and ethical principles and professional responsibilities involved4. Acquisitions should be made in accordance with the highest standards of due diligence5 and in accordance with the applicable law6. Accessioning Once a museum acquires an object, the object is accessioned. Accessioning is the formal process involved in accepting and recording an item as an object in a museum’s collection and its inventory. A record of the acquisition, accession processes, and all relevant documents accompanying the object should be kept and preserved. 1 In the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, the term “disposal” is used instead of “disposition”. 2 For the purposes of these standards, the word object is used broadly to refer to all cultural objects, as defined in the relevant international legislation: cultural objects are those which, on religious or secular grounds, are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning
    Guidelines for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning Deaccessioning and Reappraisal Development and Review Team: Peter Blodgett, Huntington Library Jeremy Brett, University of Iowa Cathi Carmack, Tennessee State Library and Archives Anne Foster, National Parks Service Laura Uglean Jackson, University of W yoming (Chair) Chela Scott Weber, Brooklyn Historical Society Linda Whitaker, A rizona Historical Foundation, Arizona State University Marcella Wiget, Kansas State Historical Society Draft 7/12/11 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notes on Use of the Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………………………….2 Definitions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Key Concepts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 Step-by-Step Process for Reappraisal and Deaccessioning…………………………………………………….8 I. Rationale……… ………………………………………………………………………………………………8 II. Preparation…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 III. The Reappraisal Process………………………………………………………………………………..9 IV. The Deaccessioning Process………………………………………………………………………….13 V. Evaluation……………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 Appendix A: Example Checklist and Forms……………………………………………………………………………..18 Appendix B: Donor Letter Information and Templates…………………………………………………………..23 Appendix C: Deed of Gift with Language Addressing the Possibility of Deaccession………………25 Appendix D: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning Bibliography…………………….……………………………..26 Appendix E: Sample Policies…………………………………………………………………………………………………..30 1 NOTES ON USE OF THE GUIDELINES
    [Show full text]