Flannery, this is a long answer to your long question so bear with me! I believe the problem your experiencing boils down to this: archival numbering systems are completely different from object numbering systems. I have both artifacts and archive here and this is the difference:
For artifacts we assign an accession number to the gift (2017.001) and then each object is affixed with a modifier of this number (2017.001.00001). The number here tells me this is the first object donated by the first gift in 2017.
For archives we assign an accession number to the gift only (A2017.001) and the catalog number is different, it is made up of four parts: Collection, series, file unit, item. This is how it looks in practice. I have a collection of Photographs (PHO). Within that collection I have several Series which I number (01, 02, 03). Each series is a different type of photograph. Within each Series, I have several File Units or groups (001, 002, 003). Within each File Unit, there are individual pieces or photographs (0001, 0002, 0003). A complete catalog record and the number affixed to a photograph looks like this: PHO.01.001.0001. Yes, it's more complex than the accession number but this allows me to add photographs from different donors to the same collection.
Example: Joe Shmoe donates a photograph of his grandfather in military uniform. I create a Photograph collection (PHO). The first Series is for "military". I place the photo in a File Unit for "uniforms" and assign this as the first photo: PHO.01.001.0001
Then Jane Doe donates a photograph of her daughter in military uniform. I can add this to the first, its PHO.01.001.0002. All the military uniform photos are together making it easier to research and find later.
Now Sam donates a photograph of a building on a military base. It's not a uniform, but it is still in the Series for military, so I create a new File Unit for "bases." This photograph then becomes: PHO.01.002.0001. It's the first photograph of the File Unit for bases within the military Series of the photograph Collection. Phew!
There are numerous books and seminars out there to learn archival numbering systems. It will feel like you have two completely different systems working in your museum and that's because you will. But in the end, archival material is much easier to retrieve when it is cataloged properly and that means leaving the accession number out of the numbering system.
------------------------------
Jenny Benjamin
Director
Museum of Vision
San Francisco CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2018 05:53 PM
From: Flannery Quinn
Subject: Collection/Object numbering
Hi this is my first post and it is sort of long! I included an explanation, but my actual questions are at the end of the post!
Okay, so the small historic house museum I work at is currently trying to organize/update the archives, a process which is taking a long time. I am an emerging museum professional and this is my first museum job so I am learning as I go. Well, I recently learned that object numbering is a thing - a thing that flat out does not exist in our archives or on our objects.
So I participated in a webinar about object numbering, which provided a lot of answers but also a lot of questions. I tried reaching out to the presenter but have not heard back so I thought I would ask here!
Obviously, object numbering is a useful and necessary cataloging tool and standard museum practice. But we don't even have a system to START from, beyond the organized objects in our archival boxes and their finding aids. I was talking with our director and a staff member who has a degree in archaeology. Originally, I wanted our numbers to look something like [year item was acquired].[collection number].[box number].[folder number].[item number in that folder]. So it would look like 2018.10.3.2.15. So we would know that this was acquired in 2018, it is in the 10th collection, in box 3, folder two, item 15. Our archaeologist made a great point that basing the numbering system on the boxing system is a risky idea because item 2018.10.3.2.15 might not always be housed in that box and file number and it opens it up to duplicates.
The other struggle is that we don't know when certain items were acquired. (the staff has completely turned over).
Our current system in development looks like this:
All items accessed before January 2017 will be "dated" as 2016. This will signify that we don't know the accession date. we will use current years for all items given after January 2017.
Each collection will be given a number.
Each TYPE of item will be designated with a number 0-9. THIS IS A SIGNIFIER NUMBER and will NOT be followed by a period. For example, 0, will represent newspapers, 1 will represent paper items, 2 will represent original documents, 3 will represent physical objects. etc, etc.
This number will be followed by the item number.
EXAMPLE: 2018.14.315 would refer to an item acquired in 2018, in the 14th collection, where it is an object and the 15th item in that collection.
OKAY THAT WAS A LOT OF EXPLANATION I'M SORRY.
I have two sets of questions about object numbering.
1. How do you number duplicate items? Are they different numbers? Same numbers? Do you include a prefix to indicate a duplicate?
2. What about items that are in multiple formats. For instance - we have a set of VHS tapes that we converted to DVDs for ease of downloading to computers/viewing. So we have the original VHS that we don't know when were acquired and the DVDs which we converted in 2017. Do we have a number for the VHS that is 2016.3.610V and then the DVD versions are 2016.3.610D OR would it be better to have the dvd versions be 2017.3.610.
BONUS QUESTION 3 - What are good resources for this type of (incredibly daunting and terrifying) project? Should I be considering a completely different approach?
Thank you in advance!
------------------------------
Flannery Quinn
Historian
Clinton House Museum
Fayetteville AR
------------------------------