The Future of Curation at Carleton

Reflecting on the Curation Crisis and looking forward to how Carleton Archaeology will adapt

Background: What is the Curation Crisis? 

Of all the problems facing the field of archeology, the so-called curation crisis is among the most pressing. At its core, the problem is quite simple: a large and growing percentage of the world’s archeological artifacts are being stored in improper conditions. On some level, this is a result of simple arithmetic. As time passes more and more artifacts are pulled from the earth, stretching limited storage space and financial resources. In addition, new archeological practices, particularly salvage archeology, have increased the pace at which objects are excavated. This practice, in which artifacts are gathered en masse from a site threatened by, say, a building development or natural disaster, has undoubtedly been beneficial in preserving valuable historical resources, it has also produced huge masses of artifacts, sometimes hastily gathered, that are in need of storage. Moreover, as archeologist Morag Kersel argues, the curation crisis is not only a question of resources, but also stems from a “prevailing paradigm” in the archeological community that favors “archeological fieldwork over processing, publication, and permanent curation of materials from field projects.” (Kersel 44) 

Whatever the specific causes of the curation crisis, its effects are clear. In 2000, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers conducted a survey of their archeological collection. They found that 75% of their artifacts had been stored improperly and that 10% were in such bad condition as to require immediate rescue curation. In 2005, the Heritage Preservation conducted a comprehensive survey of all publicly owned U.S archeological collections, concluding that 20% of all artifacts required better care, and that a full 40% of the collections were so disorganized as to render an exact assessment impossible.  

The Situation at Carleton

Unfortunately, the curation crisis is not limited to only large institutions such as the Army Corps of Engineers. Here at Carleton College, the archeological collection held by the Classics department is experiencing a curation crisis of its own. In Carleton’s case, the primary issue is one of space. At present, all the artifacts gathered by the Classics department are stored in one small room. There is no additional storage space and no plans to purchase one. As of this article’s writing, this room is nearly full. Soon, there will be no space left, forcing the department to choose between the equally poor options of wantonly discarding artifacts or simply stopping the collection process entirely. 

Our Goal

Our group on Community Archaeology Day with our objects and 3D prints

Interestingly, when we first began thinking about this project, our focus was not addressing a lack of space for artifact storage, but simply organizing the collection. Over the course of the term, we had gotten the impression that artifacts from past years were being stored in a haphazard manner, without much documentation. Our goal was simply to create a database for the department so that individual artifacts could be easily located. However, we soon discovered that while the collection was in fact well organized, with a complete database and plenty of documentation, the real problem was that the department was running out of space to store artifacts. Faced with this realization, we decided to switch our focus. Our new goal is to deeply research archaeology archiving and the curation crisis, and then use this knowledge to propose a specific solution to the department’s storage dilemma.

Research Phase

We began our research by combing through JSTOR and Google Scholar for references to the curation crisis, curation guidelines, and deaccession. In all, we examined anything and everything; from the Federal Government’s curation guidelines to the lively curation debate in the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology to a short piece in Science. One source that was especially helpful was an article published by the Australasian Society for Historical Archeology. This piece proposed, among other things, that artifacts be assessed based on a set point-based system, an idea that we would eventually incorporate into our final proposal. Overall, our research gave us a solid grasp of what exactly the curation crisis is, as well as a general understanding of some of the principles of modern curation. However, useful though these sources were, many of the pieces we read felt a little disconnected from our project. The curation accreditation program developed in Texas is certainly interesting, but it was hard to see how such a huge endeavor could be relevant to the tiny Archaeology department at Carleton. To gain a more personal perspective on curation, we decided to interview a few professionals in the field.

Interviews

Our first interview was with Tom Lamb, the director of the Carleton archives. One of our biggest takeaways from this interview was that the curation crisis is by no means limited to archeological collections. Archives like Carleton’s are also feeling a growing pressure as more and more material becomes available. The Carleton Archives alleviate this pressure through several off-site storage facilities and also by deaccessioning duplicate material. Interestingly, Tom spoke about how one of his main concerns as an archivist is ensuring that underrepresented voices from Carleton’s past are preserved. This focus adds another angle to Tom’s conservation work in that he assesses material not only based on rarity or general historical value, but also on a given source’s ability to reveal the history of marginalized communities in Carleton’s past. We're hoping to apply this perspective in our eventual curation plan.

Our second interview was with Dr. Jennifer Farquhar, a contact archaeologist whom Dr. Kennedy had worked with at the University of Pittsburgh. Our forty minute conversation with Dr. Farquhar was probably the single most enlightening portion of our project. Almost everything she told us was useful, however two points stand out in particular. The first was Dr. Farquhar’s assertion that, in practice, almost all archeology is conducted under suboptimal conditions. An archeologist might be underfunded, or forced to work in poor weather or simply not given enough time. Whatever the exact circumstances, said Dr. Farquhar, in the end nothing in archeology will ever be exactly as we wish it to be. Given that, the task of an archeologist is not to undertake the perfect dig or create the perfect collection, but rather to do the best they can in the circumstances that they find themselves in. The second point Dr. Farquhar made was that we ought to try an incorporate some kind of advisory committee into our final curation solution, thereby allowing different perspectives and broader areas of expertise to be brought to bear. The framework that she laid out for this advisory committee was the seed from which our curation plan emerged.

Formulating our Proposal

Having done our research, and conducted our interviews, our next task was to incorporate all this information into one final recommendation for the department. At the beginning of our project, we had imagined that this recommendation would be specific and targeted, i.ei throwing out 50% of bones, collecting ¼ as many artifacts, etc. However, both our research and our conversations with Tom Lamb and Dr. Farquhar had taught us that the curation crisis is an immensely complicated issue. Sadly, there are no easy solutions, especially for an institution with limited resources such as the Carleton archeology department. Ultimately, we did not feel comfortable issuing any kind of directive as to which exact artifacts should be deaccessioned and which kept. Instead, we decided that our proposal would be more effective if we worked not to directly resolve the curation crisis at Carleton but to create the circumstances in which this crisis could be resolved. Specifically, we combined Dr. Farquhar’s recommendation with the practices of the Australasian historical society to form a solution in which a committee of individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds use a point-based system to access which artifacts should be kept and which are deaccessioned. We then pitched this plan to our classmates and, having met with their approval, posted our proposal to the class website.

Experimentation with Modern Curation Techniques

While our group was certainly very satisfied with our proposal, as the project drew to a close we began to feel that we would like to create something else, something more concrete to cap off our archeology term. While researching, we had read about the efforts of various curators to utilize electronic means; 3-D scanning, photogrammetry, and more; to preserve and display archeological artifacts. Since Carleton has a 3-D scanner of its own, we decided to try our hand at this technology, so that whatever might happen to the artifacts held by the archeology department, some, at least, would be preserved forever. Since none of the members of our group had any experience with 3-D scanning, this portion of our project ended up being among the more time-consuming. However, in the end we were able to create three 3-D scans and one 3-D print of some of the more impressive artifacts unearthed at Olin Farm. These scans are displayed on the archeology website (insert link) and will allow the general public to freely interact with some of the history of Olin Farm. We hope that future archaeology students will continue to use this technology. 

The Carleton Makerspace where we scanned and 3D printed our objects

Conclusion

Overall, we were very satisfied with our final project. We feel that we not only succeeded in expanding our knowledge of curation, but also created a solution which, we hope, will help address the problem of artifact storage in the Carleton archeology department.  We know that the department will urgently need more storage very soon, and we hope that in the coming years, future students and instructors will adopt some or all of our proposal in order to make a more sustainable and ethical Archaeology department here at Carleton.

Our group on Community Archaeology Day with our objects and 3D prints

The Carleton Makerspace where we scanned and 3D printed our objects