Open Forum

Ah! This happens in many places. I would assign a placeholder four-digit string maybe 0000. It will signal that the date is uncertain, but you could also go back and change the accession year if firm documentation is discovered.  I would not assign an "approximate" year or 2024. It is an action, that if not property documented (or if someone in the future doesn't bother to look at the documentation you provide) could become "fact." You may find mention of the acquisitions board minutes, news letters, or other organizational archives in the future. You can certainly add a note in the record about when you think the item arrived. 

I was about to comment exactly as Erin Richardson did. Her comments are right on target, as usual! If I might add an additional suggestion, it would be to add a reference book or two to the historical society bookshelf... or better yet, just keep it on the work table. Dan Reibel's Registration Methods for the Small Museum is an excellent source of suggestions for developing logical, basic systems of recordkeeping. It has been around for decades, but even the earlier editions are useful -- the principles of our work do not change. The price of current editions is about $52; earlier editions can be found for about $50 less than that. For a little background reading, try Angela Kipp's Managing Previously Unmanaged Collections wherein you will find entertaining articles about successful and failed attempts at collections management. (Full disclosure, I wrote a few pages about a museum where we successfully tackled many unrecorded objects, and three cataloging systems, all initiated by the same curator.)

Bruce MacLeish

Curator Emeritus / Newport Restoration Foundation

Thanks to both of you.  I did purchase a copy of Dudley for them, but may add more to their arsenal!

For items found in collection, I have placed an "x" in front of the year in which the item was found, add under "donation type" this item is "found in collection", and note in location where the item was found as well as its new location. Notes fields can be used to add any additional information.  Photographs of the item are always great when you have found documentation that might match your FIC item. If I do find that the item has an original accession number, I move the "x" number to "other number" or notes field and replace with the original number.  To avoid removing objectId# from an item, I only use tags fo "X" numbers.  Whatever system you come up with, consistency is important.

Hi Vivian - I consulted with my collections managers colleagues at HAI and they provided these recommendations: 

There are two options here. One, would be to use known acquisition dates for some objects and 2024 for objects whose acquisition dates are unknown, with a note that the object was first processed/formally accessioned into the collection in 2024. I would never estimate an acquisition date or use the donor’s death date as that may be inaccurate and can easily become assumed as fact by staff members. You can put estimates in the provenance field though and mark them as such.

The other option, especially if none of the artifacts have even been numbered before, is to just give everything a 2024 number. This gives the collection a clean slate to speak, where you know, institutionally, that the collection was first fully accessioned/processed/inventoried in 2024. Acquisition dates can then be marked in the provenance field.