Hopewell Culture Administrative History

CHAPTER SIX
Exhibiting the Hopewell Culture (continued)

Curatorial Services

As the National Park Service gained visibility and stature in the Chillicothe area, amateur archeologists began contacting Superintendent Clyde B. King with offers to donate parts or the entirety of their personal collections. The first offer came in September 1953 when Harold Steel presented King with his late father, Samuel Steel's, collection obtained from local mounds and farm fields. King accepted the relics for study, identification through State Archeologist Raymond S. Baby, and potential display. Those items of no association or use would be returned, with the remainder accessioned into the park's collection. The news brought about a swift response from the Richmond regional office clearly restating agency policy. While accepting prehistoric Ohio relics unrelated to the Hopewell for such plainly-identified exhibits was acceptable, Assistant Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin stated, "Only those objects which can definitely be identified and are suitable for future museum use or for study purposes should be accepted. If this is done they should be cataloged carefully so that there is no possible chance of their becoming associated with Mound City at a later date." Tobin warned that "If the specimens cannot be identified they should not be accepted. As a rule, unless the locality where a specimen was found, its association in situ, and the conditions of the findings are known exactly, it is usually worthless for exhibition or study." The result proved to be the acceptance of a scant twenty-five objects. [57]

Negotiations with other potential donors followed the same formula. A substantial Ross County collection donated to the monument came on June 29, 1964, with acceptance of the Biszantz collection. It numbered over one thousand pieces and included artifacts removed from the Hopewell Group and two surrounding farms. [58]

Park Archeologist Lee Hanson began the first inventory of Mound City Group's museum collections in April 1965. Hanson worked to process and store the material, estimated to be at 10,000 pieces, in the following three stages: 1). Inventory all previously cataloged material to determine condition and location; 2). Accession all remaining specimens; and 3). Catalog all accessioned material including cleaning and preservation work. The first two stages were completed within two months, and by the end of 1965, all specimens excluding materials from the 1963-65 excavations were cataloged. Because those items remained for study and reporting purposes at the Ohio Historical Society, they could not be processed. Hanson's cataloged collection stood at slightly over 4,000 pieces. [59]

Three years later, the total surpassed 10,000 specimens through continued donations, purchases, indefinite loans, and ongoing excavations. Artifacts from the Ohio Historical Society's early 1960s excavations began arriving for curation and storage space became stretched to the limit, with more excavations anticipated. Initially, museum storage cabinets occupied the small, increasingly cramped visitor center office. Master plan provisions called for curatorial storage and laboratory space in connection with expanded audiovisual areas, but funding to expand the visitor center was not forthcoming. Dr. John Cotter, chief of archeological research in the Philadelphia Planning and Service Center, proved to be the most vocal critic of Mound City Group facilities. Addressing the inadequacy of the structure for interpretive services, Cotter declared:

[It was] designed as a semi-enclosed walk-through panel display corridor with rest rooms and a tiny indoor lobby, plus small office space. As such, it has never functioned as a museum facility. This has been a continuing bitter disappointment to the Ross County and Chillicothe residents as well as to many visitors who learn of the remarkable collections secured in the archeological investigations of the 1920's and 1960's. The fact is, the Visitor Center is badly deficient as an interpretive facility which should measure up to modern NPS standards in general and the needs of this area in particular. There is no auditorium, no AV facilities, no storage space, no shelter for large groups which will be increasing in number, especially with the accessibility of the area to adjacent new superhighway facilities.

A staunch Mound City Group advocate, Cotter called for a collection and research policy with emphasis on museum displays and curatorial services. Cotter concluded stating, "It has taken the National Park Service many years to arrive at the conclusion that Mound City Group is worthy of inclusion in the System as nationally important. It may not yet be realized by the Service that Mound City Group is a major archeological resource in the Nation and the best-developed remaining site of the great Hopewell culture manifestation of American prehistory." [60] Although the park had its own informal collection policies, programmed funds for a formal collection management plan did not materialize until 1984. [61]

Escalated national defense spending, mushrooming of the national park system, and other planning priorities stalled the visitor center expansion project. In 1977, the monument's "space crunch," always a problem, became critical. Superintendent Fagergren noted the cramped visitor center office space, 139 square feet, accommodated six employees during winter (twenty-three square feet per person) and nine employees during summer (15.4 square feet per employee). The maintenance shop featured an office for the maintenance work leader and maintenance worker. Three Youth Conservation Corps employees had a small area in connection with a classroom for YCC enrollees during the summer. Library space, artifact storage, and interpretive work space were also jammed into the building. The crowded conditions necessitated expansion of the visitor center to include an audiovisual room and auditorium as well as a research laboratory and collection storage area. Fagergren tagged it as the monument's top project, and hoped for funding within two years. [62]

Unfortunately, it received a low national priority for funding. Projections were that a visitor center expansion would be "many years" in the future. No longer willing to rely on storage accommodations at the Ohio Historical Society, Fagergren wanted all Mound City Group artifacts kept according to professional standards at the monument. In August 1980, Fagergren adopted a new strategy. He proposed modifying the existing artifact storage area in the maintenance building's basement to accommodate curatorial services. He suggested enclosing one end of the basement with a special curatorial room complete with environmental stabilization systems. [63]

Anticipation of potentially large private collections being donated to Mound City Group prompted a 1990 effort to expand the collections storage area in the maintenance building's basement. Artifacts were moved into new storage cabinets and separated with archival materials. Curators also cataloged the collection using the Automated National Cataloging System for the first time. Mitigation of elevated radon levels in 1991 allowed for the expansion and rehabilitation of the basement area to proceed. The work brought about a tripling of storage capacity, including use of a track and carriage system for museum storage cases. Curatorial services also benefitted by adjacent office and workshop areas in 1991. [64]

In 1980, the first collections inventory undertaken since the 1960s revealled missing artifacts and confusion regarding past recordkeeping methods. Artifacts unearthed during Ohio Historical Society excavations were processed and cataloged using state methods. Returned to Mound City Group in the mid-1970s, the material did not immediately receive National Park Service catalog numbers on individual pieces. The Ohio Historical Society material, received in boxes and sacks, did not remain safely inside marked containers and the separation resulted in loss of their requisite numbering system. The situation became especially acute following the 1980 inventory when objects packaged and organized according to catalog numbers were loaned for study purposes and subsequently returned packaged and organized according to type. The absence of professionally trained cultural resource managers, specifically an archeologist and/or a museum curator, contributed to the deterioration of the Mound City Group collection.

This confusion, the result of different archeological curation methods of the Midwest Archeological Center, brought about two additional comprehensive inventories in 1984 and 1987. The latter effort took more than two months and yielded 33,069 objects covering 104 accessions. A board of survey conducted in 1988 resulted in eighty-four missing artifacts removed from the inventory. In 1991, Park Ranger Robert Petersen began an item by item review to develop a list of controlled property, with miscellaneous items accessioned and cataloged at the end of the multiple-year effort. By the mid-1990s, the park finally had professional accountability for its collections. [65]

One of the most extensive private collections in Ross County first came under consideration for donation in January 1990. Robert Harness informed Superintendent Bill Gibson of his intention to will his significant Hopewellian collection from the Liberty Works to Mound City Group National Monument via negotiation of an appropriate codicil. A draft agreement reviewed in late 1991 brought a prompt ruling that language prohibiting repatriation or any other restriction could not be accepted under National Park Service policies. Robert Harness, wanting professional care of the Harness collection and making it available for research purposes, did not want it broken up, removed from Ross County, or subjected to repatriation challenges. A compromise came in the formation of the Harness Collection Trust. In exchange for a signed deed of gift form pledging unconditional donation for unrestricted usage, the trust was devised to dissolve eight years after the formal donation. According to Gibson, "As the Trust comes into being and manages the collection, we can look forward to exploring alternative language to that presented in the draft agreement. Surely people with good intentions can come to agreement on a safe, secure and permanent home for this outstanding collection." [66]

Future plans recognize expansion of collections and increased burdens relating to the curatorial program. The 1997 general management plan calls for removing the museum storage area from the basement of the Resource Management Building, what once served the park's maintenance and utilities functions. Subject to flooding and fire, the curatorial storage will be relocated to a new facility or placed within an expanded addition to the visitor center.

CONTINUE >>>