CREATION AND MAINTENANCE of transaction and object documentation are essential tasks for a museum registrar or collections manager. Information about an object and transactions involving it were traditionally stored as paper-based documents in physical files (see CHAPTER 4B, “Manual Systems”). The files kept in a particular museum are a reflection of the kind of information stored and how it has been used in the institution. It is important to understand how the files, filing systems, and the methods used in the past govern the information about the collection that is available today (TABLE 4A.1). Although many of the file types discussed are no longer maintained separately because of the ease with which information can be sorted and retrieved from electronic collection records, it is important to understand the organization of collection information and what information is worth saving.
Table 4A.1 Typical Files Maintained in Museums Prior to the Advent of Electronic Data Management Systems
| Catalogs and card files | Catalogs were traditionally handwritten entries in bound leger books, but as collections grew and diversified, the use of cards that could be sorted and rearranged became much more common.1 Object information was traditionally sorted by accession number, catalog number, object name, category, or subject, or based on a classification, taxonomy, or nomenclature such as the Linnaean system in natural history collections or the Chenhall system (now called Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging) in history museums. The old card file of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York occupied a line of cabinets that was a city block in length, with the cards organized by accession number.2 |
| Accession number | The accession number is the traditional object identification number used in art and history museums, but the catalog number is more commonly used in natural history and archaeological collections (see CHAPTER 3B, “Acquisitions and Accessioning”). |
| Source | Donor, collector, maker, artist, manufacturer, indigenous or cultural group, etc. |
| Origin | Geographic origin or place of acquisition (e.g., an Egyptian antiquity may have been purchased in Rome). |
| Location | Object’s place in storage in the collection storage array. |
| Image | Photograph, sketch. |
| Insurance | Object-based or collection-based insurance. |
| Loan objects | Objects on loan to the museum or loaned to other institutions. |
| Exhibition | The particular exhibition the object was included in. |
Records about objects in the collection are maintained on an ongoing basis for permanent reference. Activity files are compiled, maintained, and searched while the activity itself is current. Once an exhibition is concluded or a loan has been returned, additional information may be added to a history of object use file, while the actual documents may be moved to less accessible archival storage. Some activity files—such as temporary custody, loan, acquisition—may be restarted each year with old records archived.
BOX 4A.1 HIGHLY ECCENTRIC AND HIGHLY PERSONALIZED
The classification of objects in museums and the arrangement of information in collection catalogs has never been standardized. Which files were kept and how they are arranged has depended mostly on the ideas, philosophy, or whims of the curator or registrar as well as the types of objects in the collections and how the objects were used. Over time, this resulted in highly eccentric and personalized systems that usually worked well for one museum but were rarely transportable to another (it is still rare to find two systems that are exactly alike in different museums). When museums adopted electronic data management systems, beginning in earnest in the 1980s, these eccentric and personalized systems were converted to eccentric and personalized electronic databases, most often designed based on the assumptions, prejudices, and sometimes nonrational ideas of curators, registrars, and collections managers focused on their own institution’s collections. In the early days of electronic data management, if a database system worked at least as well as the paper-based system it replaced, it was considered to be adequate. It took quite a while for museums professionals to understand the importance of having standardized information structures that enable universal database design and the ability to exchange information easily among different institutions.1
1. J. E. Simmons, Museums: A History (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 213–220.
Because the value of storing information about objects and activities lies in its retrieval, the data should be organized in the way in that most users will logically look for it (BOX 4A.1). The arrangement of physical files may be alphabetical, numerical, or chronological, depending on the type of information and how it will be used. Retrieval from any system is easier if the information has been entered in a uniform format, with consistent spellings and modes of display. In general, filing systems should be simple, clear, and consistent. Strive for systems that can be understood even if the registrar is not there to explain them. Simple systems that are kept up to date are vastly superior to sophisticated models that are too cumbersome to be easily maintained.
Traditionally, the registrar compiled and maintained a central file that listed all of the objects in the permanent collection, usually in a ledger or card file (many museums continue to maintain card files or ledgers as backups for the information in electronic databases). However the file is maintained, it should contain a record for each object, retrievable by accession number, that incorporates essential object information. Object files sometimes include an image of the object for identification purposes, and may cross-reference other files that provide a way to identify specific objects or groups of objects by means other than the accession number (e.g., by maker, artist, donor, collector, subject matter, classification system, or geographic origin).
Maintaining a central record of all the objects in the entire collection in numerical order is essential for the accountability of the institution. The form of this central record and the complexity of data in it will depend on the resources allotted to registration functions over the history of the museum. Enough information should be in the file to distinguish each object from all others and to identify what it is, where it came from, and where it is currently located (e.g., in storage, on exhibit, on loan). The central file may be a stepping stone to the greater information that is collected about an object, may display all of that information, or may provide something between the two. Even if a bound ledger or card file has been discontinued in favor of electronically stored data, the old paper-based records should be archived as a backup to protect the information.
A category file is based on the classification system in use, materials, or subject matter. Each discipline has its own intellectual or hierarchical categories; some are more complete or systematic than others. A museum should clearly define the standard classification systems it uses.
Category files may be difficult and time-consuming to maintain in a manual system, and are created as separate files far less often as museums adopt electronic data management systems (see CHAPTER 4C, “Computer Systems and Data Management” and CHAPTER 4D, “Digital Asset Management Systems”). Sometimes categories are not really in parallel although they reflect the way a particular museum has divided up responsibility for its varied collections. For example, a museum may have object categories such as portraits, Chinese objects, farm tools, and wood carvings. These divisions were meaningful and useful to those who started them and to those who can get used to them, but they do not always aid researchers or new staff. Form, content, and intellectual analysis can become intertwined and confused. Accurate assignment of a particular object to one of these categories may become a matter of chance.
Documents created by others may be appropriate for the registrar’s object files, and copies of some documents may be filed in a curatorial department as well. It is important that the museum have a central location or source in which records for the entire collection may be reliably found (increasingly museums retain only electronic copies of documents for routine use, with most paper-based files stored in an archive). Accession, object, and other document files usually are kept in accession number order, sometimes further divided by curatorial department. Whether electronic or paper-based, these files usually include:
These files are archival in themselves because the documents are primary sources of information about the object and continue to grow throughout the history of the object, incorporating bibliographic references, appraisals and valuation, exhibition history, treatment reports, condition reports, research notes, and so forth. Information should be date-stamped when it is added to the folder. Paper-based object files are most useful when the contents are well-organized and duplicate pages removed.
A frequently used reference is the maker, artist, manufacturer, or collector file. Like most other types of files, it is increasingly common to keep electronic originals or digitized versions of paper-based documents in an electronic database. The format of names, regardless of how the files are organized, should be consistent and clear. There are many standard references for names and titles available, but in most institutions the curator is the institution’s arbiter. Collection objects or objects on long-term loan may be listed for ready capsule view. The maker—whether individual, manufacturer, or cultural group—may be described by life dates, active dates, places worked, manufacturing sites, biographical notes, nationality, or a designation for group, tribe, or culture.
The source or donor file identifies the donors of objects, vendors, purchase funds, archaeological sites, expeditions, lenders, or trading institutions. It should have a consistent and clear format for names. Some source information (particularly details about donors) may be restricted and accessible only on a need-to-know basis.
Each museum must devise a workable way to report and record object movement (e.g., in and out of storage, on and off exhibition, on loan). Location files are key to the accountability of registration. Inventory and tracking of the object is as important as descriptive information. Location files are searched or modified as often as staff need to look at or take inventory of objects or move them. This frequency of use means that location files must be easy to read and easy to update.
In large museums, a written work request often is used to initiate object movement and record new locations, with a copy to the registrar or collection manager for making changes in the object record. Some museums maintain a location log (e.g., in the storage room) in which new locations or object movements are written in as they occur and the central location file updated periodically.
Frequent object moves may be difficult to record in a timely manner. Backlogs of object movement work orders or logs in storage will soon lead to poor inventory control so periodic physical inventories must be done to confirm the accuracy of location information (see CHAPTER 5K, “Inventory”). Constant vigilance is required to enforce reports of object movement from curators and object handlers; self-discipline is required to stay up to date with location records. A location file that is simple and straightforward will be maintained better than an elegant and elaborate tracking system that requires many steps to update.
Images document the objects and aid identification, condition recording, insurance claims, study, research, education, exhibition planning, publication, and publicity. Older photographic files may consist simply of a negative number with the photograph date or may encompass storage of the photographic materials themselves. Newer image files will probably be born-digital images (see CHAPTER 4D, “Digital Asset Management Systems”).
Photographs may be in several formats including negatives (individual or rolls), contact sheets, black-and-white or color prints, color transparencies, color slides, snapshots, and digitized or born-digital images. The types of access needed and the materials used for image storage affect the organization of image files. If the files are used mostly by the registration staff, they can be arranged by accession number. If others need regular access, it may be more useful to organize them alphabetically by object name, artist, classification, place of origin, or medium or materials. In a good digital management system, any of these categories should be available as search terms. Choose a method that works best for the collection and for the institution’s users and avoid complicated or idiosyncratic systems of organization.
It is helpful to have the negative number for film-based images in the object records. Photographs should be kept in acid-free folders. Negatives, slides, and transparencies should be kept separated from prints, in acid-free or metal boxes or in acid-free envelopes, or in Mylar D, polypropylene, or polyethylene sleeves. Prints and negatives should not be stored with rubber bands or paper clips.
Insurance values for individual objects are part of the continuing object documentation. Some insurance policies require a periodic schedule of new or revised values, or, as part of its own risk-management program, the museum may track object values by gallery or storage area. The organization of the information and the files depends on how the information is used by the registrar, the insurer, and the museum—for example, chronological by date of the report, location of the objects, collection group, accession number, or catalog number. Insurance values of museum objects should be restricted information. As with all files, simplicity of the system and clearly marked labels make the information easier to find and use.
Incoming loans may be received for exhibition, research, study, long-term custody, or consideration for acquisition. Loan files document the ownership, object condition, object use, and agreed-on conditions of the loan, such as location, length of loan, or any special needs. Paperwork related to loans for temporary exhibitions should be kept with the rest of the exhibition file (see discussion in this chapter).
Loans to the museum must be recorded, stored, exhibited, or studied with the same care and level of documentation as the museum’s own collection objects, but objects on loan should be tracked in a way that immediately distinguishes loaned objects from accessioned objects. Although some museums assign their own numbers to objects on loan, this practice is generally discouraged—instead, objects on loan should be tracked using the numbers that are marked on them by the loaning museum and by the loan number (usually the loan number supplied by the loaning museum). The exceptions to this are objects that arrive on loan without numbers (usually objects from a private collector). Loan rec ords should be maintained in order in a separate file. Loan object folders will contain the loan agreement, incoming receipts, condition reports, images of objects, correspondence, and other documents. An alphabetical lender file may be useful in museums that deal with many loans to the collection, whereas a separate tickler file may alert the registrar to the return or renewal date.
The documents pertaining to the loan transaction should be annotated with the loan tracking number and filed by the activity for which the objects were borrowed. Once incoming loan transactions have been concluded and objects returned to their owners, the records should be annotated and the file marked as closed. Information about loans should be kept for future research (the history of object use is an important aspect of the history of the institution). Documents kept should include the loan agreement, official correspondence, and copies of in coming and outgoing receipts, especially those signed by the owner on return.
Files for outgoing loans should contain the following:
From initial planning through the opening of an exhibition, documents and notes that are used to get the work done accumulate (see CHAPTER 3L, “Organizing Loan and Traveling Exhibitions” and CHAPTER 3M, “Displays from Within—Considerations for Collections-Based Exhibitions”). The working exhibition files may include the following:
This kind of working file has the order (or disorder!) that meets particular needs or time available. It is prudent to keep everything, even notes on scraps of paper during this time. At the conclusion of an exhibition, after all loaned objects have been returned and collection objects restored to storage, or once a permanent exhibit is in place, it is time to organize the contents of the file. Keep those documents with information that someone may need in later years, and organize them in a way that will aid finding them. Dispose of any redundant pages and now-irrelevant scraps and notes. A closed exhibition file should be as useful as any other research document with papers in logical order and an index or table of contents.
Exhibition files should be kept chronologically by exhibition date. All or part of the registration ma terials may become part of the institution’s master archive file for that exhibition. Information about the logistics, lenders, shipping arrangements, insurance, and costs may be useful in future exhibition planning; the registrar may keep the information, if not the actual documents, in an exhibition planning file for reference. •
This is an edited and updated version of the chapter originally written by Kittu Longstreth-Brown and updated by Rebecca Buck for Museum Registration Methods (2010), who acknowledged the contributions of Anne Fuhrman Douglas, Connie Estep, Paulette Dunn Hennum, Monique Maas, and Dominique Schultes.