FSJ Friends!
I hope
everyone enjoyed the crazy April showers. While the rain isn’t good for field
work, it is great for curation research and planning!
 |
| Figure 1. The Michigan History Center showcases wonderful exhibits for all ages and hosts a variety of education programs and events throughout the years. If you haven't attended their event for Michigan Archaeology Day, typically held in October, make sure to do so this year! |
As I mentioned in my last blog, I had the opportunity to visit the
repository for Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Office and chat with Dean
Anderson, State Archaeologist, Stacy Tchorzynski, Archaeologist, and Jessica
Yann, Archaeology Graduate Student Assistant. Most of the archaeological
artifacts in the State of Michigan’s care are located at the Michigan History
Center (Figure 1). Jessica informed me that the State cares for around 3,000
collections from terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites in Michigan.
These include items from state-owned lands, donated collections from sites in
Michigan, and collections from cultural resource management firms or government
agencies resulting from work to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. For those who
aren’t familiar with Section 106, the law requires an assessment of any federal
undertaking so that its potential impacts on an historic properties (e.g., building,
bridge, lighthouse, prehistoric or historic archaeology sites, etc.) can be
examined and commented on by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
From these evaluations and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and Native Tribes, preservation
requirements are determined for the project if it is to move forward. For more
specific information, here is a link that I think sums up Section 106 nicely:https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Documents/106.pdf. .
During my visit, Jessica gave me an informative tour of the collection
storage room. She showed me the various options used to store the collections,
including archival cabinets, display cases, and storage boxes placed on metal
shelving (Figure 2). We also discussed the room’s security access and its
environmental regulations. Finally, Jessica told me a little bit about the new
collection database that the State Historic Preservation Office was using.
Previously, they had used the Argus database, the collection management system
used by the Mackinac State Historic Parks. However, within the last few years a
decision was made to switch to a new digital platform. This new system has the
same recording categories (e.g., catalog number, site, provenience, material
type, function, storage location, count, weight, description, etc.) as Argus
and Past Perfect, but the screen layout is slightly different and there are
some new map functions. One aspect that appealed to me was the fact that the
database can be accessed online for those with appropriate credentials. How
exciting! While there are still a few kinks to work out with this database
program, it will be interesting to hear more about its capabilities as it
continues to be developed.
 |
| Figure 2. These archival cabinets provide many options for storing collections. Artifacts that are fragile or frequently asked about are placed in display cases by the staff members to add another layer of protection. |
Through this project and from my own life experience, I have found
that to look forward and explore new options for whatever your task may be, you
must know from where you began so you can appreciate how far you have come. So,
I reached out to a former Project member, Erin Claussen, who played a crucial
role in setting up the management system the Project currently uses. She
provided a lot of background information that let me take a step back to better
understand the development of the collection’s organization, specifically in
regards to the archaeological artifacts.
Initially, the artifacts were organized by Project members
according to their three-digit accession number which details the excavation
year, site number, and catalog number. For example, the accession number 18-2-1
indicates that the associated artifacts were recovered in 2018 from the second
site excavated that year by the Project and that these specific artifacts were
the first to be collected. Accession numbers have and continue to provide a
link to the information recorded about each artifact as they were documented on
a field specimen log and on the corresponding excavation field notes. After the
field season, the artifacts were transferred (on loan from the Fort St. Joseph
Museum, now the Niles History Center) to the archaeology lab at Western
Michigan University so the Project could perform an inventory of the material
recovered. The inventory included information regarding the artifacts’
accession number, spatial location, material type, function, description,
count, weight, and other useful notations. Following inventory, the artifacts
were transported back to the, then, Fort St. Joseph Museum for storage and
long-term care, maintaining the accession number method of organization. Each
year’s inventory was recorded in separate Microsoft Excel spreadsheets,
requiring researchers to search each file individually for the information they
were interested in.
After a decade of excavation, the Project began to rethink this
organizational method, recognizing the vast amount of materials represented in
the collection and the collection’s research potential. In 2010, Erin assisted
in developing a management plan for the Project in her master’s thesis, “Fort
St. Joseph 1.0: Creating a Comprehensive Information Management Scheme for the
Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project.” Erin implemented the tools needed for
the Project to begin recording the artifacts’ information in the collection
management system Past Perfect and helped in reorganizing the collection by raw
material (e.g., iron, brass, fauna, etc.) and function (e.g., activity, tool,
etc.) rather than by the artifacts’ accession numbers. The collection
reorganization and recording in Past Perfect was a large undertaking for the
Project and the, then, Fort St. Joseph Museum. Members of the Project worked on
the tasks over the course of a few years to complete the transition.
Currently, inventory information is entered each year into Past
Perfect as well as logged on an Excel spreadsheet. Some photographs are taken
of various artifacts and stored on the archaeology lab’s computer. After these
steps are completed, the artifacts are taken to the Niles History Center and
integrated with artifacts found in previous years. For the most part, the
Project and Niles History Center have continued using Erin’s system with some
success as members have maintained this organization for the archaeologically
recovered artifacts. There are some problems, however, with the system that
have become apparent over the years and now need to be addressed. I will
provide more details on this topic in my next post!
While there is more that can be gleaned from resources that have
not been discovered just yet, the research gathered in Phase 1 of this curation
project has provided a useful start. As our own collection challenges have come
to light as well as potential future problems, it is now time to begin
developing a specific plan of action.
Stay tuned for more updates,
Erika Hartley
