Inventory and Rehousing: A workflow for 3D objects in archives
April 14th, 2026From Student Senate buttons and sports memorabilia to a vial of uranium connected to the Manhattan Project, the unexpected breadth of objects preserved by the University Archives reveals lesser-known aspects of the University of Kansas’s history. The University Archives is the official repository for all materials related to the University of Kansas. Its holdings include official records, publications, correspondence, research papers, and more. However, the University Archives contains more than just documents; it has a robust Artifact Collection that uses objects to tell the KU story.
I began my Graduate Assistant position with Conservation Services in August 2025, and I quickly became familiar with the Artifact Collection and its unique challenges. The University Archives has been collecting objects for decades, but documentation and housing efforts have been largely inconsistent. When I began this project, there was no item-level inventory of the collection, and many objects were stacked precariously in mismatched or overfilled boxes (See Figure 2). Inconsistent storage practices increase the risk of physical damage, and a lack of intellectual control over the collection makes items difficult to access.

This project consisted of several key phases. First, I conducted a full item-level inventory of the Artifact Collection to gain a complete understanding of its contents. For each object, I assigned a unique sequential Artifact ID number (e.g. ARFT.1, ARFT.2, etc.) and recorded any label information from the exterior of the box, including associated Record Group numbers. I then created a brief title and a full description noting color, material type, and any identifiable features on the object, along with any dates indicated on the item or its housing. I documented the object’s exact measurements in centimeters, assessed and recorded its condition, and noted its current location, housing method, and any outstanding questions or comments.
Following the written documentation, I photographed each object using a temporary photo setup consisting of a white paper background and a light-diffusing shade made from corrugated plastic. I used my iPhone to take the photographs, which were intended to provide visual documentation of the objects rather than high-quality, exhibit-ready images. Their purpose was to capture essential physical details that cannot be conveyed through text alone. In each image, I included a small dry-erase board displaying the Artifact ID number in each image to ensure consistent identification (See Figure 3).

Finally, I attached a small, hand-cut white paper tag to each object using simple white thread and labeled it with its corresponding Artifact ID number. Instead of ordering object tags from an archival supply company, I created the tags in-house using scrap paper to conserve resources. I inventoried as many objects as possible every day, and I reserved the final half-hour of my shift to upload photos, downloading them to a shared networked drive and organizing them into folders based on the objects’ current room locations. This consistent workflow not only ensured thorough documentation but also allows future users to track the overall timeline and progress of the inventory for similar projects.
After the inventory phase, I developed a comprehensive rehousing plan for the University Archives’ Artifact Collection that focused on standardizing storage materials in order to improve the long-term safety and accessibility of the collection. Developing this rehousing plan required balancing preventive conservation best practices, archival theory, spatial limitations, and institutional realities. Organizing by size improves efficiency and reduces handling risks, while material-based grouping mitigates chemical and environmental threats. On the other hand, contextual organization preserves provenance and research value, and standardized documentation ensures continued intellectual control. Balancing all of these concepts, the rehousing plan details first steps and priorities, lists existing storage solutions to follow, and models potential storage solutions for objects whose current housings need improvement. It also provides a list of standard box sizes so that storage solutions stay consistent moving forward. Designed with flexibility in mind, the plan is meant to support future growth, ensuring the collection can evolve without compromising curatorial integrity. Following this plan, I have now begun rehousing objects.
While rehousing Record Group 0/25: Jayhawks, I encountered an oversized box filled with plastic objects that were visibly deteriorating (see Figure 4). Several items exhibited yellowing and surface changes that suggested they were being affected by surrounding materials. In response, I removed all non-plastic objects from the box and rehoused them separately. The remaining plastics, particularly those showing signs of degradation, were wrapped individually in tissue and placed in a standard banker’s box designed to function as a containment unit rather than a highly customized enclosure. Photographs of each object were affixed to the lid, and labeled tags were tied to the exterior of each wrapped item to improve retrievability (see Figure 5). Because these objects possess relatively low research value, constructing individualized custom enclosures was not an efficient use of limited resources. Instead, I prioritized risk mitigation and containment. This solution reflects a central methodological principle of this project: rehousing does not aim for perfection, but for measurable improvement and increased standardization.
Every storage decision reflects institutional realities, professional standards, and long-term stewardship commitments. By integrating collections management strategies with conservation principles, this project provides a flexible and sustainable framework for not only the continued care of the Artifact Collection but an example for any archive drawing on museological best practices to deal with 3D objects.
While I was able to complete an item-level inventory of the Artifact Collection, the rehousing stage of the project will likely extend beyond my time at KU. As a result, the rehousing plan developed here will serve as a guide for future staff, supporting consistent and standardized decision-making. In addition, I have outlined detailed workflows for the continued care of the collection. This project would not have been possible without the collaboration of the University Archives, Conservation Services, and Spencer’s Archival Processing Team.
A very special thanks to Letha Johnson for warmly welcoming me into the University Archives and for placing her trust in me as I engaged critically with the Artifact Collection. Her trust and collaboration were essential to the success of this project.
Brenna Hobbs, M.A. Museum Studies 2026, Graduate Assistant in Conservation Services



























