[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

restricted collections



When I worked in an archives in Arizona we had many collections related to
archaeological sites including rock art documentation and detailed site
surveys.  The locations of many if not all, depending on the state and the
landowner, are restricted.  (i. e. the National Trust restricts location
information on listed archaeo sites).  The restriction we placed on such
collections were that they were only available to professional
archaeologists, registered members of the archaeological society, and
anthro. students.  Professional and amateur archaeologists had to show their
membership cards--membership in an archaeological society requires a certain
amount of training and an agreement to abide by their rules of ethics
concerning pot hunting and broadcasting of locations.  Students had to have
a note from their professor.  No one ever had a problem with this and most
seemed to expect the request to see the card and had it with them.  We did
turn away probable pot hunters on several occassions --we were a small
archives so they seemed to think we weren't professional.  Most of the time,
however, those who requested information but were refused due to the
restrictions realized they didn't really want that detailed technical
information and had thought they were requesting a book (which we were happy
to locate for them).

I agree that we are in the business of providing information but we also
have a duty of follow the law.  Even if a donor doesn't place a restriction
on a collection, we have an obligation to restrict those individual items
within the collection that meet federal privacy or security laws.  For
example, in a collection of Women's Club records I recently processed, I
came across a series of reports for a school health project funded by the
club.  At the time, the 1930s, the doctor conducting the TB tests released a
list of the students' test results to the club.  Because some of the class
was still living we restricted the records until 2035 (when it is reasonably
expected that they would all be dead).  Archaeological site locations as
restricted by the Antiquities Act and relevant state laws would fall in the
same, self-imposed restriction category.

I wouldn't restrict the cataloguing information.  I seem to recall a
detailed discussion in archives school over whether to list/catalogue a
heavily restricted collection.  The final answer was that yes you should
list it because you want it known the collection exists so that qualified
researchers can access it and, of course, if the restriction is at some
point listed you would want the collection used.  The above described files
were still listed in the finding aid with a note that it was restricted so
that future researchers can plan on something useful eventually being
available and the potential remains for other waivers (i.e. a statistical
analysis of the results with an agreement not to release individual names or
a diligent researcher providing proof that all students are dead before
2035).

Anne L. Foster, CA
Director
Huntley Project Museum of Irrigated Agriculture
P O Box 353
Huntley MT 59037
phone: (406) 348-2533
fax: (406) 348-2534
email: hpmia@nemontel.net

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>