Undertaking an Effective Review of Natural History Collections

Abstract

Understanding what museums have in their collections is vital to ensure that collections are used, researched and engaged with to their fullest potential. This paper outlines a detailed review of a large spirit collection at Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery (PCMAG), with funding from the Museums Association Effective Collections programme. Different review methods are discussed including reviews that can be adapted for specific projects. PCMAG’s review is discussed in detail with examples and a stage by stage process. The review resulted in the discovery of two type specimens, two co-types and several scientifically and historically important specimens. 1241 specimens have been highlighted for transfer to other museums. Transferring the specimens has enabled the curatorial staff to focus on conservation and research for the specimens retained at PCMAG. The need for collection reviews Museums across the world hold unique and amazing collections which have inspired visitors of all ages for over 100 years to visit their local museum (Asma, 2001). Only a small percentage of collections are on display at any one time, with the remaining in museum store rooms. Local authority museums may have natural history collections that can hold hundreds of thousands of specimens, and the national museums have collections numbering the millions. The numbers of specimens are awesome, but do museums know what they have and can they make the most of their collections? In 2005, the Museums Association published the Collections for the Future report assessing how collections are used. The report found that many collections are underused, not very well understood and could potentially be more mobile (Wilkinson, 2005). To ensure more use of collections, three areas were highlighted; greater engagement using the collections; developing museum collections; and staffing in museums (Wilkinson, 2005). Developing museum collections has been high on the agenda for many museums as a result of this report, along with the subsequent publication of the Disposal Toolkit (MA, 2008a). The term disposal can be defined as the full de-accessioning of an object through transfer, return to original donor, sale, or physical destruction. If disposal is carried out with disregard of current guidelines, it can have a very negative impact with the public (e.g. BBC, 2006; 2010; Guardian, 2006; Liverpool Echo, 2012). This subject has been the focus of debate across the museum sector (for further discussion see Davies, 2012). Disposal can be viewed as a method of rationalising existing collections in a way which is beneficial to the museum and the public. Through well-planned collection review projects, resulting disposals allow more focus, resources and use of the collections which remain in the museum (NMDC, 2003). Collection reviews additionally assist in understanding what gaps there might be in current collections, allowing focused development of future collection acquisition policies (Knell, 2004). Costs of collections There are costs associated with holding collections. It has been estimated that around 38% of a museums operational costs are needed to retain objects in the collections (Lord, et al., 1989). This percentage includes the curatorial work carried out on the objects (i.e. documentation, conservation, research, auditing) and the security (i.e. staffing, security systems, etc). Intangible costs increase this percentage to around 70% of a museum’s annual budget (electricity, heating, administration, space, etc) (Lord et al., 1989). These costs are of a greater concern when collections are not well used or understood (NMDC, 2003). Museum store rooms have finite space and museums are continually growing their collections through new acquisitions (Merriman, 2007). The large number of objects in museum collections makes it difficult to review them as a whole. Small focused review projects examining parts of a collection to determine their

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.