C ollections

M ANAGEMENT

Edited by

A nne Fahy
&
Introduction
Anne Fahy

This reader, through the selection of articles and extracts from books and this essay,
attempts to highlight contemporary issues which have an effect upon collections
management and policy-making in national and non-national museums, within the
context of the following eight themes:
1 Developing collections management policies.
2 The movement and protection of cultural property and the role of museums.
3 Acquisition policies and methods of acquisition, including the costs of collecting.
4 De-accessioning and disposal - including legal and ethical issues.
5 Museum documentation and current national and international initiatives in documen­
tation.
6 Researching collections and disseminating information about them.
7 Museum security.
8 Insurance and government indemnity schemes.
The themes follow the outline of the Collections Management Course at the University
of Leicester and the split between the themes in this book and the second collections
management reader does not reflect any system, other than that included in the Leicester
courses. Although each aspect is not dealt with in detail in this discussion, I have tried to
emphasize current concerns as they relate to them. Whilst an international perspective is
aimed for, inevitably the emphasis of the reader is based on concerns and issues in the
United Kingdom. Readers from overseas, however, should find much that is appropriate
and applicable to their own situations, as the general principles are universal.
The second volume about collections management in the series considers the museum
environment, care and handling of collections, transportation, packing, storage and
disaster preparedness.
Within the series, the two volumes that d®aî wish collections management attempt to
cover the main aspects of the subject, ifo&igh, inevitably there are some areas of overlap
and exclusion. The reader is not advised to see each volume in the series in isolation from
the others, as there are many links between them Decisions made about objects, from
a collections management perspective, may impact upon how the museum develops its
communication policy or educational policies, or the special needs of specific collections
may influence managerial decisions relating to the use of existing resources. Similarly, the
history and philosophy of museums and the history of collecting have a direct influence
upon many of the collections management decisions taken by today’s curators. The
historical development of the collections and the ways in which they are managed affect
all other activities in which the museum is involved. The reader should attempt, first,
to make connections between all the volumes in the series, by looking for areas of
comparability and also difference; and second, to think about how museum finance ^
marketing programmes may affect the collections and to consider how the ways inwhil
non-natioi
curators approach objects and interpret them can influence collecting decisions, dispb
these have
decisions and even disposal decisions. account fo:
Finally, collections management has often been perceived as being a deeply practical In order ti
aspect of museum work, and on a day-to-day basis it is. However, it is essential ft incentives
recognize that an understanding of the principles of collections management is critical Commissio
to the development of good practice. Without a knowledge of the development 4 improving 1
collections and of material culture, it is impossible to construct new ways of collection! through th<
development and understand the role of museums in contemporary society. and through

By far the n
Galleries Co:
CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES sion 1988). 1
museums an
This section will look at some of the external issues affecting collections managements funds to impl
in museums today. The Museums Association defines a museum as ‘an institution which to M useum s!
'kite mark' of
collects, documents, preserves, exhibits and interprets material evidence and associated
stated aims oi
information for the public benefit’ (Museums Association 1992). Within this definition
the scheme ha
lies the heart of museums: the collection, recording, presmration and exhibition, with Heritage Mem
all that it entails, of material evidence - objects. Whether a museum collects natural registered stati
historical, military, archaeological or fine art material, it is the objects that make the
Undoubtedly, I
museum unique from other heritage attractions, and from the collections that curators
there remains t
and museum managers generate their publications, research programmes, exhibition
status, or who
and educational programmes, and so on. All museum programmes, from visitor consist of the h
services, educational services, publication, etc., have the collections at their core in that encompasses, a
they provide the source material for such programmes. In order to carry out all of the« in terms of lev«
activities, the museum relies upon the collections being stored appropriately to prevefl
The Registrant
deterioration, and being protected against breakage and damage and exposure®
invited to appl;
harmful environmental conditions, fire, theft and disaster. In addition, objects mi» it achieved it it
be recorded to a standard, so that the museum is able to account, locate and p.rovj and it is possil
information about them. Objects must be accessible, via public exhibition, inform*0 insufficient to i
services and loans, and finally, they must be legally accounted for, to ensure that major capital e
museum behaves in a responsible and ethical fashion.
Hand in hand
But what is collections management? It is a blanket term applied to the physicalca^ Area Museum
and documentation of collections. Because it is so broad, it effectively encompass^ improve standa
wide range of activities which may at times appear to be disparate. What they have policies, and gr
common is the objective of protecting the collections and their associated inform«^ On the policy s
from degradation, theft and destruction, and permitting physical and intellectual acc^ fully thought on
to the objects. Such activities are not new, and have formed part of basic curatorialc> Councils have j
for many years. policies as part
been defined bj
The development of standards is in operation
professional sta
development of
Since the mid-1980s public attention has been focused upon the management of policy-making,
tions as a result of published surveys and reports which have been critical of stan . J i all aspects of cjo
of collections management in national and non-national museums in the UiW"l going loans, stoi
Kingdom. transportation)
The National Audit Office Report on the Management of the Collections of the
National Museums (National Audit Office 1988) expressed direct concern
standards of inventory control and storage in some national museums. Reports $ -Jj
 Introduction
Or

non-national sector have expressed similar concerns (Ramer 1989; Kenyon 1992) and all
these have compounded to present an image of museums in a state of disarray, unable to
account for their collections and incapable of caring for them appropriately.
In order to counter such problems, there has been a proliferation of schemes and
incentives to improve collections care, co-ordinated by the Museums and Galleries
Commission and the Area Museum Councils. All of these have the general aim of
improving knowledge and understanding of collections management in practical terms,
through the provision of grant aid for specific projects aimed at raising standards,
and through the dissemination of knowledge, via training courses and publications.
By far the most significant scheme in the United Kingdom has been the Museums and
Galleries Commission’s National Registration Scheme (Museums and Galleries Commis­
sion 1988). Through setting minimum standards for collections care and public service,
museums are able to improve standards or use the scheme as a means for obtaining
funds to implement projects to raise standards. Achieving registered status brings access
to Museums and Galleries Commission and Area Museum Council funds, along with a
‘kite mark* of approval to encourage public confidence in the museum. Indeed, one of the
stated aims of the scheme has been to foster public confidence in museums. In addition
the scheme has also won support from other grant-giving agencies, such as the National
Heritage Memorial Fund, who will also limit its aid to those museums that have achieved
registered status.

Undoubtedly, the National Registration Scheme has raised standards in museums, but
there remains the concern for those museums who have either failed to achieve registered
status, or who have chosen not to participate in the scheme. Will museums in the future
consist of the haves and have-nots? O f those museums that are registered, with all that it
encompasses, and those that are not? What will it mean for those museums in the future
in terms of levels of care, and access to advice and support?
The Registration Scheme is to continue into k§ second phase and all museums will be
invited to apply to register in 1995. No museum is guaranteed registered status, even if
it achieved it in the first phase. Each phase will ¡build upon and expand existing criteria
and it is possible that some museums may consider the benefits of registration to be
insufficient to merit the effort required to go through to the next phase, particularly if
major capital expenditure is required to meet the new standards.
Hand in hand with the Registration Scheme have been other standards initiatives. The
Area Museum Councils have used the grant-in-aid schemes to encourage museums to
improve standards of management through the development of collections management
policies, and grant-aid has been focused upon physically improving collections care.
On the policy side, the Registration Scheme requires that each museum should have a
fully thought out and approved acquisition and disposals policy, and some Area Museum
Councils have gone further by including the development of collections management
policies as part of their requirements for grant aid. A collections management policy has
been defined by Malaro as ‘a detailed written statement that explains why a museum
is in operation and how it goes about its business, and it articulates the museum’s
professional standards regarding objects left in its care’ (Malaro 1985: 43). Whilst the
development of an acquisitions and disposal policy is a significant step for a museum's
policy-making, a fully developed collections management policy - which incorporates
all aspects of collections management, (from acquisition, disposal, incoming and out­
going loans, storage, documentation, insurance, security and inventories, to packing and
transportation) 1 allows museum management to demonstrate that consideration has
e & * €
m K
rts i#
Anne Fahy

been given to the museum’s position on all collection-related activities. TK^

museum should be able to provide clear and workable guidelines for staff about ho ^
respond in situations where a decision may be required, the correct procedures to fo||10
for acquisition, disposal, etc., to avoid giving offence to those who have requests tom^ Internati
of the museum which may be contrary to policy, and to openly demonstrate tfaii as the C
develop
the museum is behaving in a legal and ethical manner in all its collection activité
of exist»
Once developed, the policy should be implemented through procedural manuals aixT a standa
should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with the museum’s changing aimsand ' Associai
objectives. It could be regarded as a case for concern that the MGC Registration I History
Scheme requirement at present limits itself to the development of acquisition and indicato)
disposal policies, whereas museums need to consider the whole range of their collection* I The deve
management activities. by the li
Improved collections management has also been the aim of a number of publication* 1 and rais
in colled
which have addressed the practicalities of collections care. Publications such as Museum between
Basics (Ambrose and Paine 1993), the revised edition of the Manual o f Curatorship I work in;
(Thompson 1992), the ICOM Security Committee’s publication Museum Security, f between
A Handbook (ICOM and the International Committee on Museum Security 1993) I prospect
have attempted to provide the museum sector with up-to-date information about good ? nate info
collections management on the policy side, as well as providing practical information. 1 One elen
Particularly significant has been the series of publications on standards in the care museums
of collections produced by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which addresses 1 upon mi
the individual needs of specific types of collections. So far, three standards have been and natic
produced, for archaeological, geological and biological collections, with others planned. 1 over funi
They provide guidelines for museums relating to the policy and practical aspects of | they have]
looking after collections. progranu
collection
Within individual areas, standards work is also underway. The Museums Security 1
Adviser, based at the Museums and Galleries Commission, has also done much to
improve standards of security in museums and to raise awareness of security issuesin i CULT»
museums in the United Kingdom. The Security Adviser adh ises museums about security 1
matters and ensures that all museums receiving Government Indemnity meet specific J Events
standards of security. This ongoing work is complemented by that of ICOM and the protea in H
between I
International Committee on Museum Security, whose publication was mentioned briefly |
how the ii
above, but who also retain an overview on international security matters. once the I
The Government Indemnity Scheme has now broadened its requirements to include stan- I meant ths: I
dards for environmental control and monitoring in venues. The gradual introductionJ cultural
of higher standards for security and environmental controls has meant that museums § in Kuwait
cultural pi
have been able to phase in the necessary improvements in buildings over time, and many |
1954 Hag
organizations have been aided by the provision of grants from the Museums and | Conflict. I
Galleries Improvement Fund.
Let us cor
Recent trends in museum documentation have also focused heavily upon the developm®®1 in 1957,
of standards. The Museum Documentation Association has embarked upon an ambitions * within the
programme with the UK Museum Documentation Standard to provide a procedure I the Treaty
standard for all aspects of documentation, along with a guide to the fields of informa#! | states to p
the museum should record to meet the standard. The UK Museum DocumentationI value. In \
Standard has the aim of improving standards in documentation through the provision a against ex
of guidelines and examples of good practice, firmly based within the existing legal an export res'
ethical context. Eventually, the standard should encourage the exchange of information addition, t
removed ii
between museums and other organizations. The work of the MDA UK Muse^
Documentation Standard is firmly linked with international standards developm^
work under the auspices of CIDOC, the international documentation committee of
4
 Introduction

International Council of Museums. At the same time, other US-based initiatives, such
as the Computer Interchange of Museum Information Committee (CIMI), a project to
develop a technical framework for the exchange of electronic information, independent
of existing systems (Perkins 1992), the Art Information Task Force, which is developing
a standard for recording art-historical information (Hansen 1991), and the American
Association for State and Local History’s Common Agenda programme to develop a
History Museum Standard for recording social history objects (Sander 1991), are alt
indicators of the general concern with developing common standards.
The development of standards in many aspects of collections management, accompanied
by the link with central government funds, will eventually improve standards of care
and raise awareness in some museums. Other benefits of increased standardization
in collections care and documentation practices are the potential for increased mobility
between museum staff, who will not have to learn new systems in every museum they
work in; in the field of documentation, museums may be able to exchange information
between each other more readily and easily than they have hitherto. This is an exciting
prospect and may have profound implications upon the ways in which museums dissemi­
nate information about their collections.
One element that has pervaded the growth in standards has been the recognition that
museums are publicly accountable organizations. This has to some extent been forced
upon museums, as central government policy has affected both local government
and national museums through local government review and reorganization and control
over funding. However, accountability has become the watchword of museums as
they have tried to demonstrate that they are worthy of public funds, through their public
programmes, and that they are well-managed organizations, through improved
collections care and greater accessibility to collections information.

CULTURAL PROPERTY CONCERNS

Events in the world have brought renewed fears about how countries can effectively
protect important cultural items. Firsî, the removal of trade barriers on 1 January 1993
between the twelve member states of the European Union raised questions about
how the member states would be able to prevent the export of important cultural items
once the trade barriers were removed. Second, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc has
meant that new opportunities have opened up for both the legal and illegal trade in
cultural property from these cash-hungry but culturally rich states. Finally, conflict
in Kuwait, the former Yugoslavia and other parts of the world has demonstrated that
cultural property is vulnerable to removal and destruction, even when ‘protected’ by the
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict.
Let us consider the European Union first. The Treaty of Rome, which founded the EEC
in 1957, included the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people
within the European Community. In terms of protecting cultural property, Article 36 of
the Treaty of Rome would appear to be the key mechanism, as it permits the member
states to protect any national treasures that contain artistic, archaeological or historic
value. In this way, the member states are allowed to protect their cultural property
against export. As a result, they have used Article 36 to maintain their own national
export restrictions, and this pack contains an example from the United Kingdom. In
addition, the EU is also developing mechanisms for the return of material that has been
removed in contravention of the protective measures of the member states.
Anne Fahy

The European Union has twelve members and Article 36 is applicable only to J
member states. What then is the situation on a global scale? jW
Throughout the twentieth century there has been in operation a highly profitable
Through
trade in-----
------ --- cultural material.
-- -- ---- Equally,
------- --- ------1 f there
-- has been a thriving
<-* illegal
» trade of
----- - » * items wk '
of Muse
have either been stolen from their owners or from archaeological and other som iff fully prgi
sites, or which have been removed in direct contravention of the prevailing ___o leg^
islatj
®li to“n they coll«
of the country of origin. The illegal trade in cultural property can result in~the \ yii0]J uncertain
sale destruction of archaeological sites, with the commensurate loss of of the ille
about the object and its provenance; it may encourage crime and may even result inf I and orgai
concerned
eventual loss of the cultural inheritance of ethnic groups in vulnerable areas.
To protect themselves against such losses and to control the movement of cultural material 1
via the legal trade, many states have introduced mechanisms to control the movement ^ THE CC
of cultural property within their borders (in some cases) and beyond. In states whereit
With the
may be considered that there have been major losses in the past, to such an extent that the also been :
cultural heritage is diminished, stringent regulations may be in force that prohibit the that the tv
exportation of cultural material (for example, Italy, Greece and Turkey). Other states they need
operate systems of selective export, screening only to retain the most important objects, a appropriat
whilst at the same time maintaining free trade (such as the UK, Canada, Denmark and A report w
Japan). Some states, such as France, also keep lists of items of such national importance! costs of at
that they cannot be exported, whilst others, such as Mexico, have declared national! operating c
ownership of specific groups of material. In Mexico, such has been the concern over the ; study show
loss of Pre-Columbian items that the state has declared national ownership of this group1 object is be
of material, which places restrictions over its ownership and movement. of staff and
significant i H
To varying degrees, all of these systems attempt to protect and control the movement! establish th<
of cultural property. However, in spite of such measures, objects do find their way on appropriate)
to the black market and emerge in states other than their country of origin. Once thisj of time, stafH
circumstanc
has occurred how can a state recover the material which has been illegally removed?«
Once the
The answer will depend upon whether the state from which tfee object originated and the ^ vation, and j
state to which it has been removed are members of the EUS or if they are signatories* museum res
of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit 1 considered a
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970. If both statesare that may im I
members of the EU then the mechanisms being set up by the EEC will come into play-1 equipment).
If they are signatories of the 1970 Convention, then it will apply. If they are neither, then | Research int<
they may encounter serious difficulties. they have dii
is only sensib
The UNESCO Convention is significant because it has the greatest number of signatories» a
the object cat
including the USA, Italy and Canada. It aims to establish international co-operatio|| the acquisitio
to fight the illegal traffic in cultural property, through the recognition that the hi|CI | to make tiecis
traffic is a major cause of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of many states^ | in the knowle
The Convention places reciprocal obligations on its members and requires tMM In addition, ti
amongst other things, to introduce mechanisms to oppose the illegal movement efficient and c
cultural property between states. Linked with a
there are occas
Within the Convention, museums and other similar institutions are p r e v e n t e d frorjj
dispose of thei
acquiring illegally exported material, and the spirit of the Convention is ensMM
has divided m
in the codes of conduct and ethics of museums associations across the world, iti t J taken, must be
they emphasize that museums should be certain that any items they acquire j approved by tl
not been stolen, illegally imported or exported from their country of origin, or ilk# 1
collected through removal from a protected site or habitat, or that the items themsC‘v
are protected by law.

6
those Introduction

Through international co-operation, under the auspices of the International Council

legal of Museums, museums can reaffirm their commitment to the acquisition of only
rhich fully provenanced material, by making every effort they can to ensure that the objects
1 of they collect are legally acquired. Equally, they should refuse to collect any item of
ition uncertain provenance and should attempt to educate public opinion about the effects
lole- of the illegal trade. They can also inform each other about losses from their countries
and organizations via the network of national and international organizations that are
ition
concerned with security and cultural property matters.
i the

:rial THE COSTS OF COLLECTING

»ent
With the recent emphasis upon the development of acquisition policies, there has
re it
also been a growth in interest in the actual costs of collecting. Indeed, it could be argued
:the that the two go hand in hand; as museums develop responsible policies for acquisition,
the they need to examine the costs involved with collecting to ensure that their policy is
ates appropriate to the organization.
;cts,
A report written by Lord, Lord and Nicks (1989) produced an analysis of the actual
and
costs of acquisition, including the initial costs of acquiring an object and ongoing
nee operating costs associated with caring for, protecting and documenting collections. The
>nal study showed that there are always financial implications in acquisition; even if the
the object is being given to the museum, the museum will have devoted resources in terms
3lip of staff and time. There may even be packing and transportation costs (which may be
significant for large items), along with carrying out initial conservation assessment to
establish the exact condition of the object and research into the item to ensure that it is
ent appropriate for the organization. Most museums do not quantify such commitment
on of time, staff and resources, but if they were to do so, they would consider that in some
:hi§ circumstances the cost of the acquisition has been considerable.
p
Once the museum has acquired an object, #'£must be documented, it may require conser­
the vation, and it will need secure, appropriate storage. Throughout its history with the
•ies museum resources will be allocated to it to ensure its survival, and these must be
ieit considered at the time of acquisition, particularly if the object has special requirements
are that may involve the museum in additional expenditure (for example, special lifting
ay. equipment).
len Research into the costs of collecting will become increasingly important to museums if
they have diminishing acquisition funds and restricted budgets to run their services. It
is only sensible that acquisitions are made in the full knowledge of the ways in which
es, the object can be used in the collections (via the collections policy) and the real cost of
on the acquisition to the museum. Using both of these tools, the museum should be able
cit to make decisions relating to acquisitions, which reflect its aims and objectives, secure
es. in the knowledge that they are able to give the object the care and resources it requires.
m, In addition, they are able to demonstrate the wise use of diminishing resources in an
of efficient and cost-effective manner.
Linked with a more responsible approach to acquisition has been the recognition that
im there are occasions when a museum may need to remove items from the collections and
ted dispose of them. Museum disposals is a very emotive and legally complex subject that
lat has divided museum opinion for many years. However, disposal, if it is to be under­
ive taken, must be within the context of a fully considered disposals policy, which has been
illy approved by the museum’s governing body. Furthermore, it must be implemented in
ves
Amte Fahy

strict accordance with the organization’s procedures, in order to avoid adverse n kf.
and legal difficulties.
In the United Kingdom, there has always been a strong presumption against distfcS
which is incorporated into the Museums Association’s Code of Practice for u iS l
Authorities (Museums Association 1992) and also the Registration Scheme {Mim fl
and Galleries Commission 1988), on the principle that museums hold objectsin3
for the future and thus, if disposal should take place, the disposing museum shall
try to keep the object in the public domain, by gift, sale or exchange with anoth
museum. Attitudes vary in other countries, with many museum professionals regard«!
disposal as a means of keeping collections dynamic. The papers included in Jj|
reader attempt to give both perspectives. Regardless of attitudes towards disposal,it«
imperative that policy and procedures are developed and adhered to in order for t||t
museum to demonstrate that it is operating legally and ethically.

CONCLUSION

In each of the sections of this chapter, an attempt has been made to present an overview
of some of the main issues that have an impact upon collections management. Theyait
not exhaustive and it is likely that some issues will remain prominent for some years,
whilst others will become a thing of the past. Equally, there are concerns specificto"
particular groups of museums and regions that it has been impossible to include.
Collections management is a fundamental part of museum work and it is hoped that
this Reader in Museum Studies will provide the student of museum studies, or thenew
museum worker with an introduction to some aspects of collections management. *1

REFERENCES
Ambrose, T. and Paine, C. (1993) Museum Basics, London: Routledge.
Hansen, H. J. (1991) Art Information Task Force, CIDOC Newsletter, Vol. 3.
ICOM and the International Committee on Museum Security (1993) Museum Security and Proto*®*j|
A Handbook for Cultural Heritage Institutions, London and New York: ICOM in conjunction
Routledge.
Kenyon, J. (1992) ‘Collecting for the twenty-first century’, A Survey of Industrial and Social Histoj) J
Collections in the Museums of Yorkshire and Humberside, Yorkshire and Humberside Museums I
Council. I!
Lord, B., Lord, G.D., and Nicks, J. (1989) The Cost of Collecting. Collection Management in ;
Museums, a report commissioned by the Office of Arts and Libraries, London: HMSO.
Malaro, M. (1985) A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, Washington, D.C.: S m ith so n ' a
Institution Press.
Museums Association (1992) Code of Practice for Museum Authorities. Museums Yearbook 1992/ijM
London: Museums Association. .^
Museums and Galleries Commission (1988) Guidelines for a Registration Scheme for Museums«
United Kingdom, London: Museums and Galleries Commission.
National Audit Office (1988) Management of the Collections of the English National Museums
Galleries, London: HMSO.
Perkins, J. (1992) ‘CIMI’s data movement’, Museum News 71(4):24-6. .
Ramer, B. (1989) A Conservation Survey of Museum Collections in Scotland, Edinburgh.
Museums Council.
Sander, M. (1991) ‘The Philadelphia story’, History News 46(4):7-10.
Thompson, J.M. (ed.) (1992) The Manual of Curatorship, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. j