Lynette J. StoudtGeorgia Historical Society

SAA San Diego 8/11/2012

Archives in 3-D: Objects Description and Access

• GHS organizational and collections background

• 2009-2011 Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Museums for America Grant for objects cataloging

• Describing objects at collection-level• Future objects-related description

Presentation Overview

• Chartered by the Georgia General Assembly in 1839, GHS is a private, non-profit organization.

• One of the oldest state historical societies in the nation.

• We’ve never identified ourselves as a museum, but we’ve collected objects on and off throughout our history, many donated with archival collections.

Organizational Background

• Although a library and archives, GHS is committed to properly maintaining the objects collection and recently completed an NEH Preservation Assistance grant to re-house all objects according to museum standards.

• With reduced staffing and reduced hours a goal of the organization is making materials more accessible online.

Organizational Background

• Level of description has varied over time.• When the archives collection was

managed by a librarian, collections were described at the item level.

• Later, when archivists administered the collections, folder level description was the norm.

• Today collection level is our standard.

Organizational Background

• Over 1,300 artifacts dating from the American Revolution to the 20th century

• Includes weapons, ammunition, textiles, busts, ceramics, jewelry, medical equip., currency, medals/badges, and more.

• Over 60 portraits representing prominent Georgians and individuals who influenced Georgia history by portraitists such as Rembrandt Peale.

Objects Collection Background

• There is no paperwork documenting many early donations.

• Beginning in the late 19th century paper documentation improved, but not until the mid-20th century when donation letters and Deeds of Gift are present in files.

• Over time various lists of artifacts and portraits were created until a comprehensive inventory was completed in the 1990s in MS Access software.

Objects Collection Background

Grant activities included:• Retrospective conversion of the card catalog

for GHS’s maps.• Cataloging and photographing of 1,370

artifacts and 69 portraits for inclusion in PastPerfect-Online.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

Why PastPerfect Museum Software?

•It's an off the shelf product and we don't have an IT department (all IT activities are outsourced).•Able to provide searchable online access.•Software is created specifically for objects, but is intuitive enough for non-museum professionals to use.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• We intended to use the standard Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO).

• Once we began the project we realized it was more practical to use built-in PP standards and other standards more widely used in describing archival collections (i.e. DACS, LCSH, LCNAF, and ULAN).

• CCO was largely abandoned for more familiar and widely used archival standards.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• From the archivist’s perspective the biggest description compromise was using Chenhall's Nomenclature for Museum Cataloguing for object names (rather than AAT).

• From the museum project staff’s perspective this made her job a lot easier and more efficient. She worked with Chenhall’s for over a decade and was more productive using a familiar standard.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• Published in 1978, the Chenhall system is the standard cataloging tool for museums and cultural organizations in the United States and Canada.

• Like AAT, it consists of hierarchical levels of terms.

• The following slide includes an example of the hierarchy for matches and matchbook comparing Chenhall’s and AAT.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

Chenhall’s terms = “match” and “matchbook”: 2. Building Furnishings > Temperature Control Device

VS.

AAT term = “matches (fire-making equipment)”: Tools and equip. > Equipment by process > Fire

making and control equip.

AAT term = “matchbooks”: Information artifacts by function > packaging

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• The biggest potential problem with using Chenhall’s for object names is future interoperability between object description and archival description.

• For example, if we decide to import object descriptions into Archivists Toolkit, it will require the labor intensive task of reassigning AAT terms to objects.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• Many of the objects involved in this grant project were separated from archival collections at some point.

• We don’t know when our numbering system was established, but the object IDs are the only descriptive information tying separated objects to archival collections.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• Many organizations use accession numbers for object IDs, but we don’t have accession numbers for many objects donated before the 1950s.

• Instead, object IDs are tied directly to archival collection numbers: 

A-[4-digit MS collection no]-[3-digit item no]

IMLS Museums for America Grant

For example:•The papers of Juliette Gordon Low, founder of the Girl Scouts of the USA, are in MS 0318. •Low’s 21 Girl Scout badges were separated to the objects collection.•Object ID for Telegraphist badge (item 001):

A-0318-001

 

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• One challenge with this numbering system is objects not known to be associated with archival collections were assigned the seemingly random collection number “A-1361-xxx”.

• Some objects obviously separated from archival collections were added to 1361.

• Without documentation about this decision, provenance which could potentially yield context and descriptive information about these objects was lost.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

Some unexpected outcomes:•Properly identified objects that were previously misidentified. For example, a hat was believed to belong to a man who died over 50 years before it was manufactured.•Found misshelved “missing” objects while inventorying as we cataloged.•Brief catalog records for deaccessioned and missing objects have proven very useful for collection mgmt.

IMLS Museums for America Grant

• To remain productive with a shrinking staff we implemented collection level, or basic processing, for all incoming collections in 2008.

• A recent NHPRC basic projects grant allowed us to process a majority of archival collections in the backlog - several containing objects.

• In this processing model, objects are not physically or intellectually separated from archival collections as they were in the past.

Describing Objects at Collection-level

• Objects included with archival collections are stabilized if special housing is needed and noted in the scope and content note/box list of the finding aid and MARC record.

• The AAT term "artifacts (object genre)" is used as a subject term in our EAD and MARC records so at any time we can search the OPAC to determine which collections contain unprocessed objects.

Describing Objects at Collection-level

Future Objects Project

• We implemented Archivists Toolkit last year and just received an NHPRC grant to create a DLXS database of all EAD records.

• Upon completion we will link PP records of separated objects to the Separated Materials element in our EAD records to provide greater access to objects and reconnect object descriptions to their respective archival collections.

Summary Comments• Our decisions about object cataloging were based

on balancing descriptive goals and creating access.• Staffing played a factor in decision-making (item

level v. collection level).• When objects are separated from archival

collections make sure there is a process in place to tie them together (like Object ID).

• Whether museum or archives descriptive standards, you can never go wrong with a standards-based approach to any description project.

THANK YOU!

Link to online database:

www.georgiahistory.com

Contact Lynette Stoudt:

lstoudt@georgiahistory.com