Investigating the Potential of Deaccessioning as a Tool for Public Archaeology Education

Abstract

In the United States, deaccessioning is a poorly understood collections management tool. Archaeologists often view deaccessioning with what Robert Sonderman called “primal fear,” and this fear has caused them to overlook the opportunities that deaccessioned artifacts and collections may provide in the area of public archaeology education. Although deaccessioning without checks and balances can be problematic, when done properly and ethically, it offers previously untapped resources to the creation of educational programming, such as teaching trunk programs. This article discusses the process of deaccessioning and suggests that deaccessioned artifacts may be useful as content for teaching trunk programs. We discuss a case study from our own institution, where we implemented a trunk program in 2016 that was largely stocked with material from a deaccession we had performed the previous year. We also offer suggestions for anyone wishing to implement a similar program.

Archaeological Collections and the Public—It Isn't All about Us

“… Encourage alternative use of collections. This can take many forms, such as public art (see the Tate Modern example), educational programming with schools, and use of deaccessioned/culled artifacts (see Domeischel and Waggle 2020). Support general audience publications on the collections that are currently being stored either publicly or privately.…”

“…Encourage alternative use of collections. This can take many forms, such as public art (see the Tate Modern example), educational programming with schools, and use of deaccessioned/culled artifacts (see Domeischel and Waggle 2020).…”

A Survey of How Archaeological Repositories Are Managing Digital Associated Records and Data

“…The "Survey for Archaeological Repositories about Digital Associated Records and Data" was launched on January 3, 2023, as an initiative of the Archaeological Collections Consortium (Domeischel and Childs 2024). The survey consisted of 32 questions, with seven general questions about the responding archaeological repositories, and the remaining 25 questions targeted at their digital data management practices (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Table 2).…”