Collecting Research on Collections: A Trip to Mackinac Historic State Parks

FSJ Friends!

Spring is here! With this post, I hope I can wash the remaining bits of your winter blues away by providing a curation update.

At the beginning of March, I took a trip to Mackinaw City, Michigan to visit a few colleagues, Lynn Evans, Curator of Archaeology, and Brian Jaeschke, Registrar of Collections and Archives, who work for the Mackinac State Historic Parks. They kindly agreed to host me for a research visit to see the archaeological collections stored in the Peterson Center and inquire about the Mackinac State Historic Parks’ collection management system (Figure 1). Fort Michilimackinac, just one division of the MSHP, is very similar to Fort St. Joseph in terms of time period and collection contents, making this repository an ideal place to visit!

Figure 1: The Peterson Center in Mackinac City is where a majority of the Mackinac State Historic Parks’ collections are held. Those interested in the collections would arrive here to meet with
 Lynn or Brian after their research request was granted.

As one aspect of this fellowship is to explore new and proven practices regarding collection management, Lynn and Brian thought it would be best to discuss every step of their collection process. They began my tour by detailing what happens to the artifacts after they were recovered from the field, specifically how the artifacts were sorted and stored. The process was very similar to the one implemented by the Project, confirming the practices and techniques carried out by Project members.

Afterwards, Lynn and Brian showed me the MSHP’s process for integrating the field season’s artifacts into the collection database and storage cabinets (Figure 2). Lynn and one other staff member oversee this process which allows them to check each other’s work during the steps in case a discrepancy arises. Similarly, the Project implements a step-by-step inventory and cataloging process for the artifacts recovered from Fort St. Joseph. However, because the Project benefits from its student interns and volunteers, there are a few more people involved in the procedures. In general, the Project’s inventory and cataloging methods do not leave very much room for discrepancies, but perhaps after reviewing the checks and balances of the Project’s system, areas in need of enhancement may be noticed.

Figure 2: Here, Lynn is showing how artifacts are stored in archival bags
with labels placed within the bag as well as on the outside.
Acid-free paper is used for labeling within the bags.

The MSHP uses the Argus collection management program, which is comparable to the PastPerfect system employed by the Project and Niles History Center. Both database programs are used to organize collections by recording various details about the collection as a whole and its individual pieces. Information such as an artifact’s accession number, catalog id, excavation provenience, raw material, and function can be recorded along with a picture if desired. By keeping a detailed record of the accumulated knowledge for each artifact in one place such as these databases, staff and visitors have an easier time utilizing the collection for research. For this management to remain effective though, it is requires that staff and time are set aside in order to keep the data entries up to date.

The storage room for the artifacts in the MSHP’s collection was also very impressive! The room contains many archival cabinets that store the various collections’ artifacts (Figure 3). Each cabinet is well organized and the location of the artifacts placed within is listed in the Argus database program (Figure 4). This efficient management allows for easy accessibility to the artifacts by staff members, especially when members of the public request research access.

Figure 3: Within the collection storage room, archival
cabinets house the artifacts to ensure their preservation.
  These cabinets can be ordered in many different sizes and their shelving
 can be adjusted to fit the needs of the collections’ contents.

Figure 4: Here, you can see the various beads in the Fort Michilimackinac 
collection. The location of each accession number within the storage room
 is linked to their collection database, allowing for easy accessibility. 

Overall, I was very impressed with their organization and management! It may require more resources, but I think that their collection standards are some that the Project should aspire to achieve if afforded the resources to do so. 

I will end this blog by teasing you with information to come. Within the next week, I will be visiting the State of Michigan’s repository and chatting with a former Project member who played a crucial role in setting up the management system the Project currently uses. 

Can’t wait to share what I learn,

Erika Hartley