Jessie Hopper
LIS 5343
May 3, 2013
How Do You Solve a Problem like the Unicorn Mask: Artifacts in the Archives
Museums and archives are always thought of as being two of a kind. They are the collecting
institutions that preserve and protect our history, yet for all of their supposed similarities,
archives and museums exist uneasily alongside one another. As the two organizations grew into
their respective missions, they evolved along parallel tracks with their professional theories and
methods going the same way. Their professional differences have created a seemingly
impenetrable wall between these collecting institutions that keeps them from working together to
build interlinked collections. These collections could create extensive and cohesive knowledge
bases for the users if the staff of museums and archives would work together.
At this point, a dearth of public and private funds has put resources at a premium. Museums
and archives are often fighting each other for endowments, grants or public funding. Their
dueling missions often put them at odds with each other in this battle. Now, more than ever,
these groups need to come together to create linked catalogs of all of their resources. In order to
do that, the archives and museum professionals must work together to overcome logistical
difficulties inherent in their unique registration and descriptive methods to create a cohesive
system that everyone can use effectively.
Perhaps the conflict began because there are fundamental differences between the primary
missions of an archive and a museum. An archive primarily exists to preserve the “permanently
and historically valuable records of individuals and group then organizing them in a systematic
and coherent way and make them accessible”1 to users. This is a change from the original reason
for archives. Archives originally existed as organic outgrowths of the records of governmental
and major organizational institutions. An archivist was expected to maintain these records in
their original order as part of the creator’s collection. Yet, the explosion of records creation
following the two World Wars led to a change in how we conceived of archives.2 No longer
could they just take anything. Appraisal became a key part of collecting theory. Now, an
archivist’s job is to select and preserve the appropriate records that will be useful and celebrated
in the future. An archive is responsible for the collections and for keeping them in a way that
allows users to come in and make their own interpretations.
A museum’s mission is to be an institution that “collects, documents, preserves, exhibits and
interprets material culture … for the preservation of a community’s cultural and natural
heritage.”3 Museums historically have been started because people like to collect things.
Gradually, those collections became too big to be contained even in large estates. As such,
collecting institutions started to form to create repositories where the extraordinary and ordinary
about our material culture could be held for the future to see. While archives hold their
collections in reserve and ask scholars to discover the knowledge within, museums have an
obligation not just to collect valuable items, but to take those items and educate the public
through their use4. Museums take their materials and do much of the interpretation and display
for their patrons. They are directly involved in choosing their message. Their very missions
O’Toole, James M. and Richard J. Cox. 2006. Understanding Archives and Manuscripts. Archival Fundamentals
Series II. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
2
Eastwood, Terry. 2010. “A Contested Realm: The Nature of Archives and the orientation of Archival Science. In
Currents in Archival Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, 23-43. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries
Unlimited.
3
Ambrose, Timothy and Crispin Paine. 2003. Museum Basics. The Heritage: Care-Preservation Programme. New
York: Routledge.
4
Burcaw, G. Ellis. 1997. Introduction to Museum Work. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
1
separate them as having differences in the type of things they collect and how they present them
to the world.
Each type of institution organizes their information in different ways. Archives have always
organized their information according to three cardinal principles. The first is known as respect
the fonds. This concept details the idea that all records that come from a single entity or
individual should be grouped together. The fond should be a reflection of the institution that
created it.5 However, over the years as collections are created from different sources, the idea of
fonds has become less important. When items are brought together in a special collection
through different creators, the perception of it as an organic whole is no longer valid.
The second and related principle is original order. This is the notion that the records of a single
creator should be kept in the manner in which the creator placed them. Each file has a specific
location that was determined by the person or entity that fashioned the record. Again, while
there are specific instances of order being critical to understanding the originating organization
or individual, many times collections are incomplete or coming from no actual detailed order. In
this way, order is often determined by the archivists.
The overarching principle guiding archives is ultimately the concept of provenance.
Provenance is “the relationship between records and the organizations or individuals that created,
accumulated, and/or maintained and used them in the conduct of personal or corporate activity6.”
It has been the chief way in which professional archives organize their collections and has been
Douglas, Jennifer. 2010. “Origins: Evolving Ideas about the Principle of Provenance.” In Currents in Archival
Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, 23-43. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
6
Society of American Archivists. 2004. Describing Archives – A Content Standard. Chicago: Society of American
Archivists.
5
since the mid-1800’s. Ultimately, provenance ties directly the creator and the creation rather
than making thematic or subject-based areas within an archive.
Provenance defines what an archive actually is. Archives are tied to the concept of the
collection by creator. The reason that archives do not organize thematically is due to an
acceptance of provenance. The intellectual framework created by a collection as whole allows
for a relationship between materials. Without it, items would have no relational history to the
creating organization or individual, thus rendering the context of the items irrelevant.
This way of arranging materials in the archive is very different from the way in which
museums organize their information.
While information about the donor can be and is
considered important, the physical form and meaning of the individual object is the focus.7
Museums are all about the objects. Without the object, there is no museum. Individual records
are the basis for the museum’s cataloging system. Each object takes a distinct place in the
museum because material culture is the reason for a museum’s being.8 A museum is much more
of a visual entity than an archive. Going to an archive is to delve into a person’s life or that of an
organization by delving into their records, whether they are letters, photos or even dances.
Going to a museum is to experience visually the cultural record of a town, a company, or a
country.
What is interesting is that, in the beginning, both museums and archives work in much
the same way. Accessioning a collection or object is the term used across all of these collecting
institutions. Whether at an archive or a museum, each item or collection comes through an
accessions procedure that is fairly consistent. Each collection comes to the institution via a deed
7
Edwards, Phillip M. "Collection Development and Maintenance across Libraries, Archives, and Museums: A
Novel Collaborative Approach." Library Resources & Technical Services 48, no. 1 (January 2004): 26-33.
8
Burcaw, p. 56.
of gift which, hopefully, transfers all rights in perpetuity. Each collection is then accessioned
into the organization, getting a number that corresponds to the year in which it was acquired.
Everything seems to be going along in much the same way, but once a collection is accessioned,
things start to fork down different paths.
A collection in an archive is then entered into whichever database system the institution
uses. A strict set of standards, known as DACS, guides the creation of metadata schema for
archival collections. Subject headings may be taken directly from the Library of Congress. In
most archives, information is taken at either the box or folder level. The individual items are
often not recorded directly in a finding aid or even in the archive’s database. More often than
not, a scholar would look up the holdings online and see a general description about a folder’s
contents that would hopefully entice him or her to come to the archive for a more thorough
review of the materials.9 Archival content is not always described specifically. Extreme detail
about collections’ holdings almost never occurs. Certain topics, themes, names, locations, and
time periods are referenced, but there is generally a succinct account of the material.
No numbers are placed on any individual letter or photograph, just a location by folder
and box. Small indications of the condition of the material might be written in a special field,
but a thorough object condition report is not taken. Basic measurements of photographs can be
included, but the fields that are used in the database are not necessarily consistent across all
archives. While Dublin Core is considered one of the standards for determining the metadata
created when cataloging an item, there is no set requirement for this to be the case.
At the heart of the issue is that archives are concerned more with the subjects and themes
of their materials than each individual item in its care. The mission of each archive sets out what
9
Roe, Kathleen D. 2005. Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts. Archival Fundamentals Series II.
Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
the collecting policy of the institution will be. This can change over time. The “history of a
collection [may] provide a narrative that can be used to chart the value assessments of a society
over time.”10 Archives are known as a memory institution, that is, they are the keepers of
society’s memories about itself. As the concept of what archivists do changes from simply being
caretakers of history to helping to shape the course of those memories, the professionals working
today must start to see the relationships that occur between the objects, the creator and the users
who will come.11
An object that comes into a museum goes through a slightly more rigorous set of
circumstances. Registration is the way museums describe and catalog their objects. Once an
object comes into the museum, the first thing that most museums do is give the item a number.
The number is unique to each item and provides the overall organization for the entire museum.
Every item is special and must be cataloged as such. This is the most important part of a
registration system. Each item has a number, and then there is paperwork that references the
number; the combination of these two items creates the system. Usually, a worksheet, whether
paper or electronic, is created that includes all of the information about the item. This may
include its ownership record, the historical data about it, manufacturer, creator, and type.
Without either one, the museum’s cataloging system falls apart12. The paperwork tells us what
we are looking at, and the number identifies the item. The integration is mandatory for
understanding what a museum has and how to find it.
After this comes the description of the item. Here is yet another way in which archives
and museums move in opposite directions. When an archivist describes an object or record,
10
Edwards, p. 28.
Trace, Ciaran B. 2010. “On or Off the Record? Notions of Value in the Archive.” In Currents in Archival
Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, 23-43. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
12
Reibel, Daniel B. Registration Methods for the Small Museum. 3rd. ed. American Association for State and
Local History Book Series. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1997.
11
there is some mention made of the size or medium, but the primary description is saved for its
subject. The visual cues are not necessarily the most important part of how an archivist would
describe a document. Yet, a museum collections manager would take a great deal of time to
describe exactly what an object looks like, the materials of which it is made, and the size. In
addition, an extensive condition report is usually generated.13 A collections specialist would take
precise measurements and describe any unique features or issues with the condition. A
photograph might have foxing and tears, while a glass vase might have cracks and bubbles. Each
of these would be written on the condition report in detail, down to the exact location of the
tears. This is not to say that archivists do not care about the condition of their collections. It is
that differentiation between the two types of organizations that allows museums to be more
concerned with the visual aspect than an archive might be.
Archives and museums come at the problem of collecting from fundamentally different
perspectives. Yet they are both homes to our institutional and cultural memories. This should
bring these places together, but generally, even when they are housed in the same building, they
seem to be worlds apart. Archives have long been outliers in the information community.
Libraries are designed to bring patrons in with readings, children’s collections and special
events. Museums exist as the public sphere of a collection, organized to provide information
about the artifacts that are held in trust.
Archives are, in a real sense, designed to keep people out. Libraries put their books out on
the shelves and require only the smallest bit of trust to take them out. Museums design exhibits
specifically to cater to specially designed groups and bring in people to see their objects.
Archives hide their treasures away. The public space of an archive is usually a reading room.
13
Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore, eds. 1998. The New Museum Registration Methods. New York:
American Association of Museums.
This room usually has a table and chairs and a watchful archivist making sure that the researcher
does not try to do anything with the documents. The actual materials are held in a locked room
with access only given to the archivists. While difficult to deal with, these protections occur
because the materials are so unique and therefore must be preserved as the special cultural
records they are.14 However, museums also protect unique items, yet they have less of a problem
putting their wares on display.
There are very real reasons that archival materials are generally kept separate from threedimensional objects. There are serious preservation issues that may be a factor in storing these
materials together. Paper should not be stored with metal objects or even certain types of
plastics because of degradation and off-gassing. There are certain types of photographs that
should not be stored with anything and could be a risk for destroying other materials. Some
artifacts require different types of storage than others, like textiles, which should be rolled and
kept out of the light, and metal15, which shouldn’t be kept too cold because of condensation
which leads to rust. What this means is that it is not simply intellectual concerns that separate
museums and archives. Storage and preservation must be taken into account when trying to
bridge the divide, but the necessary physical separations should not require intellectual divisions
as well.
A primary difficulty that can arise within archives is when archivists must arrange and
describe three-dimensional objects. Generally, archives have been defined by their connection to
the document. For most people, a document is a textual or written record. However, there is a
movement to discuss documents or records as more than just the written word. A document may
14
Wallace, D. A. 1996. "Archives and the Information Superhighway: Current Status and Future
Challenges." International Information and Library Review 28 (1): 79-91.
15
Knell, Simon, editor. Care of Collections. Leicester Readers in Museum Studies. New York: Routledge, 1994.
be any object that conveys some sort of information. Michael Buckland describes the document
as thing due to its having the quality of imparting knowledge or communicating information16.
As he discusses, while information professionals have geared their studies to data and paper
documents, there is a world of objects that give information.
This is how museums work best. The objects, whether they are natural science
specimens, historical objects or pieces of art, tell us something about the world in a way that the
written word cannot. Reading about what a butter churn is may give someone an idea of what it
took to get butter from milk, but actually seeing a churn and perhaps even getting to try it out
gives our knowledge an entirely different dimension. Objects can be essential in giving
information as evidence in specific situations and can therefore be construed as documents.
In addition, Buckland discusses the nature of documents which lends credence to the belief
that the three-dimensional object is a document. His four criteria, borrowed from Briet, are as
follows:
1. Materiality – the object must have physical manifestation
2. Intentionality – the object must be treated as evidence
3. Processing – the object must be made into documents
4. Phenomenology – the object must be perceived as a document17.
In thinking about the ways that objects are collected and processed, most artifacts placed into
both archival and museum collections could be described in this manner as documents. By
relating the idea of documents and how people search for information through documents,
16
Buckland, Michael. 1991. “Information as Thing.” Journal of the American Society of Information Science 42,
no. 5: 351-360.
17
Buckland, Michael. 1997. “What is a “Document?” Journal of the American Society of Information Science 48,
no. 9: 804-809.
archives could conceivably transition to thinking of objects as documents rather than some
strangely foreign material that they just happen to house. It does not just have to be a question of
semantics. Archivists do not simply have to call the artifact a document to make sense of it.
They can rationally find a way to integrate both the artifacts and their way of thinking.
Collaboration between archives and museums should be a natural thing. When museums are
creating exhibitions of their holdings, they often use photographs and other traditional archival
materials as research and in the exhibit itself, and, as we’ve seen in Buckland’s description, the
objects give definition and description to the text. However, it has been well established that
museums and archives work poorly together.18 Their differing emphases on what they collect
and how they describe their collections has led to barriers being erected. In order to create true
partnerships, new pathways must be forged.19
Overall, professionals in both fields have created a great deal of animosity between each
other with their differing perspectives on classification and cataloging. Discussions of
collaboration usually leads to one group pointing fingers saying that the other is doing it wrong
and that their classification system is the best.20 What is interesting to note is that most
professionals are adamant about the necessity of their system but they are reluctant to discuss
any negative aspects of their system with other groups. When younger scholars get to talking
about collaborative meetings across disciplines, what often comes across is the want to work
together but not the how to make it happen.
18
Whiteman, Bruce. "Cooperative Collection Building: A Response to Gerald Beasley." RBM: A Journal Of Rare
Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 29-34.
19
Waibel, Günter, Diane M. Zorich, and Ricky Erway. "Libraries, archives and museums: catalysts along the
collaboration continuum." Art Libraries Journal 34, no. 2 (April 2009): 17-20.
20
Dupont, Christian. "Libraries, Archives, and Museums in the Twenty-First Century: Intersecting Missions,
Converging Futures?" RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring 2007):
13-19.
Material culture is a part the stories of both archives and museums. The archive is
somewhere that allows researchers to learn more about the underlying stories of the past through
their documents. Yet, archives do not generally want to go beyond their textual records to see
other items that might complement their understanding of the human record. A discussion of this
has gone on about what constitutes the whole record and if just traditional documents can contain
the whole. According to some scholars, archivists should be looking beyond their document
boxes to embrace the “archival bond”21 which encompasses both the record of something and the
objects, songs, and other non-textual records that are a part of it. This bond, if taken into account
during appraisal and documentation, would eliminate items being selected without consideration
of other items in its documentary group. The concept of an archival bond would not only reunite
records with items that are a part of their traditional collection, but this idea would give archives
and museums a way to start combining their collections into full documentary records, giving the
full representation of the creators and their work.
In addition to establishing an archival bond, archives and museums can come together when
strategizing preservation protocols. Museums have traditionally been at the forefront of
conservation efforts. Because they have so many more different types of items that they must
preserve, museum collection specialists have had to contend with varying degrees of issues in
their collections from mold to brittleness to light and pest damage. As the leaders in preservation
of materials, museums would be the best to help with any issues that archives might have in
dealing with their collections care.22 If an archive has a mixed collection containing some three-
21
Rudolph, Katie. “Separated at Appraisal: Maintaining the Archival Bond between Archives collections and
Museum objects.” Archival Issues: Journal Of The Midwest Archives Conference 33, no. 1 (January 2011): 25-39.
22
Edwards, p. 30.
dimensional objects, then they should be willing to take all the help they can get in the areas in
which they are not experts.
My own experience tells me that museum experience is incredibly useful to archives work.
When I came in to the Ballets Russes Archive, the few objects that we have in our collection had
been generally neglected because the archivists did not know how to deal with them other than to
stick them in a box in a drawer and hope for the best. Having worked in several museums’
collections departments, I knew the items that we would need to properly protect these unique
dance related items and from where I would be able to obtain them. My practical experience
from my previous positions allowed me to make an immediate contribution to the archive even
when I had little knowledge of traditional archival theory. While our archivist wanted to
deemphasize the objects that we have in our holdings, it makes sense to not only preserve the
objects but to find the links between them and our documentary holdings.
Our most unique item is a unicorn mask worn by one of the prima ballerinas in the company.
La Dame a la Licorne was an original ballet based on the famous tapestries in France. Nina
Novak donated the item along with several other items that she held onto over the years. We
have the souvenir program with the dancers in the mask on the cover. We have photographs of
the dancers on stage wearing the masks. We also have reviews in newspaper articles discussing
the ballet and performers. We also have oral histories from a number of the dancers who
participated in that particular ballet.
However, the key to understanding the entire dance rests with the mask itself. Whenever
anyone looks at it, they immediately understand what it must have been like to wear the mask,
and they all ask how someone could have danced a full ballet wearing a mask with a two-foot
long horn protruding out the front. By maintaining the mask, we give a full picture of what it
might be like to have danced that particular choreography. We have created an archival bond
between the documents and the object and have created a fuller story surrounding the entire
collection.
This is what is possible when three-dimensional objects are a part of archival collections.
There are ways to work these items into the archives without disrupting the traditional methods
of archiving. By cross-training individuals in multiple information professional techniques,
archives can have it all. They can create true narrative stories for researchers to follow. When a
scholar comes to the archive, and sees not only the documentation regarding an individual’s life,
but also some of the possessions that help define who and what they are, they come away with a
better understanding of the subject they are researching and should be able to paint a better
picture of that individual in their writing.
This cross-training may also allow professionals to collaborate and make better decisions on
how to logistically handle those three-dimensional objects in the description and cataloging
areas. Each discipline handles it differently, and by putting the two types of materials together,
there can be a conflict in how they are cataloged. There are professionals who hold onto their
standards and refuse to work together. There are also those who can try to create some sort of
hybrid system that allows for the concepts of item level description and continuity of collection
in the accession record.
I believe that archives have a large portion of their system correct. While individual items
tell us a great deal about what life may have been like for the creators or users, the overall
collection is what gives us the complete picture of a life or event. Without the whole of the
record, we cannot see how everything works together. Yet, we cannot ignore the individual for
the sake of the whole. Archives have been so tied to the concept of original order and fonds that
they often fail to see that these pieces do matter both on their own and as part of the whole. In
order to keep collections whole, including both textual and three-dimensional pieces, some sort
of new system must be installed that will allow both types of professionals to feel comfortable
with the way the record is maintained.
An interesting idea was proposed that allowed both a full collection record as well as
individual item level description. By creating a “parent” record, the collecting institution would
have an overall record dealing with the common items pertaining to all of the records in the
collection. These could include the collection creator, collection id, and title.23 By giving an
overarching collection record, there is a link between each of the individual items and the
original collection. This way both text and objects can be cataloged under the same umbrella.
After the “parent” record is established, the respective areas can take their material and catalog it
according to their specific standards. By doing it this way, both archivists and collections
specialists can enter their records in a manner that fits with each profession.
However, I would recommend more description for archivists. I do think that some of the
physical and type descriptions would be good for differentiating similar records. Often there are
a number of photographs or letters that do not have many differences. If those unique attributes
are cataloged within the record, then both the intellectual and physical attributes are kept
together and provide a more accurate account of the item. I also think that more condition
reports would be an excellent idea. By having documentation about the physical state of the
23
Bauer, Brad, “Archives and Artifacts: Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?” Museum Archivist: Newsletter
of the Museum Archives Section, Winter 2013, Volume 23, Issue 1.
collections, whether they be textual or objects, the archivists know better which records should
be more accessible to the public and which should be reserved or conserved. In that way,
museums provide an excellent guide for what archives can do to help themselves do less work in
the future.
Another method of increasing interconnectedness between objects is by increasing the links
in the catalog record. Whether the documentation goes in a notes field or in the finding aid, a
link can be created that specifies that there are objects that go with the documents as a part of the
full collection.24 If there were a digital catalog of these items, there could be active hyperlinks
between the locations of each item to create a web of connections. As more and more collections
are digitized and put up on the internet to provide access, the ways to create relationships
between artifacts and their archival counterparts.
There are many ways to work artifacts into the archives. It simply takes creativity,
cooperation, and a cohesive strategy to make it all work together. Archivists who have also
received training in preservation and museum studies will be better equipped to handle the
unique items that may be a part of archival collections that come in with documents. By
recognizing that artifacts help to create a fuller narrative of archival collections, we will be
creating complete collections that provide our users with more interesting stories due to the
hands on nature of their experience in the archive.
24
Rudolph, p. 36.
Reference List
Aspray, William1. "The History of Information Science and Other Traditional Information
Domains: Models for Future Research." Libraries & The Cultural Record 46, no. 2 (May 2011):
230-248.
Bauer, Brad, “Archives and Artifacts: Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?” Museum
Archivist: Newsletter of the Museum Archives Section, Winter 2013, Volume 23, Issue 1.
Beasley, Gerald. "Curatorial Crossover: Building Library, Archives, and Museum
Collections." RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage8, no. 1 (Spring
2007): 20-28.
Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore, eds. 1998. The New Museum Registration Methods. New
York: American Association of Museums.
Buckland, Michael. 1991. “Information as Thing.” Journal of the American Society of
Information Science 42, no. 5: 351-360.
Buckland, Michael. 1997. “What is a “Document?” Journal of the American Society of
Information Science 48, no. 9: 804-809.
Burcaw, G. Ellis. 1997. Introduction to Museum Work. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Press.
Cook, Terry. 1997. “What’s Past is Prologue: A History of archival ideas since 1898, and the
future paradigm shift.” Archivaria 43:17-63.
Doucet, Michelle. "Library and Archives Canada: A Case Study of a National Library, Archives,
and Museum Merger." RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no.
1 (Spring2007 2007): 61-66.
Douglas, Jennifer. 2010. “Origins: Evolving Ideas about the Principle of Provenance.” In
Currents in Archival Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, 23-43. Santa Barbara,
CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Dupont, Christian. "Libraries, Archives, and Museums in the Twenty-First Century: Intersecting
Missions, Converging Futures?" RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural
Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 13-19.
Eastwood, Terry. 2010. “A Contested Realm: The Nature of Archives and the orientation of
Archival Science. In Currents in Archival Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil,
23-43. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Edwards, Phillip M. "Collection Development and Maintenance across Libraries, Archives, and
Museums: A Novel Collaborative Approach." Library Resources & Technical Services 48, no. 1
(January 2004): 26-33.
Given, Lisa M., and Lianne McTavish. "What's Old Is New Again: The Reconvergence of
Libraries, Archives, and Museums in the Digital Age." Library Quarterly 80, no. 1 (January
2010): 7-32.
Knell, Simon, editor. Care of Collections. Leicester Readers in Museum Studies. New York:
Routledge, 1994.
Koltun, Lilly. 1999. “The Promise and Threat of Digital Options in an Archival Age.”
Archivaria 47 (Spring): 114-135.
Latham, Kiersten F. "Museum object as document: Using Buckland's information concepts to
understand museum experiences." Journal Of Documentation 68, no. 1 (January 2012): 45-71.
Michalko, James. "Libraries, Archives, and Museums: Achieving Scale and Relevance in the
Digital Age." RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1
(Spring2007 2007): 75-79.
Millar, Laura. 2002. “The Death of the Fonds and the Resurrection of Provenance: Archival
Context in Space and Time.” Archivaria 53 (Spring): 1-15.
Monks-Leeson, Emily. 2011. “Archives on the Internet: Representing Contexts and Provenance
from Repository to Website.” The American Archivist 74 (Spring/Summer): 38–57.
Nesmith, T. (2006). The concept of societal provenance and records of nineteenth-century
aboriginal-european relations in western canada: Implications for archival theory and
practice. Archival Science, 6(3-4), 351-360.
Pijeaux, Lawrence J. Jr. "The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute: A Case Study in Library,
Archives, and Museum Collaboration." RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, &
Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 56-60.
Reibel, Daniel B. Registration Methods for the Small Museum. 3rd. ed. American Association
for State and Local History Book Series. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1997.
Roe, Kathleen D. 2005. Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts. Archival
Fundamentals Series II. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
Rudolph, Katie. “Separated at Appraisal: Maintaining the Archival Bond between Archives
collections and Museum objects.” Archival Issues: Journal Of The Midwest Archives
Conference 33, no. 1 (January 2011): 25-39.
Society of American Archivists. 2004. Describing Archives – A Content Standard. Chicago:
Society of American Archivists.
Trace, Ciaran B. 2010. “On or Off the Record? Notions of Value in the Archive.” In Currents
in Archival Thinking, ed. Terry Eastwood and Heather MacNeil, 23-43. Santa Barbara, CA:
Libraries Unlimited.
Waibel, Günter, Diane M. Zorich, and Ricky Erway. "Libraries, archives and museums: catalysts
along the collaboration continuum." Art Libraries Journal 34, no. 2 (April 2009): 17-20.
Wallace, D. A. 1996. "Archives and the Information Superhighway: Current Status and Future
Challenges." International Information and Library Review 28 (1): 79-91.
Whiteman, Bruce. "Cooperative Collection Building: A Response to Gerald Beasley." RBM: A
Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 29-34.
Whiteside, Ann, et al. "The Cataloging Cultural Objects experience: Codifying practice for the
cultural heritage community." IFLA Journal 36, no. 1 (March 2010): 16-29.
Wythe, Deborah. "New Technologies and the Convergence of Libraries, Archives, and
Museums." RBM: A Journal Of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage 8, no. 1 (Spring
2007): 51-55.