ALMOST ALL MUSEUM collections contain a few objects that are not connected with their documentation—no tag, no label, no number marked on the object, no indication of source of the object in the packaging, no characteristic that connects the object to records of gifts, purchases, or loans. Such objects are usually found during inventories, discovered during work on an exhibition, turn up in the middle of a rehousing project, or seem to magically appear when someone leaves the institution and desk drawers are emptied. These objects may have entered the collection at any time in the museum’s history as gifts, purchases, bequests, or things left in spaces taken over by the museum. They may have been loans or have been left over from special events or educational programs. They may belong to a former museum staff member, have been brought in for use as decorations, or perhaps they are former utilitarian objects that, because of their age and manufacture, have attained some historical or aesthetic value. Though their status may be uncertain, it is more likely than not that if an object is found in the museum, it belongs to the museum (TABLE 3J.1).
Undocumented objects are mysteries that can sometimes be solved so that the undocumented object is restored to its correct status, but if the mystery cannot be solved, the object should properly be considered a found-in-collection (FIC) object. To protect the museum’s interests should claims arise regarding these objects it is necessary to differentiate between these two categories—undocumented objects and FIC objects. Objects are considered to be undocumented if they are similar to other objects in the collections, lack numbers or any characteristics that might connect them to documentation, but their status can be resolved through careful research (thus allowing the museum to assume ownership of them). FIC objects are those undocumented objects that remain without status after all attempts to reconcile them with existing records of collection and loan objects have been exhausted. It is vital to track all undocumented objects from the moment they are found and attempt to connect them to existing documentation so that they may be considered museum property (e.g., perhaps through a complete inventory; see CHAPTER 5K, “Inventory”). Most FIC objects are the product of the vagaries of past collecting practices or lapses by past collection workers.
Table 3J.1 Possible Sources of Undocumented Objects
| • Gifts |
| • Objects in temporary custody pending approval or acceptance |
| • Bequests, pending acceptance |
| • Purchases, pending approval |
| • Objects obtained by trie institution on commission |
| • Unclaimed or old loan objects (see CHAPTER 3H, “Old Loans and Museum Property Laws”) |
| • Abandoned property |
| • Exhibition props |
| • Special events props |
| • Objects made on site (e.g., in educational programs, arts workshops, exhibition workshops) |
| • Objects acquired with real property |
| • Decorations |
| • Former office or storage equipment |
| • Personal property of former or present staff members or board members |
| • Awards or trophies given to museum or staff members |
Several causes may lead to objects becoming undocumented:
The first and arguably most difficult task is to find all undocumented objects and to reconcile as many of them as possible with existing documentation. For example, at the end of an inventory process a museum may be left with a number of objects that were lost in inventory or are undocumented. In the past, the reconciliation process was long, protracted, and difficult (searching through a card catalog or inventory books can be like searching for a needle in a haystack). The advent of electronic collection management databases has improved this process tremendously because these systems can be searched for multiple terms in multiple categories, making it infinitely easier to match undocumented objects to their records. For example, consider the case of the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture (MAC), in Spokane, Washington. In 1978 the institution—then the Cheney Cowles Memorial Museum—completed its first comprehensive inventory, checking each object in the collection against a set of notebooks containing accession data for the entire collection. At the end of the process there were more than two thousand undocumented objects and more than two thousand lost-in-inventory pieces. The reconciliation process included laying out all objects of one type (e.g., guns, Plateau material, textiles, domestic objects) and going through all the lost-in-inventory descriptions, matching materials with records. The result was that approximately a quarter of the objects were reunited with their documentation after a process that lasted more than six months. However, in 1994, when the last of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) inventories were being processed, staff at the MAC came across a box containing five Native American artifacts with a note dated 1978 stating that the objects had not been reconciled. The database was checked for objects without location data that had characteristics that matched the found objects and within an hour, all were reunited with their original documentation.
Most museums assign a tracking number to objects that are discovered without documentation. Tracking numbers allow the museum to begin documentation without the long process of accessioning decisions and approval. However, if the museum uses a tracking number rather than an accession number for an undocumented object, it may not make as strong a case for ownership. On the other hand, if a museum applies an accession number to an undocumented object (thus making a stronger ownership case), it implies that some thoughtful and careful process has been completed. The practical problems that arise from this conundrum are numerous: It is extremely difficult for museums with large, complex collections to complete and reconcile inventories. In fact, it can be difficult for most medium-size collections (e.g., thirty thousand to fifty thousand objects) to finish and reconcile an inventory. If records are complicated and were not clearly kept in the past, it can take years to complete a reconciliation process.
To deal effectively with the problem of undocumented and FIC objects museums should first discuss and develop a policy to provide guidance on how to proceed. If policy is not written and approved, museum staff will have to deal ad hoc with the problem, and the results will be uneven and confusing as changes in staff occur over time (see CHAPTER 2, “Collection Management Policies”).
The time interval between inventory and complete reconciliation must be taken into account when the policy is established. For example, if a museum is not able to initiate or complete an inventory, then undocumented objects will probably be found from time to time during other projects. There are differences of opinion on this complex and problematic subject and laws that leave little room for opinion; some options for dealing with these problems follow, along with a recommended policy strategy.
Museum staff should first work with legal counsel to research the laws that deal with property that might be similar to undocumented or FIC objects in their state (see TABLE 3H.1). These laws may be titled lost, unclaimed, or abandoned property laws, or may be part of museum-specific laws that deal primarily with old loans. If state law makes specific demands or denies the museum title without a claim process, the first decision is made; if it does not, the museum must devise its own procedures for resolving FIC objects.
The list of undocumented objects should not include objects with partial documentation, objects that have numbers consistent with the museum’s accession numbers (even without backup documents), or objects that have not been completely processed. A systematic process will consider how to deal with the partials, temporaries, and incompletes, but documentation should exist for most of those objects. True FIC objects are those that remain after a reconciliation process without extant clues to their origin or status.
Preference goes in order from option a through option d. Unless the museum has a specific state law to follow, option b may seem like a logical assumption, but in fact option a is the preferred stance and is most often used by museums. Except in unusual situations, the majority of undocumented objects are, in fact, owned by the museum in which they are found. The objects may be of uncertain status, but there is nothing to indicate that an undocumented object may belong to someone else—only a claim will bring that possibility forward.
There are times when the museum does know where FIC objects came from. Consider the use of FIC by the National Postal Museum:
In an attempt to fill gaps in the older issues, we have resurrected material set aside as “duplicate” in the 1980s. We have finished the review of a selection of good mint examples from this source and have inventoried them. Their reintroduction to the collection will be complete when they are given FIC numbers and cataloged.1
Records for the duplicate collection were obviously not as complete as those for the permanent collection, but there was reason to consider the objects to be owned by the museum.
A museum may accession an entire estate as a gift, including a house and its contents. An example is the Brandywine River Museum’s acquisition of the N. C. Wyeth house and studio in the 1990s. If the first sweep in the process of accessioning was not complete, and if all objects were not identified and numbered, then unprocessed parts of the original accession may well become undocumented objects or FIC objects.
A second and common scenario concerns objects that have lost their accession numbers. For example, in the 1920s some collections of Native American baskets in a museum were marked by stapling small, thick, numbered paper tags to their rims. The paper was acidic and over the years it cracked and crumbled, and some of the staples rusted apart as well. This resulted in baskets with partial tags or no tags at all. However, even partial tags can be a valuable clue because an experienced museum worker may recognize the type of tag and ink used in the collection during a specific time period, or the material or format of the tag itself may point toward a single gift. In other cases, there may be no way to reconcile the basket to a record because records noting baskets in the collection may just say “coiled basket,” or “woven basket,” or even just “basket.” The baskets with no tags must be handled as undocumented or FIC objects. It is possible that they might have come to the museum on loan (and an experienced museum worker may have a sense of whether FIC baskets might have been a gift, a purchase, or a loan).
Other characteristics of the objects can be valuable clues as well. In 1892, some valuable, long-lost scientific specimens that had been preserved in alcohol in the early 1700s were identified by the distinctive red wax seals on their jars when the British Museum acquired them from a private collector.2
Experienced staff members might be aware of collecting policies that were in place in the early days of their institutions. Some museums took everything that came their way and put aside material that was thought to be secondary. These secondary objects, left for future generations to deal with, might now be FIC objects. Sometimes such objects can be reconciled with some vague list, but usually they cannot.
Museums in small towns often find themselves the recipients of objects they really do not want from would-be donors who refuse to make a clear declaration of a gift but want the museum to keep the property or donors who insist on giving the museum all of the bric-a-brac they own. In some cases, even the combination of best practices, written policies, and professional association guidelines fails to convince a director or curator to take the risk offending the town’s richest or most powerful citizen by declining part of a donation, with the result that the collection acquires unwanted objects that all too soon become undocumented or FIC objects.
Some museums stop at this point—tracking numbers are assigned, but no affirmative decision is made that the object is owned by the museum. However, collection management policies may state that any object found in collection is to be considered an accession or an old loan, even though it is not always possible to determine for certain which of the objects were included in a given transaction. For example, after a complete inventory, five dolls without numbers were found, and four dolls were determined to be lost in inventory. Of the four dolls that were lost in inventory, three were known to have been accessioned (in the accession documentation, one was described as a small cloth doll in bad condition, one described as a ceramic doll with blue eyes, and one was just described as a doll). The fourth doll missing in inventory was a loan to the museum, and the loan documentation described it as a cloth doll, six inches long. After reviewing all the records and carefully inspecting the dolls, it may be impossible to determine whether any of them are actually the dolls noted in the accession documentation or on the loan receipt; in this case, it is prudent to go through an old loan process for all the dolls, listing them as from an unknown source when publishing constructive notice (see CHAPTER 3H, “Old Loans and Museum Property Laws”), and accessioning them (or deaccessioning them) when that process is complete.
FIC objects are often inferior to objects that were accessioned into the collection. Constraints on staff time generally mean that more care is taken to document and track objects that are considered valuable, whereas objects considered to be of lesser value receive less attention and less documentation. Although some FIC objects may be considered relevant to the mission of the museum, the fact that the objects were not accessioned when they first arrived at the museum is a major indicator that the objects not considered appropriate for the collection and should not be retained by the museum. The process of dealing with FIC objects is the ideal time to review each object, affirm or reject it, and if affirmed, process it into the collection.
Accessioning an object implies that it may be used in the same way other museum objects are used; it may be exhibited, loaned, photographed, published, conserved, or deaccessioned. If FIC objects receive a tracking number rather than accession number, the museum’s policy should state that tracked FIC objects may also be used in accordance with policies and procedures covering accessioned objects.
The process of accessioning FIC objects begins with a decision to officially take possession of the object, following the criteria and process in the institutional collection management policy.
If a museum takes the approach that the FIC object is already theirs and that there is institutional evidence to believe that it was simply missed or has lost its documents, the process of accessioning becomes one of internal affirmation. Reporting and recording accessions with a FIC source is important so that collection size and sources are updated and transparent and can be another piece of evidence that strengthens the museum’s case if a contradictory claim is later made. For this reason, the policy should require that an affidavit be signed and dated by a staff member with knowledge of possible ownership (e.g., recollection that the object was part of a group of objects coming to the museum together or knowledge of the type of material that appeared in an early collection).
A FIC object that is slated for disposition should go through the same deaccession process as provided in the collections management policy for owned objects. Ad hoc decisions regarding claims for title under applicable state law relating to deaccession of FIC objects may be made by a deaccession committee. FIC objects slated for deaccession may be claimed under applicable state law or court action. Keep in mind that by definition there is no evidence that the museum does not own a FIC object. Unlike old loans, the undisturbed possession by the museum of a FIC object (often for decades) is in itself evidence that supports a presumption that the title is owned by the museum. In other words, because the museum owns an object and possesses it, and there is a lack evidence for other claims of ownership, the law is generally on the side of the museum in these matters. Furthermore, clearing up the status of FIC objects is in harmony with the responsibilities of a museum that holds objects in the public trust.
If a museum adds a FIC object to its permanent collection, the worst that can happen is that a future claim may be made for ownership of the object (the chance of a successful claim will diminish as time passes). If a successful claim is made, the worst that can happen is that the object will be returned to its rightful owner, or the museum might be able to negotiate a gift of the object from the presumptive owner.
If a museum disposes of an object by sale, it may be subject to penalty should a successful claim ever be made for the object. The particular state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code will apply to the situation. In the event of a successful claim the museum may have to pay the current value of the object, rather than the value for which the object was sold. If, instead, the museum donates the object to another institution, or sells it with notice of a flawed title (in all likelihood reducing the price), there is less recourse for the owner whose claim was successful.3
If original documentation is found for an object that has been tracked or accessioned into the collection using a FIC number, the object should be returned to its original number and the FIC number retired.
If a claim is made on a FIC object that is accessioned into the collection or has been disposed of, the museum will decide whether to accept or challenge the claim. The museum should request proof that the object claimed is, in fact, the object described in the claimant’s documents, and that the claimant is either the sole owner or has complete authority from the owner or owners to make the claim. The first part may require precise documentation (e.g., “flowered vase” is insufficient to describe one of five vases from different periods made of different materials that exist in the collection with FIC documentation only). It may be difficult for a person to claim to be the only heir if more than one person inherits from the estate. If this is compounded, the greater the length of time that a museum has held an object, the less the chance for a claim to be successful.
The museum must respond to a claim promptly (as soon as it is possible to do so). If the proof is strong, the museum should return the object in a reasonable length of time. If the proof is weak, the museum should reject the claim in writing, which will start the statute of limitations time clock (usually three to six years) to bring a suit against the museum. If a suit is filed, the museum may decide whether to fight the claim or return the object; this decision often depends on the value and uniqueness of the object.
The preferred options for dealing with undocumented and FIC objects suggest the following model policy and procedures:
Undocumented objects are those objects similar to collections that are found in the collection areas with no numbers, no information in their housing, nor any characteristics that might connect them to doc umentation. FIC objects are undocumented objects that remain undocumented after all fair and reasonable attempts to reconcile them to existing records of permanent collection and loan objects fail. The museum will make every attempt to reconcile undocumented objects to existing documentation. Objects that are not reconciled will be considered to be FIC.
The museum considers undocumented and FIC objects to be the property of the museum. Undocumented objects will be tracked and documented from the time they are found and may be used as any permanent collection object is used. FIC objects may be accessioned into the collection or disposed of according to the approved deaccession policy. The decision to accession will be made in accordance with the accessioning policy. FIC objects accessioned into the permanent collection will be given numbers in the year of their accession.
If original documentation is found for an object that has been tracked or accessioned into the collection using a FIC number, the object will be returned to its original status and number and the FIC number will be retired. If a claim is made on an undocumented or FIC object, either accessioned into the collection or disposed of, the museum will make ad hoc decisions on accepting or fighting the claim. Unclaimed objects and FIC objects slated for disposition will follow the approved deaccession process as if they are owned objects.
Never. Although one can never be certain that an object is truly lost, a museum may decide to claim the loss on their insurance after a careful check of all areas where the object might reasonably be (e.g., storage, conservation, exhibition, loan), and after checking with all staff who might have had reason to interact with the object. A new inventory of suspect areas and records should either find the missing object or leave the staff relatively certain that it has been inadvertently disposed of or stolen.
Records for lost property should never be removed from files or databases.
Keep a record of the tracking number that was assigned to the undocumented object. It is not always possible to eliminate or change all of the records where a number was used; the tracking number will likely pop up somewhere and will need to be linked to the current object number.
The museum’s policy will outline the process for making the decision to accession or dispose of the object. Review the FIC object to determine if any federal or state laws regarding materials or origin affect the status of the object, such as whether the object is covered under the NAGPRA, the Endangered Species Act, or other laws that control the use and movement of species or specific types of material.
Regardless of whether an undocumented object was accessioned or just tracked, it is imperative that the complete deaccessioning process in the museum’s collection management policy be followed to dispose of it. The museum board must understand that there might be a risk of future claims against the museum. As noted on the deaccession risk chart (see TABLE 3I.1), it is likely that objects that are multiples, of small or no monetary value, or given to other nonprofit institutions, pose little or no risk. The museum may not have the time, staff, or resources to use legal processes to convert small or minor objects (consider, for example, how many Sears and Roebuck cast-iron irons might be claimed and whether they are worth a lawsuit. Even differentiating among five irons cataloged briefly as “clothes irons” may not be possible). Use common sense, and document everything very carefully. The risk for unique objects, especially those of high value, is a different matter. Legal counsel should be sought, and using available laws to take title to the property may prove a positive factor in fighting future claims. •
1. Cited in Museum Registration Methods, 5th ed., edited by R. A. Buck and J. A. Gilmore as “Lawson, Mary H. How One Collection Is getting Its Groove Back: Revitalizing the National Postal Museum’s Exhibit and Master and Reference Collection of U. S. Stamps, EnRoute, 1998.”
2. J. E. Simmons, Fluid Preservation. A Comprehensive Reference (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 22.
3. For further discussion of claims, see M. C. Malaro and I. P. DeAngelis, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2012), 392–395.
4. Museums have used a variety of systems for tracking numbers to indicate undocumented objects (e.g., numbers prefixed by X or N, 00 numbers followed only by sequential numbers and prefixes used on a yearly basis). It is not advisable to change what exists in records already created, but it is advisable to alter the system slightly for the present and future if a year is not indicated in the existing number system. Because of state laws, it is usually important to be able to prove how long an object has been in the museum if a claim is made so changes to the number prefix or suffix should be made accordingly.