Dozens of invaluable collections of artifacts taken from American archaeological sites are literally hidden away, and consequently forgotten and left to deteriorate. We’re not talking about items that bring huge prices on the international antiquities markets. We are talking about tens of thousands of little things of no commercial value that add up to invaluable information available nowhere else.

As archaeological sites become more rare, the responsibility for caring for the collections becomes more acute. The study of these collections may offer the only opportunity to answer the many questions of the past. As new technology becomes available, it is often possible to return to old collections and get very significant information. After all, restudying the old collections is the most fundamental form of conservation archaeology.

In the early 1980s, Bob Sonderman, a staff archaeologist with the NPS in Washington, DC, examined the facilities of three area universities that stored artifacts recovered from federal lands. "In 99.9 percent of the cases, I felt the storage conditions were substandard," he recalled. Sonderman recalled the most egregious case: "The collections were in a storage room where overhead pipes leaked onto the artifacts that were in paper bags. The provenience information written on the bags in pencil was unreadable. All the metal artifacts were rusted. All the bone had turned to mush."

Sonderman’s recollection is one of many examples of the curation problem that has reached crisis proportions. Universities, historical societies, states, and some federal agencies have huge repositories filled with artifacts that are being damaged because there is not enough money to properly house them, and make them readily accessible to researchers and the public.

Assessing the magnitude of the problem, Terry Childs, and archaeologist for the NPS’s Archaeology and Ethnography Program and chairperson of the SAA’s Committee on Curation, said, "We’re talking millions and millions of objects" In many cases, the documentation for the collection isn’t stored with the collection. There are other cases in which institutions don’t know where their collections are stored. The problem may be most dire on the state and regional level; a 1998 Army Corps of Engineers study found that only 40 percent of the nation’s state historical societies catalogued their artifacts.

Some experts have been lobbying for better collections management for about 25 years. And while they concede that conditions have improved during this time, there are many collections today in dire need of attention from trained staff.

Getting archaeologists to focus on curation has historically been a challenge. Many are eager to excavate and do the laboratory work required to complete their research; but they are far less eager to carefully store artifacts in an environmentally controlled repository, where they are safe, secure, and accessible in perpetuity. The Internet has made the job even bigger, as most experts agree that information about every collection should be on-line. Indeed, some curators believe that for every hour spent in the field, an archaeologist should spend four to five hours in the lab.

The problem has been compounded by the plethora of federal and state laws regulating excavation work. The Antiquities Act of 1906, which was the first federal law to regulate excavations in this country, said all collections "shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums" and shall be accessible to the public. After World War II, the American economy boomed and the nation embarked on hundreds of large-scale construction projects. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 mandated that when federal money was used for construction projects on federal land, attempt should be made to preserve, or at least minimize the damage to archaeological resources. Consequently, archeologists amassed staggering numbers of artifacts. They knew for many years they should store these objects but there were no guidelines to follow.

By the 1970s, the problem became alarming. In 1974, the US Congress approved the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act -- the first piece of legislation to call on the US secretary of the Interior to issue relations. (The regulations that followed) had several flaws: There was no deadline for compliance, it didn’t include a grant process to provide money for curating artifacts, and there was no means of enforcement.

Thirty-seven states have laws calling for proper collections management, but many of these states don’t have the money to support their own regulations.

Experts estimate funding for curation should constitute 25 to 35 percent of the total budget for every excavation project. "That line item must be in the budget," said Sonderman. "If you spend all your money digging up objects and there’s no money to take care of what you find, why bother in the first place?"

The Corps of Engineers possesses a huge number of artifacts. They seek an annual appropriation of $3 to 4 million, and usually receive about $1.5 million. Currently all of this money is used to identify, access, and, as appropriate, return the skeletal remains and other items from grave sites to Native American tribes, as decreed by NAGPRA.

Maintaining collections is not attractive to visitors who pay admission fees. Consequently, institutions that previously housed collections for free are now charging fees: those that were charging fees are raising them. A 1998 survey by NPS found that fees vary significantly, ranging from $60 per cubic foot in Oklahoma up to $1,080 in Nevada.

One of the toughest challenges for any museum director is to find the money for the construction of new repositories. Many facilities have outgrown their space and the only option is to add on. (Another option is to pursue money to construct a new building. Both State and Federal agencies need to be asked to pool their resources.)

In order to obtain government funding, the public must be informed of this crisis. The public is now unaware of the problem.

But money alone won’t solve a problem of this dimension and complexity. More archaeologist need to be trained in collections management. Very few universities offer classes in curation; even fewer offer degrees or on-site training. (A course was taught last spring at Washington University in St. Louis. To the instructor’s surprise, the classroom was filled to the ceiling. It is suggested that every student earning a master’s degree to take several courses in curation.)

The SAA’s Committee on Curation is preparing more detailed standards to guide archaeologists, beginning with ethical principals, but the final guidelines could take several years.

Childs believes that deaccessioning may contribute to remedying the problem. She wants to present the idea to the SAA members, and speculates that deaccessioning guidelines could be included in federal regulations in five years.

She is also intent on getting institutions to put information about their collections on the Web. NPS is developing a Web catalogue for some of the parks. The catalogue could be on-line by the end of 2001, and more parks added in the future.

The curation crisis is turning into a national scandal. It is time for Congress to investigate and take remedial action before more is lost. As Maryland has demonstrated, the solution can be had for a reasonable cost. Let’s follow their example in the rest of the nation.

Childs says, "We’re still in a mess, but I think we all agree there have been significant steps forward."

Woeful as the situation is it’s far from hopeless.