CRM Archaeology and Collections Management - A Comparison between two Canadian Provinces
Author(s): Lindsay Foreman
My CRM career has included positions in both British Columbia and Ontario, two provinces situated on opposite sides of the country. Working for the same consulting firm in both provinces, I have had the opportunity to manage the analysis and curative preparation of large precontact Aboriginal collections. This experience has resulted in the observation of strengths and weaknesses in current British Columbia and Ontario heritage legislation, archaeological permitting regulations, and collections management.
In this paper, I will demonstrate the need for and advantages of better communication between:
-the Canadian provincial departments overseeing heritage management;
-Canadian CRM archaeologists and archaeological firms;
-Canadian museums and academic institutions serving as curatorial facilities; and
-CRM archaeologists and collections curators.
CRM archaeologists need to work closely with curators to develop consistent collections curation standards and practices that fit within project budgets and schedules. Further, more Canadian CRM firms need to recognize the importance of hiring and maintaining staff with collections management and curation experience. Without these improvements, the success of preserving our country’s heritage for future generations will remain subjective.
This Resource is Part of the Following Collections
Cite this Record
CRM Archaeology and Collections Management - A Comparison between two Canadian Provinces. Lindsay Foreman. Presented at The 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia. 2017 ( tDAR id: 430521)
min long: -142.471; min lat: 42.033 ; max long: -47.725; max lat: 74.402 ;
Abstract Id(s): 13292