Museum professionals understand the critical role of a robust object numbering system in managing collections effectively. A well-structured system is fundamental for tracking, retrieving, and preserving artifacts, ensuring the long-term integrity of museum holdings. In the context of professional acquisition career programs, understanding these processes is essential for emerging museum professionals. This article delves into the intricacies of museum object numbering, drawing insights from a pertinent 2016 online forum discussion and expert recommendations to guide institutions in establishing and refining their cataloging practices. This discussion highlights key aspects relevant to anyone involved in the acquisition process and contributes to the ongoing professional development within the field.
Addressing Key Challenges in Museum Object Numbering
Based on questions raised by Flannery Quinn, an emerging museum professional, the forum discussion in 2016 highlighted several common challenges institutions face when developing or updating their object numbering systems. These challenges are particularly relevant for museums undergoing archival reorganization or those with evolving collection management needs.
The Debate: Meaningful Numbers vs. Controlled Vocabulary
One of the initial points of discussion revolved around the practice of assigning meaning to numbers within the object ID itself. Flannery considered a system where a specific digit would represent the “type” of object (e.g., 0 for newspapers, 3 for physical objects). However, expert advice strongly cautioned against this approach.
Cheryl Miller, a Librarian at the Autry National Center, pointed out the potential for confusion and limitations of this method. As collections grow and evolve, pre-assigned numerical categories can become restrictive and difficult to manage. A more flexible and sustainable approach is to employ a controlled vocabulary in dedicated fields of the catalog record, such as “Object Name” or “Object Type,” rather than embedding object classifications directly into the object ID. This separation maintains the object ID as a unique identifier without overloading it with descriptive information that is better managed elsewhere in the cataloging process.
Structuring the Numbering System: Year, Accession, Item
Flannery’s initial proposed system included elements like year of acquisition, collection number, box number, folder number, and item number. While aiming for detailed contextual information, this structure was deemed potentially problematic, particularly concerning the reliance on physical storage locations (box and folder numbers).
Whitney Broadaway, Collections Manager at the Orange County Regional History Center, advocated for a basic trinomial numbering system as a more stable and widely accepted standard. This system typically follows the format: Year.Accession Number.Item Number. For example, 2018.009.0015 signifies the 15th item from the 9th accession in 2018. This approach offers clarity and longevity, focusing on the acquisition event and the item’s place within that accession rather than its current physical location, which can change over time.
Handling Duplicate Items and Items in Multiple Formats
Questions arose regarding the numbering of duplicate items and objects existing in multiple formats (e.g., VHS tapes converted to DVDs). The consensus leaned towards assigning distinct numbers to duplicate items, acknowledging them as separate physical objects even if their content is identical.
For items in multiple formats, the recommendation was to catalog them as distinct objects as well. For instance, a VHS tape and its DVD conversion would receive separate object IDs, potentially differentiated by an added suffix if desired for internal linking (e.g., 2016.3.610V for VHS and 2017.3.610D for DVD). Alternatively, the DVD could be considered a new accession if created at a significantly later date, reflecting a new event in the collection’s history.
Managing “Found in Collection” (FIC) Items
A unique challenge addressed was how to manage items “found in collection” – objects discovered within the museum’s holdings without clear accession records. Whitney Broadaway shared a valuable practice of reserving the accession number .001 for “Found in Collection” items each year. For example, 2018.001.0001 would indicate the first FIC item recognized in 2018.
This approach serves several purposes. It provides a clear method for cataloging items of unknown origin without backdating them to a potentially inaccurate year. Using .001 annually also creates a system for tracking when an item was officially recognized as “found,” facilitating future research or deaccessioning processes if needed. It avoids the temptation to assign a blanket “2016” date to all older FIC items, which can obscure the timeline of discovery and potentially misrepresent the item’s history within the collection.
Expert Recommendations for Best Practices
Drawing from the forum discussion and established museum practices, several key recommendations emerge for developing effective object numbering systems, crucial knowledge for professionals in acquisition-focused career programs:
Prioritize Controlled Vocabulary
Employ controlled vocabularies for describing object types, materials, and other relevant characteristics within the catalog record, separate from the object ID. This approach offers greater flexibility, consistency, and searchability for collection data.
Adopt a Trinomial System (Year.Accession.Item)
Embrace a trinomial numbering system as a robust and widely recognized framework. This structure is simple, scalable, and focuses on the acquisition event, providing a stable foundation for object identification.
Separate Object and Archive Cataloging
Recognize the distinct nature of objects and archival materials. While an accession may contain both, catalog them separately. Archival collections, especially cohesive groups of documents, may be cataloged at the collection level with finding aids providing detailed hierarchical descriptions, rather than individually numbering each document within the collection.
Implement a System for “Found in Collection” Items
Establish a clear protocol for cataloging FIC items, such as reserving .001 accession numbers annually. This practice ensures proper documentation of items with unknown origins and facilitates future collection management tasks.
Conclusion
Developing and maintaining a consistent and effective object numbering system is a cornerstone of professional museum practice and a vital skill for those pursuing careers in museum acquisitions and collection management. The insights from the 2016 forum, coupled with expert recommendations, emphasize the importance of moving beyond overly complex or meaning-laden numbering systems towards simpler, more adaptable approaches. By prioritizing controlled vocabularies, adopting standardized structures like the trinomial system, and implementing clear protocols for various object types, museums can ensure the long-term accessibility, management, and preservation of their valuable collections. Understanding these processes is a critical step in the career journey of any aspiring museum professional.
References
Miller, Cheryl, and Marie C. Malaro, editors. Museum Registration Methods, 5th Edition. Washington, DC: The AAM Press, 2010.
Buck, Rebecca Ann, and Jean Allman Gilmore, editors. Registration Methods for the Small Museum, 3rd Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
