Monthly Archives: March 2011

Remembering the 1913 Flood

On Easter Sunday, March 23, 1913, the rain started pouring down all over Ohio. The city of Dayton, Ohio, nestled right next to the Great Miami River, was in for some serious trouble. The levee failed by March 25, and by the early hours of March 26, there was 20+ feet of water in downtown. By the time the waters receded, 200+ people and 3,000+ animals were dead. Many homes, buildings, and bridges had been destroyed.

For more images/info on the 1913 flood in Dayton, check out the following:

But on the bright side, this horrible disaster was the impetus for Daytonians to say “never again” and take action. They began raising money to construct what would become the Miami Conservancy District, a system of dams designed to control the flow of water and thereby curtail future floods. This project got underway in 1918 and was mostly complete by 1922. (Check out the dam construction photos on the MCD web site.) The Miami Conservancy District has been keeping Dayton safe from floodwaters ever since…

Don’t forget: Dayton wasn’t the only place that flooded in 1913. (Just like Portsmouth wasn’t the only place flooded in 1937!) Just something to keep in mind – those were large regional floods! Check out some of these other resources pertaining to the 1913 flood:

Funding cuts not so scary, yet

Governor Kasich released his recommendations for the Ohio state biennial budget last week. Here’s a summary article from the Columbus Dispatch. Kasich is recommending a 5% funding cut for public libraries, and apparently that is a much better deal than libraries were expecting from Kasich. Lynda Murray of the Ohio Library Council gave another webcast about the budget last week, which had lots of useful info for anyone interested in the current state of public library funding in Ohio. Apparently, some were expecting cuts of 15-50%, forced consolidations, and a new formula for the Public Library Fund distributions – and evidently, Kasich has not called for any of that. Of course, the show’s not over yet. These are just the governor’s “recommendations.” The Ohio House and Senate still have until the end of June to duke it out over the details, so we’re not out of the woods yet.

Murray reminded everyone to be as non-partisan as possible, since public libraries are traditionally supported by both Republicans and Democrats in various ways. “We’re Switzerland,” she said. ūüôā

Kasich did propose some changes to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) that could be problematic, according to this OPERS blog post. Kasich proposes that instead of the 10/14 split currently in effect (employee contributes 10%, employer contributes 14%), to change it to an even 12/12. This is a problem because it causes two bits of Ohio law work against each other: state pension funds must be able to pay their “unfunded liabilities” within 30 years; but employee contributions can only be put towards that employee’s pension, while this “unfunded liabilities” bit is one of the things covered by the employers’ contributions. So if the employee’s part is increased and the employer part is decreased, that extends the timeline necessary to cover the “unfunded liabilities.” (If I’m understanding this correctly, I guess you could think of it like a car loan – if you start making smaller payments, it’s going to take longer to pay off.) So anyway – don’t know how they’re going to handle that, but it sounds like something’s got to give (either the proposal or the law) in order for it to legally work out.

I haven’t heard much about SB 5 (the collective bargaining bill) lately. I suppose all this business with Japanese earthquake and Libyan civil war is making the collective bargaining disputes look like small potatoes to the media outlets – as it probably should! but nonetheless the media hysteria has died down a bit.¬†I think the hearings are still going on in Ohio; I’m sure we’ll hear more¬†when¬†the thing either passes or fails.¬†I know we haven’t heard the last of SB 5.

FIITA: Robert G. McEwen Saddler’s Account Book, 1829-1833

Many of you have no doubt heard of the Society of American Archivists initiative “I Found It In the Archives!”. Well, I thought I might start my own version to promote interesting things I “find” in the archives where I work. (And when I say “find,” I don’t necessarily mean that “we” – i.e., the library – didn’t know they were there. But believe it or not,¬†I don’t personally know off the top of my head every single thing in the place — shocking, I know! — so¬†now and then I¬†come across super-cool things that I had no idea were there.)

Many of the items I’ll be sharing in my “Found it in the Archives” (aka FIITA – yes, I’m dropping the “I” for no particular reason!) run across my path as I process manuscript collections or stabilize items in the Conservation Room.

Today’s item is an account book that was owned by a saddler named Robert G. McEwen who lived in Washington Township, Montgomery County, Ohio.

According to information from the Centerville-Washington Township Historical Society, Robert was born in Pennsylvania in 1806 and came to Centerville with his family in 1817.¬† In 1829, Robert’s father died, and he took over the family’s saddle business. And that’s where this book comes in; the transactions are dated 1829-1833.

Robert McEwen saddler's book, cover

Robert McEwen saddler's book, cover

Above is a photo of the front cover (if you could call it that!) of the account book. It is just a paper cover. That’s why I had it in Conservation, actually – it needed a new protective enclosure. (It did already have one, but it was an old style and not very good quality board, so I replaced it with a new one made of archival board.)

Robert McEwen saddler's book, interior page

Robert McEwen saddler's book, interior page

This is a photo showing one of the interior pages, including a line item for work done for Henry W. Reeder. (Reeder was a blacksmith in the area (more on this Reeder family); his name caught my eye because the Wright brothers were related to the Reeder family Рhowever, they are not descended from this particular one.)

Robert G. McEwen was a young man in his 20s when the records in this book were created. Around the same time, he was Washington Township clerk (1829) and the first clerk of Centerville (1830). He was elected Montgomery County tax assessor in 1838, and in 1859 he served as a representative to the Ohio legislature. Another piece of living history: you can still see Robert G. McEwen’s house (built 1834) on Franklin St. in Centerville! Amazing! An article from Beers’ 1882 History of Montgomery County has more info on the family.

Another interesting item that I found that belonged to Robert G. McEwen is his “ciphering book,” dated 1819 – when he would have been 13 years old. Ciphering books were like homemade textbooks that students would create to help them practice their subjects. In this case, McEwen’s book was for practicing math problems. (I don’t seem to have taken a photo of that one – which also needed a new box.)

And finally, if you are interested in the history of Washington Township, you might also be interested in a book of Washington Township, District 8 school records, dated 1847-1854 – which I also “found” at the same time as the McEwen books. This book does include student records. You can see photos of several pages (but not nearly all) of this book at my “Found it in the Archives” Flickr set.

This entry is just a taste of these great primary sources that I recently “found” in the archives.¬†If you’d like to use them in person to find out all they may have to offer, you’ll just have to visit the Dayton Metro Library’s Local History Room during regular Main library hours. (However, you might want to wait a couple of weeks; these items are so “fresh” out of Conservation¬†that they are still in cataloging, getting new identification/barcode stickers on the new enclosures.)

My first Wikipedia contribution

That’s right, you get a 2-for-1 today. I’m writing a second entry. Normally, I try to space things out, but I just couldn’t help myself after reading the today’s Archivist of the United States¬†blog entry “10 Years of Wikipedia.”

It just so-happens I made my very first-ever contribution to Wikipedia this afternoon — before even seeing the AOTUS’s blog post. What a bizarre coincidence.

I had made a mental note — okay, and an Outlook task — to update the Wikipedia entry for Charles G. Bickham at some point, ever since I realized he had a Wikipedia entry. The only reason he even has an entry is because he was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor for heroics in the Philippines in 1902 — apparently, anyone who has a Medal of Honor has a Wikipedia entry, even if it’s just a short one (which this was).

However, I happened to have a bit more information about Charlie Bickham, seeing as we have a manuscript collection at the Dayton Library about the Bickham family. (You might recall I mentioned it in my previous blog post “Bickham and the presidents” [2011-02-21]. Charlie’s father William was editor of the Dayton Journal for about 30 years.)

So, today, I decided to actually get around to updating that Wikipedia entry, including some additional bio information and a photo. (If you are wondering which parts I wrote, it’s the section from “He served as a Colonel…” to “…never married.” Plus, I added the photo, the original of which is in the library’s collection.)

I had to sign up for a (free) Wikipedia account in order to contribute/edit the entry. Okay, that seems fair…

But then, when I got to the edit screen, I was surprised by how complicated it is to actually do. The text box containing the existing text had all sorts of weird markup in it (see screen shot from Wikipedia). I was able to figure most of it out, by comparing the markup to the finished product: e.g., Oh, apparently, that’s how they make hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles (and that sort of thing). But man… I was not expecting it to be so complex!

Adding the picture was even more complicated. You had to get a Wikipedia Commons account (or, activate the one that already existed when you signed up for a Wikipedia account) and then upload your picture, provide all sorts of information about where you got it, and then link to it.

I actually really respect the fact that they demanded so much info about the provenance of the picture:¬†whose it is, where did it come from, copyrights, use rights, etc.¬†I hope that my explanation of where it came from was sufficient to please the Wikipedia gods so they don’t remove it! (The long and short of it, in this case, is that the photo is from 1891 so it is not copyrighted.)

I was surprised (and annoyed) by the citation process for the actual text, though. They did not demand citations for individual statements or at any certain frequency or anything. And when I tried to cite something, there were these “templates” you had to use: book, journal, web, and newspaper, I think were the only options. Um, hello? What about manuscript collection – (an actual primary source! what a concept!) – which is what I needed to cite.

So failing with the available citation templates, I went to another article that I thought would have primary sources listed to see if I could copy/paste some code. I chose the William McKinley entry. Interestingly enough, I did not have permission to “edit” this entry (it was locked – which I actually consider a good idea for already well-documented entries), but I was able to view the code (just not edit it). There were no actual “citations” (footnotes)¬†for primary sources, but a listing at the end for “Primary Sources” so I used that format. Again, hopefully my attempts at citing sources will please the Wikipedia gods and they won’t just delete my changes.

Speaking of changes, on the Edit screen, there was a field for you to provide a brief explanation of the changes that you made. (Under View History, you can see¬†a list with usernames and dates of all the people who had edited that entry previously – my name is on there!) Another neat feature if you have an account is that you can “watch” articles, which allows you to get notifications if it is changed or updated.

Anyway, I survived my first Wikipedia contribution. I’m sure it won’t be the last. I just wish the text markup was a little more user-friendly. Geesh!

Preserving Our Cultural Heritage Conference, Part 3- Tour and Workshop

And without further adieu, the final chapter in my report from the Preserving Our Cultural Heritage conference at IU: the tour and the workshop.


On Saturday afternoon, I attended a behind-the-scenes tour of the Lilly Library, rare books, manuscripts, and special collections library of the Indiana University Libraries. This tour was given by Erika Dowell, a public services librarian at the Lilly Library.

I won’t dwell on every aspect of the tour or how they do things at the Lilly, but I jotted down some things I found interesting. Until looking at them again, I had forgotten most of it — that’s why we take notes! — but it seems that most of my interest had to do with the reading room.

The Lilly’s collections “are available to all with a research need for them” (see the Lilly’s use policies).¬†To use materials in the reading room, you have to register (they photocopy your ID – good idea!), and you get “buzzed in” to the reading room when your requested materials are ready for you. They don’t require gloves except for photos or metal objects but obviously you should have clean hands — Ms. Dowell said they often wish they had a hand wash station available (another good idea – ah, facilities planning!).

I noticed that there was at least one security camera in the reading room. I have not seen that before in any library where I’ve worked; then again, I’ve worked mostly in public libraries. Some might say it could be considered a “privacy violation,” but I can’t blame them when they’ve got things like a copy of the Gutenberg Bible!

There were a lot of manual card catalogs around, too. In the reading room were over 100 drawers of cards comprising an item-level index of their manuscript collections. Ms. Dowell said these card files are not kept current anymore, but they definitely come in handy. (We have similar card files at the Dayton library – though not nearly as extensive because our collections are not as extensive! – but again, they are not kept up, but do come in handy at times.)

Ms. Dowell also pointed out another card file in one of the staff-only areas; it was a project of some sort that was begun a long time ago but never finished (because card files were “out” once the digital age hit), yet they still keep it because someone worked really hard on that – and again, it could still be useful – it was just never finished or kept current. (This was another one of those “I’m glad it’s not just me” moments!)

I enjoyed the tour very much, and I was extremely impressed and in awe of the collections – their content, their quantity, their significance…just rows and rows of amazing stuff.


By far the highlight of my trip to Bloomington, though, was the Paper Conservation Workshop with Doug Sanders, paper conservator at the E. Lingle Craig Preservation Laboratory. I had heard of the Craig Lab prior to this conference because I refer to their online preservation how-to manual often. (Seriously, their manual is awesome: very detailed step-by-step instructions with tons of photos.) The conservation workshop was actually the deciding factor in my attending this conference. I thought it looked interesting anyway, but when I saw this workshop on the agenda, I had to sign up!

Mr. Sanders had a 3-page handout ready for us when we arrived. The handout briefly described each of the several treatments he would be demonstrating (more on that later) and had space for notes in between: it’s like they knew I was coming! I scribbled all over just about every inch of those¬†3 pages, plus wrote some notes on a fourth sheet of my own paper… (What? I’m verbose; don’t act like you hadn’t noticed.)

Mr. Sanders did not demonstrate any procedures on books or bound materials. As the paper conservator, he handles unbound and loose paper materials: manuscripts, maps, photos, etc. Here’s a great article about Mr. Sanders and his work. (Check out the other members of the preservation staff – there are¬†nine people who work¬†in the Craig Lab! How wonderful!)

The treatments Mr. Sanders demonstrated for us were:

  • Surface cleaning: to remove surface dirt and accretions from the paper.
  • Washing: to reduce acidity and discoloration, remove stains, deodorize.
  • Alkalization (de-acidification): to add an alkaline deposit to the paper, to neutralize acid and prevent future acid build-up.
  • Mending/infilling: to repair tears and gaps to improve handling and legibility.
  • Humidification: to introduce moisture at a controlled rate to relax paper (e.g.,¬†for tightly rolled items) prior to attempts at flattening.
  • Pressing: aka flattening.
  • Housing (e.g., boxes, enclosures, encapsulation): to protect the item while in storage.

The handout also mentioned (but did not describe) these “higher level treatments” that should really be left to a professional conservator with a solid background in chemistry:

  • tape removal
  • backing/lining
  • inpainting
  • fixing
  • consolidation
  • leaf casting
  • vellum/parchment

That is all I’m going to say about the actual treatments. That may come as a bit of a let-down, seeing as I was so excited about this workshop. But I am going to play the “liability” card on this entry, because I don’t want to run the risk of accidentally giving out inaccurate information in regards to actually performing these procedures. Yes, I saw him do it, and yes, I took a¬†ton of notes. But what if¬†I¬†misheard or misunderstood or wrote it down wrong? I don’t want anyone following “my” instructions [or worse, attributing the misinformation to Mr. Sanders] and consequently harming something.

(I tend to think that Mr. Sanders would also appreciate my refraining on the details, as well: At one point while he was humidifying a photograph, I asked him if he could give a general recommendation about when it is safe to do so – because all the books I have say “leave for a conservator” – and after giving his answer [which I’m not going to post here!], he said, “But don’t quote me on that!” Haha.)

One thing I learned during the workshop that I don’t feel dangerous in sharing is the preservation challenge presented by documents written in iron gall ink. (Is it sad that I first heard of iron gall ink when I saw the movie National Treasure? In my defense, I didn’t start my archives master’s degree until after that movie came out.)¬†

Anyway, back to iron gall ink: Evidently, this ink was very commonly used up through the 1920s because it was so smooth and worked well in quills and nib pens.¬†I won’t try to get into the chemistry of it all – that Wikipedia article I¬†linked to does a good job of that – but because of the iron (yes, it really has iron in it) and other components of this ink, the ink actually eats through the paper it is written on, over time. Mr. Sanders showed us an example of a document written with this ink, and the letters were literally just falling out of it. It was the most bizarre thing. (This web site shows¬†an image of¬†iron gall ink corrosion.)

He said there are new conservation treatments being developed to help curtail this type of deterioration. (Here’s some info on iron gall ink treatment from Library of Congress.)

But just the idea of the ink eating through the paper blew my mind a little bit. We [archivists] spend so much time trying to figure out how to protect documents from all sorts of things – heat, light, water, bugs, people – and here is a type of document in which the writing itself (the very essence of the document) is causing it to self-destruct. I suppose it’s a similar idea to trying¬†to protect documents being damaged by their own¬†acidity, which causes brittleness in paper. Well, I knew the paper could cause the document to self-destruct, but I never thought about the ink!

(Note: After learning about iron gall ink, I was inspired to check a couple of our 19th century collections at the library, to see if the documents showed any signs of this type of deterioration. I am pleased to report that a spot-check — no, I didn’t study every document in detail but I checked several — of the Van Cleve Dover (MS-006) and Brown Patterson (MS-015) collections revealed no apparent corrosion around the letters. However,¬†I did see a little bit of this “haloing” phenomenon; maybe 200 years is still not old enough to have actual corrosion damage yet…hrm. Guess we’ll just have to keep an eye on them!)


I hope you’ve enjoyed reading about my adventures in Bloomington last weekend. I know I enjoyed the trip and the conference, as well as writing about them.

Preserving Our Cultural Heritage Conference at Indiana University, presentations, part 2

More from the Preserving Our Cultural Heritage conference at IU:


Danielle Emerling (IU-Bloomington) gave a presentation, “Motion Picture Film Preservation at the Chautauqua Institution Archives.” This presentation described a project in which Ms. Emerling participated last year to preserve and make accessible 2 or 3 silent¬†film reels from 1923 (35mm film). With the help of Eastman House and Kodak in Rochester, NY, the film was evaluated (not nitrate – woohoo!), preserved, and ultimately digitized for access purposes. We were even able to watch clips from the films during the presentation – cool stuff!

It was kind of amazing to watch these videos from 1923, being played on a computer, no less. This gives me hope for getting some of my grandpa’s old home movie films (16mm and 8mm from the 1950s and 1960s) preserved and digitized someday. (I am afraid to know how much the whole process cost, though.)

The subject matter was interesting as well. One film showed activities at Chautauqua. The other seemed to be a sort of patriot film, which depicted a group of “immigrants” being schooled on American history (the 30 second version!). (That was one of the more anti-immigrant time periods in American history – if you don’t believe me, check out the details of the¬†Immigration Act of 1924.)


Brenna Henry (IU-Bloomington) presented “Non-textual Objects in Library and Archival Collections.” In this presentation, Ms. Henry shared the results of some survey research she conducted regarding the non-textual objects (often called “realia”) in libraries and archives, including how and why the objects got into the collection and how the institutions deal with them.

I can only imagine some of the things that might be floating around in an archives that, er, don’t really belong there. Sometimes you get and keep these things because they go with a larger manuscript collection that you really did want. Sometimes you have these things because someone at your institution in the past didn’t really understand the archives and museums are actually different. Or, sometimes, they just sneak in on you – like those 19th century notebooks with locks of hair in them. (Yep, we’ve got some of those…)

I asked Ms. Henry whether any of the institutions mentioned directing patrons to another repository that deals with 3-D objects, and she said yes, some of them do. That’s what we usually do at the library, if someone has historic artifacts that they want to donate: we recommend a museum instead. But we’re happy to take manuscripts that fit our collecting policy.


Day 1 presentations that I did not attend (sessions were concurrent):

Kristopher Stenson (IU-Bloomington), “The Grigg Report and its Effect on Appraisal in the United Kingdom.”

Camille Torres (Simmons College), “Rethinking Appraisal Theory for Government Documents.”

Ed Hill (IU-Bloomington), “Heavy Metal as Folklore and the Case for Preservation.”

Richard Fischer (City University of New York-Queens), “‘The Mystery Song’: Histories of the Contingent in Documentary Jazz Recordings.”


Day 2 presentations:


Kristen Schuster (Simmons College) read her paper “Photography, Identity and Descriptive Processes.” Here is a description of the presentation from the paper abstract: “The relationship between the creation of records and the impulse to archive represents the interdependence between memory and identity. How we articulate our past experiences reflects our ability to understand the meaning [of] memory, as well as the subjects we include in them.”

Ms. Schuster’s presentation was intriguing, but it was so very meta that I think the best I can do to comment on it is to copy here some of the extermely interesting sound-bites I jotted down in my notes:

  • What we choose to save is a reflection of¬†our perception of value.
  • “The camera is an archiving machine.”
  • Visual literacy can transform a photo from “art” to “document”.
  • Archival description does not preserve memory but the notion of memory.
  • Cataloging represents an object through controlled terms, thus limiting search ability and stripping details and memory from the photo. [This is one of my favorite snippets! Then again, subject headings and I have a bit of a rocky relationship anyway…]
  • Words and images communicate in different ways.
  • Folksonomy tags democratize subjects.
  • User supplied terms can broaden ideas of a photo’s subject matter or how it is considered; a single indexer cannot provide all possible relevant terms. [Yes!]

Just to be clear: Most of the above bulleted items are probably direct quotes or very nearly so – in any event, all Ms. Schuster’s ideas. Only the parts in brackets come from me. But I was scribbling so fast during the presentation, trying to listen and write at the same time, that I didn’t get everything word for word or sometimes forgot the actual quotation marks. (Ah, it takes me back to my undergraduate history lecture courses…)


Micah Erwin (University of Texas-Austin) gave a presentation, “An Underappreciated Resource: Medieval Manuscript Leaf Collections.” The presentation discussed Mr. Erwin’s experiences with digitizing and describing medieval manuscript leaf collections. (Just so we’re clear:¬†leaf¬†= manuscript page, not like like a leaf from a tree!)

Apparently, in the past it has been fashionable to collect manuscript leaves, which has caused the individual leaves from manuscripts to become scattered among various collectors. Mr. Erwin mentioned some of the ways that digization (even Flickr!)¬†is aiding in identifying leaves from different collections that originally belonged together, as well as how digitization might be used to create a virtual exhibit bringing leaves from different collections back together again. He also emphasized that although these individual leaves are often viewed as mere curiosities and are consequently not always cataloged adequately, the leaves can be valuable teaching aids – so cataloging should be done! [I couldn’t agree more! I think everything should be cataloged! Why have something if nobody knows it’s there?]

This was yet another interesting presentation on a topic I did not know much about, save what I learned in my History of Books class a year or so ago. Incidentally, Mr. Erwin mentioned that renowned medieval manuscripts expert Christopher de Hamel was at the IU Lilly Library recently. Mr. de Hamel wrote A History of Illuminated Manuscripts, which we used in the History of Books class (one of my favorites in my whole MLIS program).


Rachel Woodbrook and Althea Lazzaro (University of Washington) gave their presentation “‘How are [we] to bring such wayward creatures into the bonds of organizations?’ Zine Archives and the Archival Tradition,” and led a discussion afterwards.

I admit I did not even know what a “zine” was prior to this presentation, let alone what sorts of unique archival challenges they might present. The presenters gave a very broad definition of “zine” as: “any self-published creative endeavor done out of passion.” Apparently, this format has been popular in a lot of counter-culture movements (my word, not theirs), such as punk, new feminism, and gay pride, among others.

As a result of the zines’ origins, this affets how they are being collected, preserved, and made accessible. That is, many zine archives (such as the Zine Archive and Publishing Project in Seattle) tend to be low-key and¬†low-restriction, even circulating copies; to lock them away for their own protection would completely¬†cramp the style of the format and step on the intent and the material itself. After all, many of these were written for the express purpose of defying control and oppression! It was a very interesting dynamic.

Issues regarding possible digization for access (so more people could view) and preservation (less handling of the originals) were discussed also. Copyrights and privacy issues were the two biggies. Intellectual property is protected by copyright upon its creation, but you can of course ask permission for certain uses. But what do you do if the item in question has a pseudonymed author that you can’t even find? As for privacy, there is some very personal stuff in some of these zines: it’s a little dicey whether the author would even like it being in an archives (but again – you can’t always find them to ask!), let alone know that something they might have created to circulate among a handful of friends has found its way not only into an archive but was digitized and made available to the world.

Yes, this presentation turned out to be an interesting an informative one indeed. Not only did I learn what the heck a zine even is, I learned about some of the very unique archival challenges they can present.

(As an aside, I overheard someone else talking about zines in a completely unrelated context later on that same day. Weird how one day I didn’t even know what they were, and the next day, I hear about them from two different sources!)


Day 2 presentations that I did not attend (sessions were concurrent):

Sarah Keil (IU-Bloomington): “An Analysis of African Archives: Challenges for the Present and Solutions for Change.”

Alison Clemens (University of Texas-Austin): “The Woman Behind the Curtain: Winnie Allen as Archivist.”


And with that, I’ve finished up the paper/presentation sessions. In Part 3, I’ll share some notes on the behind-the-scenes tour at Lilly Library, as well as the Conservation Workshop (which was my primary reason for attending this conference).

Preserving Our Cultural Heritage Conference at Indiana University, presentations, part 1

Last weekend, I attended the Preserving Our Cultural Heritage conference¬†for grad students/new archivists conference at Indiana University in Bloomington. There were many interesting papers and presentations, and I would like to touch briefly on each of the ones I attended. I’m not necessarily going to recreate or even attempt to “summarize” the presentations, but I’ll tell a little bit about what my “take away” from the presentation was.


Stacie Williams (Simmons College) presented “The Rainbow Connection and the Archives: Using Digital Preservation to Link the Jim Henson Company’s Past, Present, and Future.” This presentation centered on digitization activities at the Jim Henson Company Archives (located in Queens, NY), which is a private corporate archives. Documents being digitized included early sketches of muppets, most of which are signed and dated with the artist’s name – which can help with questions of intellectual property. These images can also be used by conservators who need references to the construction of existing muppets, so they can¬†clean and maintain them.¬†

I learned some interesting things about Jim Henson – such as that he began making muppets for advertising purposes. I also had not given much thought to how muppets are constructed or what they are made of – but there are materials in this archive that cover all of that, as well as the evolution of different processes of doing so.


Jason Groth (IU-Bloomington) read his paper “Migration Thinking: Dietrich Schuller, Albrecht Hafner, and the Inception of the Digital Mass Storage System for Sound Archives.” His topic centered around an important debate in audio preservation: whether preserving the object (e.g., the tape) or the actual content (i.e., the sounds) is paramount.

This is a big problem for archivists in general these days – with audio, video, and electronic files of all types. If you focus your effort more on the object itself, then you are stuck being technologically dependent on old equipment. (For instance, if the sound only exists on an eight-track tape, you need an eight-track player. Or, if you have¬†a file on a floppy disk, you need a floppy disk drive and the software and a computer capable of running the software.) If you migrate to a newer technology, you save the content (hopefully, assuming you did it right and didn’t lose any quality in the process!), but you are still setting yourself up to be technologically dependent, just on a newer technology. You’ll be doing the same thing again in a few years, probably. It’s an endless cycle…


Dorothy Chalk (IU-Bloomington) gave a presentation “Preserving Growth, Preserving Decay: Born-Digital Materials That Will Not Sit Still.” I didn’t know what to think with a title like that! But after she got going, it made sense. She focused mainly on a born-digital poem called “Agrippa” by William Gibson. The poem was distributed on floppy disks that were meant to self-destruct (overwrite themselves) upon being viewed once. The discs were also distributed in a book whose ink was supposed to fade over time also – even more so than regular books and on purpose! It was a very odd and interesting idea. Despite Gibson’s attempts to create something that would disappear almost immediately, bootleg copies of the poem made it to the web, and it has grown from there.

In Chalk’s opinion, libraries ought to be documenting this web following as well, which I suppose is a good idea in theory, but I think it might set an unrealistic precedent for libraries collecting and documenting web¬†communities related to other works. (Or perhaps she’s right, and this is a perfectly reasonable expectation but only seems unattainable now because we don’t have any processes set up for actually doing it!)


Eric Holt (University Archivist at Indiana State U.) gave a presentation and demonstration entitled: “Open-Source Electronic Recordkeeping: A Review of Alfresco Enterprise Content Management System.” Alfresco is a piece of open-source electronic recordkeeping software that is certified by the Department of Defense 5015.2 recordkeeping standard but is not in a proprietary format and is¬†less expensive to implement than some other systems. This system had some neat features, and it looked pretty easy to use based on the demonstration.

One thing Mr. Holt said during his presentation that really struck home with me was: He has an easier time providing people with information from the 1960s and 1970s than with more recent information (say, in the last 10 years). This is so true. Now that so many things are in electronic format, they are in such danger of disappearing. It’s too easy for people to click “delete” on items that¬†are old or seem unimportant¬†(or to not store things on the server like you’re supposed to and then lose¬†data in an individual¬†hard drive crash).

Is the answer to insist that people keep printing everything out so that their files can eventually make it into the archives?¬† Well, ye—-I mean, no, of course not.* We’re going to have to keep working hard to find better ways of preserving (really preserving – so that they are still accessible in 10 years) electronic records. Why? Well, because (a) that’s how many things come to the archives these days (if they make it at all – see aforementioned hard drive crash scenario!), and (b) some records¬†only really exist properly¬†in a digital environment (e.g., interactive web sites – or heck, any web site with links for that matter; Flash animations; even¬†moderately fancy¬†PowerPoints).

* My initial near-slip of saying “yes” to the printing everything out bit is due to my own personal perservation activities. I still print everything out. I just feel safer that way. Anything I want to have a copy of in 10 (or 50) years, I print it out. This also applies to stuff that falls into the “omigod I would be really screwed if I lost that” category – like tax-related documents!

Okay… I think that’s enough for today. I’ll pick up with the other 5 presentations later.