Introduction
The University of Mary Washington’s architectural fragment collection is in need of
reorganization and proper cataloging. Over the course of the Fall 2013 semester, the collection has
been evaluated, and a plan for cataloging and storing the collection created. Through the visitation
and observation of other institutions and how they organized and stored their collections, “best
practices” for the University of Mary Washington’s collection were determined. When the
collection is organized and stored, it will be easier for professors and researchers to use for
teaching, research, and testing.
Cataloging
The University of Mary Washington Architectural Fragment Collection
The system that would be best suited for the University of Mary Washington’s
architectural fragment collection is FileMaker Pro. The customizability of this system, coupled with
its low price, makes it the perfect choice. The ability to create a custom database with the fields
necessary for our collection is why it was chosen for the beta test, which can be found after the
appendices.
The database created has all of the necessary fields. The catalog information field has all of
the necessary accession information, including collection, catalog date, cataloged by, status, status
date, and status by. The object information field has the relative information for the fragment you
are looking at, including: catalog number, date excavated, date range, object type, primary and
secondary material, color, dimensions, and comments. The provenience data field allows you to
specify the location, address, geo reference data, and stratigraphy information for the fragment, if
any is available. Storage location lets you kept track of where in the department the artifact is
located. Then there are fields for sketches, photographs, and additional documentation.
1
This database will allow for all of the artifacts in the collection to be documented with their
relevant paperwork and field sketches that will be searchable and therefore able to be used for
research and teaching. The collection can also utilized for research and for finding artifacts for
demonstrations while teaching. However, a standard nomenclature must be chosen for cataloging
to keep the system uniform and ensure ease in searching for objects. This can be done by deciding
on a standard nomenclature and then briefing all those involved with cataloging on the proper
terms to be used.
FileMaker Pro
FileMaker Pro version 9 is the system used by the Menokin Foundation. FileMaker Pro is
an interesting system because it allows you to create your own database from scratch, customize an
already created template, or talk with a consultant who will customize a database for you. At
Menokin, they have customized their database to include basic fields, such as: catalogue number;
date excavated, material type, dimensions, and comments. However, due to the customizability of
FileMaker, they have also added specified fields such as: associated objects, theodolite benchmark,
field sketches, storage location, conservation, and additional documentation. The additional
documentation field includes: field reports and drawings.
Pros: FileMaker Pro allows you to create your own database with no limitation on the
number of information fields you can have, which is problematic with Past Perfect and
Re:discovery, which only have a small number of fields and do not allow you to add more. You can
also remove fields found to be unnecessary, choose how fields interact with each other, and create
relationships that allow you to view related information in a single table. The ability to put your
database online, making it searchable to users, is available. There is also the option to import your
Excel spreadsheets and create a database from the information already in those files, thereby
eliminating the need to create a database from scratch.
2
Cons: FileMaker Pro requires previous work with databases, or extensive research to
understand how the system works in order to create your own database. Some knowledge of
computer programming would be helpful in using this system.
The standard pricing for FileMaker Pro 12, when bought for an institution or non-profit, is
$179, however this is not a binding quote. This is a one time purchasing fee, however it does not
include updates to the program.
Re:discovery
Re:discovery version 6.3 is the cataloging system in use at Stratford Hall Plantation. The
system is basic and includes fields for the accession number, object name, description, record ID,
count, material, place of origin, date, and location. In addition to this information, there is space
for notes and the standard accession information: catalog number, catalog date, cataloged by,
status, and status by. Supplemental information includes location information, which is split into
levels, working from general to specific, such as: level 1: outbuildings, level 2: coach
house/stables, level 3: attic. This means that the building is located away from the main structure,
it is specifically the coach house/stable, and the part of the coach house/stable that the artifact is
located in is the attic.
Pros: This system is very easy to use and straightforward in the information that you input.
All the basic information about the artifact and its basic location information can be in the system. It
also allows you to customize the fields that appear on your screen. This is a nice feature because it
allows you to remove fields that are not being used so that you do not have empty fields on your
record. The learning curve for Re:discovery is easy and prior knowledge of the system is not
necessary.
Cons: While all of the fields provided are useful, they do not allow for customization and
do not allow for extensive detail about the size, shape, or color of the artifact. There is also no area
3
for scanning additional documents. The location information can be very confusing when it is
categorized as levels. For instance, in the architectural fragment collection, the location
information would look like: level 1: Combs Hall, level 2: Room 009, Storage Closet, level 3:
Shelf 1. Not only is this confusing in itself, but the term level has several different meanings; in
archaeology, it means the strata that the artifact is from, however for architecture it means what
floor of the house you are observing.
The price for a single-user subscription with on-site install is $540 per year. This option
requires you to re-subscribe every year, paying $540. However, a perpetual use license is a onetime payment of $975 is available. While not an overly expensive price, it compares poorly with
other systems.
Past Perfect
Past Perfect is a system used by the State Capital and Governor’s Mansion in Frankfort,
Kentucky. There is a wide range of fields for data input, including fields based on the type of
discipline, such as: archaeology, art, geology, history, natural history. Each option has fields
pertaining to the type of information that would be pertinent to each type of artifact. The closest,
out of the available fields, to architectural fragments would be the archaeology field which allows
you to identify the excavator, site, unit, level, stratum, coordinates, and provenience information,
as well as the material, and dating method.
Pros: This system allows for exact information on the location, status, and accession
information for artifacts. Past Perfect has fields relating to dimensions, condition, legal notes,
classification terms, source, repatriation, and makers marks. There is a wide variety of information
options available, as well as the ability to include a number of photographs. Another benefit of this
system would be that it is already installed on other computers in the Department of Historic
Preservation at the University of Mary Washington and therefore would be easy to install and
4
access from multiple computers, assisting in the cataloging of the architectural fragments
collection. Past Perfect is also easy to use and quick to learn.
Cons: There is no customization available with this program. The fields are all predesigned and you do not have an option of adding or subtracting fields from your catalog. While the
archaeology field is best suited for cataloging architectural fragments, it does not have all of the
proper fields necessary.
The average pricing for Past Perfect 5.0 is $870, which is significantly more expensive than
other systems. Each upgrade, either to allow you to install the program on more workstations or to
receive the new version of the program costs an average of $400.
The Museum System (TMS)
The Museum System (TMS) is the database that is in use at Colonial Williamsburg. TMS
has a variety of options of inputting and viewing data. There is an option for viewing related objects
in the same window by creating relationships based on type of object or site location. This allows
you to see objects in comparison to each other or to see multiple objects found in the same
location, which can be helpful for research. There is also customization available, which allows you
to select fields in the system you wish to see displayed.
Pros: While being able to customize the fields you see there is also the option of inputting
media files, such as pictures and videos. There is a “site” field where you can note the site dates,
type, classification, status, and the constituents. This allows you to specify when the site was built
and excavated, if it is an archaeological site, if it is an excavation site, whether or not the project is
complete, and who was involved with the project. You can also see which artifacts were found at
the site, in the same screen. You can set up the program so that you can see the building at the top
of the screen and then can view different entries at the bottom and compare them to the site at the
top, allowing you to compare sites as well as artifacts. The modules, which are the different screens
5
of the program, also interact to allow you to connect fragments to their sites and vice versa. There
is also the option to put your collection online through eMuseum, which integrates completely with
TMS. There is also the capability to create reports suited to your needs.
Cons: The only issue with The Museum System is the fact that it can be difficult to learn.
There are many fields and deciding on standard terms to be used in each field could be difficult.
The process of learning how to customize the system can be difficult if you have not had previous
experience with customizing or building a database.
The Museum System website does not list any price information for the system.
Storage
The architectural fragments collection at the University of Mary Washington functions as
both a study collection and a teaching collection. As such, it needs to be organized and accessible.
Accomplishing this will require that the collection be reorganized, with proper storage materials
used and best practices for the materials observed. The artifacts will need to be properly labeled,
with their identification number written on the object itself, or on a tag that will be kept with the
object, and entered into a collection database.
All fragments should be stored in boxes on shelves, or in cabinets that are easily accessible
and can protect the artifacts in the case of disasters. The shelves that are already in place in the
collection should be utilized. Specimen cabinets should be used for the storage of smaller objects.
Each specimen cabinet measures 39 1/2H x 28 7/8W x 40 1/4D and costs $1,432.25. Stratford
Hall Plantation utilizes specimen cabinets to store fragments and other small objects. Boxes should
be purchased from the Hollinger Company, based in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Hollinger is a
museum supply company that provides boxes and supplies that meet museum standards for storage,
6
to many institutions. Before any of the re-housing can occur, the collection will need to be
reappraised.
Collections Management
Each object should be evaluated and determination should be made whether that object still
merits preservation or whether it should be deaccessioned. The deaccession guidelines in the
collection management policy should be followed. These can be found in Appendix 6. Once the
process of reappraisal, deaccession, and disposal has been completed, the collection should be
organized and re-housed in archivally safe boxes, or bags, or placed in cabinets or on shelves.
During this period of re-housing, the collection should be organized into a teaching collection and a
study collection. The smaller components of the teaching collection should be housed in the main
classroom area, while larger components, and the study collection, should be housed in the storage
closet. The collection should be organized by use first: teaching or study collection, and then by
type of object.
In the main classroom, nails that are used for teaching should be stored in the drawers at
the front of the classroom. They would be placed inside with labels and secured with museum wax
with Plexiglas placed over top to prevent the artifacts from being damaged. Plexiglas can be
purchased at a local hardware store and can be cut to the desired size. Plexiglas ranges in price from
$2-$18 depending on the size of the piece. Museum wax can be purchased in a 13 oz. jar from
Hollinger for $21. Some of the nails could also be left unattached to be accessible for passing
around the room. The Plexiglas can be removed to access the objects.
Bricks, shingles, and other smaller objects that are used for teaching can be housed in the
cabinets already in place to the right and in the back of the classroom, under the counter and above
the counter respectively. They can be placed in archival boxes, or placed in the cabinets without a
box. This will allow the teaching collection to be easily accessed during class and for additional
7
student research and study. Mortar samples and other small samples that are used for chemical
testing should be stored in sectioned Hollinger boxes that should be placed in the cabinet space in
the back of the classroom.
The study collection should be housed in the storage closet at the back of the classroom. It
should be stored on shelves that are already in place in the closet as well as specimen cabinets that
can be used for smaller objects. The majority of the collection, about 60%, would need to be
stored on shelves or on dollies. The other 40% could be stored in the specimen cabinets by object
type. The large masonry pieces that are currently on the floor will be placed on small dolly carts so
that they can be easily moved. These carts will roll under the shelves; the bottom shelves will need
to be removed in order to accommodate the dollies and the specimen cabinets, leaving the upper
shelves in place. Each dolly cart holds 300 pounds, measures 28” x 18” with a handle height of 32”
and costs $57.
Some objects from the teaching collection could be displayed in the classroom, for teaching
purposes and for decoration. Wall-mounted track shelving, like that used in the storage closet will
be used to install shelves on the left hand wall, in between the windows, and also on the right hand
wall, in the back. The instillation of these shelves would not require a large amount of time or
effort. They can be easily anchored to the walls and shelves can be purchased to rest of the tracks.
The back right wall may require custom sized shelves due to the curved nature of the wall.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this plan for re-organizing, cataloging, and storing the architectural fragment
collection at the University of Mary Washington will make it easier for professors and researchers
to use for teaching, research, and testing. It will also provide a resource for students to see building
techniques that cannot always be seen, and allow them to have a hands-on learning opportunity.
8
Proper storage methods will ensure that the collection is protected and kept in usable condition so
that the artifacts will last. Finally, the introduction of a collection management policy will ensure
that the collection is managed properly and will provide a resource for future questions regarding
use and care.
Appendix 1:
Re:Discovery
Past Perfect
Customization
No
Learning curve 110
Price
Ability to put
online
FileMaker Pro
No
The Museum
System
Yes
3
3
7
7
$540 / year
$800
Yes
Yes
Yes
$179
Yes
Yes
9
Appendix 2:
Requirements for the architectural fragment collection at the University of Mary Washington
1. Ability to use collection for teaching
2. Ability to use collection for study
3. Accessibility to all artifacts
4. Organization of all artifacts by type
5. Proper storage to avoid damage
10
Appendix 3:
Menokin Foundation, VA
Stratford Hall Plantation,
VA
Museum of Science and
History, FL
Ability to use for teaching
No
No
Yes
Ability to use for study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Accessibility: 1-10
6 – artifacts are in an
accessible location
Organization: 1-10
6 – artifacts organized by
type
4 – artifacts are in an attic
that is accessed by a
ladder
6 – artifacts organized by
type
8 – artifacts are in an
accessible location that is
organized
8 – artifacts organized by
type and accession
Proper Storage:
No
No
Yes
11
Appendix 4:
Item
Number
Dolly Cart
Specimen
Cabinet
Storage Box
Cost
Total
4
$57
$288
8
$1,432.25
$11,458
9<
$12.50
$112.50
Pack of 50
$17.80 - $20.40
$20.40
Storage Bag
Description
Artifact ID tags
1
Pack of 100
$23.35
$23.35
Museum Wax
1
13 oz. jar
$21.70
$21.70
Plexiglas
1
$2.00-17.99
$17.99
Wall-mounted
Track Shelving
8
Price depends on
size
25 in. track
$4.98
$4.48
$39.84
$35.84
8
14 ½ in. bracket
Wood for Shelves
4
$11,994.27
*Cost noted without tax and at highest possible prices.
12
Appendix 5:
Specimen Cabinets:
http://hollingermetaledge.com/modules/store/index.html?dept=33&cat=1449&cart=13770221
111195511
Artifact Boxes:
http://hollingermetaledge.com/modules/store/index.html?dept=1077&cat=1537&cart=137702
21111195511
Artifact Tags:
http://hollingermetaledge.com/modules/store/index.html?dept=1077&cat=406&cart=1377022
1111195511
Artifact Bags:
http://hollingermetaledge.com/modules/store/index.html?dept=651&cat=654&cart=13770221
111195511
Plexiglas:
http://www.customcutplexiglass.com/
Wall-Mounted Track Shelving:
http://www.homedepot.com/b/Storage-Organization-Shelves-Shelving-Systems-Wall-MountedShelving/Rubbermaid/N-5yc1vZc3lsZ1an
Dolly Carts:
http://www.amazon.com/UST-FCART300-Stack-CapacityFolding/dp/B002EENOSK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1383502562&sr=85&keywords=Dolly+Cart
13
Appendix 6:
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT POLICY
Architectural Fragment Collection
University of Mary Washington
1301 College Avenue
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
Last Revised 12/08/2013
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Purpose ............................................................................. 3
Mission of the Architectural Fragment Collection ................................3
Goal of the Architectural Fragment Collection ..................................... 3
Responsibility and Authority for the Collection ...................................3
Ethical Standards .................................................................................... 3
Scope of Collection ................................................................................ 3
Acquisition Policy .................................................................................. 4
Deaccession Policy .................................................................................4
Inventory Procedures .............................................................................5
Management of Collection Records .......................................................5
Care and Conservation ........................................................................... 5
Environmental Controls .........................................................................5
Access .....................................................................................................5
Staff .........................................................................................................5
Public ......................................................................................................6
Sampling and testing policy ...................................................................6
15
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to identify how the Architectural Fragment Collection of the
University of Mary Washington will be managed. The policy is intended to serve as a guide to the
development, management, and preservation of the collection to achieve the overall mission of the
collection. This policy will identify the duties and responsibilities of the staff, and others who are
allowed to access the collection.
Mission of the Architectural Fragment Collection
The mission of the architectural fragment collection at the University of Mary Washington is to
provide a hands-on, educational resource for students and those interested in researching historic
building technologies and techniques.
Goals of the Architectural Fragment Collection
Provide examples of historic building technologies and techniques found throughout the
Rappahannock River Valley region, in order to reinforce traditional academic study.
Provide material for both hands-on education and research that includes scientific testing.
Facilitate accessibility to often inaccessible historic materials.
Use the collection to begin to develop building technology and technique chronologies to assist in
dating and site interpretation.
Responsibility and Authority for the Collection
Gary Stanton – Chair of the Department of Historic Preservation
Michael Spencer – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Douglas Sanford – Professor of Historic Preservation
Andrea Smith – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Christina Turdean – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Ethical Standards
Faculty should protect the integrity of objects and thus guarantee that they continue to be reliable
evidence of the past.
Faculty should appraise, select, and maintain objects in their historical, legal, and administrative
context, thus retaining the principle of provenance, preserving, and making evident the original
relationships of documents.
16
Faculty should protect the authenticity of objects during processing, preservation, and use.
Faculty should ensure the continuing accessibility and intelligibility of objects.
Faculty should record, and be able to justify, their actions on objects.
Faculty should promote the widest possible access to objects and provide an impartial service to all
users.
Faculty should respect both access and privacy, and act within the boundaries of relevant
legislation.
Faculty should use the special trust given to them in the general interest and avoid using their
position to unfairly benefit themselves or others.
Faculty should pursue professional excellence by systematically and continuously updating their
knowledge, and sharing the results of their research and experience.
Faculty should endeavor to develop their professional understanding and expertise, to contribute to
the body of professional knowledge, and to ensure that those whose training or activities they
supervise are equipped to carry out their tasks in a competent manner.
Faculty should seek to enhance cooperation and avoid conflict with their professional colleagues and
to resolve difficulties by encouraging adherence to collection standards and ethics. Faculty should
cooperate with members of related professions based on mutual respect and understanding.
Scope of Collection
The collection contains examples from a variety of building technologies. Nails, bricks, mortar,
wood shingles, masonry features, doors, windows, tools, and a variety of other objects are part of
the collection. All artifacts are from the Rappahannock River Valley Region and range in date from
the time of settlement to present day. These objects are used for teaching in the classroom both for
examples of building technologies and for learning scientific testing of materials. The objects are
also available for research.
Acquisition Policy
Faculty in the Historic Preservation Department will make all decisions regarding acquisitions to
the collection.
Acquisitions will be made based off the following criteria:
 Provide examples of historic building technologies and practices found in the
Rappahannock River Valley region from the time of settlement to the modern day.
 The object must be in proper condition to convey technology or manufacture or convey
information about a locally or regionally significant structure.
 Objects that are unique to the area or to building technologies will be accepted into the
collection.
17


Objects that are part of a donation must be properly documented in order to be accepted
into the collection.
Elements that require continuous maintenance will not be added to the collection due to
the inability to provide adequate upkeep.
Deaccession Policy
Faculty in the Historic Preservation Department will make all decisions regarding deaccessions
from the collection.
Deaccessions will be made based off the following criteria:
 Objects will be deaccessioned if they are found to no longer fit the mission of the
collection.
 Objects will be deaccessioned if there is no longer proper storage space for them or if they
are in condition that would require advanced preservation or conservation.
 Objects will be deaccessioned if they are found to be repetitive of other objects,
particularly if the other objects are in better condition for teaching and/or research.
 Objects will be deaccessioned if they are no longer in condition to be used for hands-on
teaching or research.
Procedure for removal:
 The Historic Preservation faculty is in charge of initiating the removal process, however
the entire faculty should be consulted on the removal at department meetings.
 Proper documentation of the removal should be done in order to ensure that the records of
the collection are up to date and correct.
Inventory Procedures
Developing and maintaining an accurate inventory is the responsibility of the Department faculty.
Each object in the collection is given a catalog number and storage location. Storage locations for
each object are maintained in the collection database. The database will be updated as objects are
moved or deaccessioned so that up-to-date information is available at all times. In addition, the
faculty, or authorized personnel, will conduct a wall-to-wall inventory of the collection on a biannual basis.
Management of Collection Records
Collection records will include: legal status of objects (bill of sale, deed of gift, etc.), descriptive
and historical data, condition reports and conservation history, correspondence regarding
acquisition, documents regarding deaccession, photographic documentation, and any other records
of the object’s use and movement using the cataloging database.
Paper records will be stored in a secure cabinet in either the Department Chair’s office or the
Curator’s office. Digital records will be stored in the collection database and backed up to a secure
location on another computer within the department.
18
Care and Conservation
Conservation will be done by the faculty if necessary. If advanced conservation is needed, it will be
approved by the department chair or curator of collection. A list of all the objects in the collection
and their identification numbers should be kept in a secure location and a backup copy should be
kept off-site in the case of an emergency.
Environmental Controls
If possible, the storage area should be kept locked at all times. Only those who are authorized can
gain access, or those who have been approved by the curator or department chair. If possible,
natural light should be kept at a minimum. Artificial light should be kept at a minimum to avoid
damaging the artifacts. Humidity and temperature should be monitored to provide the best
conditions for the objects. Flammable objects or chemicals used for testing should be kept in a
secure location in order to prevent damage to objects.
Access
Only those who have been approved by the curator or department chair are allowed access to the
collection and records outside of class. During class, all students are allowed access to the teaching
collection. The study collection is only to be accessed by those who have been given permission by
the faculty, curator, or department chair.
Staff
Gary Stanton – Chair of the Department of Historic Preservation
Michael Spencer – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Douglas Sanford – Professor of Historic Preservation
Andrea Smith – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Christina Turdean – Assistant Professor of Historic Preservation
Public
The public will only be granted access to the collection with permission and approval from the
Curator or the Department Chair. The public must formally request permission for research by
contacting the Department Chair.
Sampling and testing policy
Sampling and testing is the permanent alteration, removal, or destruction of part or all of an object
in the course of research. Sampling and testing are approved as part of classes or for faculty
research. Outside testing as part of research must be approved by the Curator of the collection or
the Department Chair.
19