I entirely agree. The designation process was a significantly flawed one,
and has created huge anomalies. Being not designated is a threat, and there
are definitie advantages - both financila nad otherwise. I quote from
Cornucopia (http://cgi.www.cornucopia.co.org.uk/intro.html) 'Cornucopia :
Discovering UK Collections is a new project from the Museums and Galleries
Commission. It will give a complete picture of the wealth of UK museum
collections through a comprehensive database available on this website.
This pilot website provides information on the 50 museums in England with
Designated collections. Designation celebrates pre-eminent museum
collections outside the National museums and now covers a wide-ranging group
of outstanding collections in museums throughout England. The importance of
Designated collections has been recognised by Government with a £15m
Challenge Fund over the next three years'.
As one with associations with a local museums service with collections of
huge significance but largely undersold, I think the system mitigated
against supporting such museums, because we have no single 'pre-eminent'
And just in case anyone agrees that there is nothing to do with archaeology
in museums, don't forget that the whole discipline stands or falls on the
archives for which hard-pressed museums are the only repositories.
> From: kpflude[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Although this is museums not so much archaeology designation does affect a
> lot of museums with archaeological collections so I hope the list will be