On 24-Jun-96, Mary Ames Sheret wrote:

>I work for a historical society in the collections (stuff) department and
>I have a question for registrars. We have a formal process for adding
>items to the collection (temporary receipts, full legal deeds and all the
>associated paperwork) but our Registrar also keeps a HAND-WRITTEN log book
>of all the new accessions. The information contained in it is the same
>that's on the deeds - numbers, description, donor name. Why is this
>necessary in the registration process? I would like to hear any
>explanations, reasons for this work. What's the purpose? We have all the
>information on legal forms and on a computerized cataloging system (ARGUS)
>so why do we need this hand-written ledger?

Mary, the short answer to your question is, we don't need the hand-written ledge
r.
The legal evidence of transfer of ownership/stewardship is the gift agreement,
invoice, loan agreement, or other contractual document describine the terms and
conditions underwhich specific objects are transfered from one person to another
.
In allthese documents the objects under discussion should be described in
sufficient detail to be positively identified from all other similar objects.  T
his
is the reason for including condition reports as attachments to these documents.

The Accession Ledger is an archaic hold-over from the days when it was the sole
documentation undertaken by the Registrar to prove title to the collection.  The
ledgers of the British Museum go back to the mid-18th century in a form you woul
d
be quite at hole with today.  Even earlier the 16th and 17th century museologica
l
folios describe a process and a document we would recognise as a ledger to contr
ol
the collection.

By all this I am not saying that we do not need paper copies of our digital
collections records, or that the digital copy can substitute, under law, for a
signed original contract, but the traditional hand-written accession ledger is
neither the original data nor a contract under law.

We keep a working copy of our accession ledger here in the office for quick
reference, but it is a working document, and not the final authority in matters
of
proof of legal title or matters of contractual obligation (for example, in loans
 or
copyright).  I think our profession has moved beyond the stage where reliance on
the accession ledger (with the possible exception as a historical document) migh
t
be more detrimental than helpful.  For old acquisitions it might be the only
evidence available, but for new acquisitions it should not be viewed as a second
ary
source only.  Primary documentation should take the form of formal legal
agreements.

Richard Gerrard

Registrar, Collections Management
Toronto Historical Board

Associate Member, Museums Studies Programme\
University of Toronto