In 1993 the ICOM emarked on a standardization project for museum collections within the framework of its AFRICOM programme. The aim of the project was to encourage and help African museums to tackle their inventories in compliance with set standards of documentation while taking into account the progress made in this area both from the point of view of methodology and of technology.
The drawing up of standardized inventories would permit:

• a register of cultural and natural collections relevant to their heritage;
• an identification of collections by generating reli- able scientific information;
• quick and controlled access to this information,
• faster dissemination and exchange of information between museums, thereby progressively eradicating the trafficking and dispersion of our African heritage outside the continent.

1. Protection of the National Heritage
The mounting interest shown nowadays to heritage has permitted the drawing up of laws that control conditions for the preservation, valorization and transfer of cultural wealth. This awareness has led to a revalorization of museum collections and to research into complementary information. It also allowed the deficiencies in existing forms of documentation and especially its unsuitability w.r.t. to the new methods to be evaluated.

2. Standardization of the inventory
With the passing years, museum collections have become increasingly important and their diversity has made it more and more difficult for them to be managed and controlled along classic and traditional lines.
Fairly well drawn up inventories do exist, but no overall logic emerged when comparing the different systems of classification.
These numerous inventories which have been drawn up according to personalized index cards often meet a person's individual standards and have generated a number of classifications that are not interrelated; so the adoption of a single standardized system of stocktalking would appear necessary.
This system, which would also allow us to solve most problems, would require meticulous preparation and the choice of certain operational options: determining the levels of analysis needed (viz. creating an inventory for simple cataloguing purposes or for scientific or analytical research), consequently opting for the right software and adapting it to the demands of the data to be processed while, in the meantime, taking the capacities of its potential users and the means available into account. The main concern of the museum was to draw up one single inventory for all the collections at the museum and to harmonize its present classification system by bringing it into line with the new parameters.

3. The creation of a museum database
This new standardized inventory would result in the creation of a museum database, which would then facilitate the administration of the various collections through a meticulous process of identification, a centralization of the documentation and at the same time a provision of scientific information in keeping with a carefully thought-out classification of the collections and its adaptation to an appropriate operating system.

4. Promoting heritage
The drawing up of an eclectic and coherent inventory would also facilitate access to didactic documentation which in turn, would contribute towards a wider dissemination of information gathered both on the national and the international level. Indeed, this information, once standardized, could be available for use by a larger public, be they specialized or not, in different forms and via different data carriers for the purposes of better promotion.

The ICOM inventory standardization project corresponded exactly with our own wishes and our desire for development. It provided us with an adequate framework for ridding ourselves of our problems and for trying to answer our many queries.
The first meeting (Paris 1993) was an occasion for getting to know the objectives of the project, then for defining the standards needed for preparing an exhaustive inventory. A system of work was then devised and each museum undertook to carry it out while testing its standards on samples of objects, establishing its needs for adopting these standards and mentioning the pro-blems that. During the second meeting (Kenya 1994), the six pilot museums spoke of their suggestions and remarks after one year of testing the standards on the various collections in their respective museums. Certain museums reported on the extent of computerization already achieved and proceeded to give demonstrations of the work already carried out in that field.
A third meeting (Madagascar 1995) gave each museum the opportunity to outline the problems they had encoutered regarding the implementation of the ICOM standards and to discuss certain specific problems, thence a reshaping of the standards and the decision that each museum could adapt them insofar as they still met the broad criteria adopted by the other museums. As a result of these meetings, the ICOM, the CIDOC and the pilot museums passed a set of criteria aimed at standardizing inventories, thereby facilitating the exchange of information and allowing each museum to benefit from the others' experience.
A manual of standards was edited at the end of each meeting and was reviewed immediately afterwards in order to present a concise way of drawing up an inventory of museum collections and so as to allow it to be adopted by all the other interested museums. The role of the ICOM and the CIDOC, both as referees and catalysts of ideas, was decisive and often moderating given the divergencies. While encouraging discussions that were often quite lively and maintaining certain cohesion within the group - despite the reticence resulting from the often differing conditions - ICOM's and CIDOC's experience in this field meant that it was possible to minimize the differences and win people over without anyone ever feeling wronged.
Problems concerning the stage of computerization were also raised; mainly those relating to the difficulties of finding adequate software on the market for drawing up museum inventories as well as the prohibitive costs involved in developing bespoke software to suit the needs of each institution.
Another problem raised was that of a glossary of terms needed for computerizing specialized inventories.
It was decided that each museum should develop its own lists of terms to suit the specific needs of its collections, but that museums of the same discipline should compare lists. Exchanges between the various institutions should then take place in order to ensure that the various lists were conform to a common methodology.
Another important point raised was the linking up of the various institutions concerned across the international communications network INTERNET, which has already been adopted by a several African museums. This network will allow the various institutions to access the museum databases available to them cheaply and allow the various users to communicate with each other, in order to discuss and resolve a number of their daily problems without having to meet face-to-face or hold meetings.

As this project is nearing completion, a concluding appraisal will have to be put forward in order to determine the tangible benefits for the Bardo National Museum without forgetting to point out certain points of reserve:
This new approach to standardisation was accepted by all the researchers and curators interviewed; this new point of view would allow them to gain a global idea of collections particularly with respect to management, especially seeing that researchers and curators are increasingly faced with providing meticulous inventories of the objects under their care. On the other hand, the system will usher in new methods of management and documentation thus accelerating the circulation of information.
The most positive and most concrete proposals were made concerning the structure of the terminologies suggested. This aspect of standardization generated a lot of interest among those concerned and the lists drawn up were considerably added to thanks to their fruitful and judicious support; likewise the adoption of the analytical file put forward by the project was accepted by all because it differed little from the files used by the national museums.

But it is equally important to note that certain problems were raised concerning the new concept of making an inventory:
Firstly the fear often expressed - and rightfully so - was of an excessive dissemination of information, hence the refusal of some to release their documentation. Even though they accepted the criteria adopted, they did not wish to make their documents available to just anyone and especially not outside the museum. At the same time, those ignorant of computers remain suspicious about this new technology.
Other criticism was more constructive in that certain people in charge consider that the index card proposed should be reviewed with an eye to simplification. In fact for them, such a detailed index card would need researching and this is not the main objective of the inventory. Its prime goal is to limit itself to a simple cataloguing of the collections for the purposes of review and supervision. Certain sections requiring the infput of precise scientific data would have to be dropped.
Issues concerning the dissemination of information and levels of access as well as certain issues concerning non-listed objects were raised on each occasion by all those interviewed.
Even if the project did provoke a few expressions of distrust, it did result in a new method for tackling the problem of museum documentation and did yield some undeniable benefits:
The enriching contacts between the museums and the discovery of hitherto unknown collections - the value and importance of which merits closer attention and interest and a contribution by us all towards their protection; so much so that they should be promoted not only on our own continent but beyond its frontiers too.
The possibility of having contacts with specialists in the various domains of museology, of having access to documentation and of benefiting from their experience in the field of inventories and learning of their struggle against illegal trafficking and of computerized solutions to museum problems.
The chance to identify our own needs and to set work deadlines for drawing up museum inventories in keeping with the most appropriate standards.
An evaluation of our capacities and means and a reflection on the best means of tackling this task while taking into account our collections and the particular problems facing our country and our museums. Participating in an African project and helping to spread it to numerous other countries faced with the same concerns.
To run experiments on a different approach because, though all the participants had the same objective, i.e. to create adaptable standards for their respective interests, these interests were sometimes dichotomous, given that neither the means nor the situations could ever be identical.
Efficient mutual cooperation that would allow problems associated with the computerization to be solved thanks to the experience and skill of the more advanced museums in this field. Finally and no less importantly, new professional but also personal relations have sprung up between people who, initially, were never destined to meet.

Chedlia ANNABI
Librarian
Coordinator of the AFRICOM Project for standardisation of inventories in african museums
National Museum of Carthage
Place UNESCO
2016 Carthage
Tunisia

Tel.: 730 036 Fax: 730 099