Multiple numbering systems should not be a problem, as long as each system
is maintained and your staff understand why and how each system came about. Past
Perfect certainly will not give you problems with cataloging the different
systems.
We have essentially two numbering systems. The main system is the
traditional system of accession numbers by date and sequence of acquisition. for
instance, 2000.12.3 tells us that the item was the third item within the 12th
acquisition of 2000.
The obvious problem with this system is that you can't link an item to a
category, just when it came into your collection. But it's very organized and
flexible to allow for multiple items within an acquisition. If you maintain your
cataloging in this way, you can retain control over fond, series, item
categorization rather easily. If you catalog Past Perfect's way from the start-
that is you enter your accession information first, then catalogue the items
after all the accessions are entered.
Our second numbering system was created for "Found in Collections." These
items were assigned X numbers from a series of X categories. Photographs
are their own separate X category and numbering system. Archival material is
broken down by type of record. Once you understand the categories, you can
easily locate the item. The problem with this is that if and when we ascertain
the accession info for these X items, they should be renumbered to conform to
their original acquisition.
Now, you also need to consider your internal collection organization: Do
you have everything by category? By Chenhall no.?
For storage purposes, Chenhall organization is a great way to keep
different types of objects stored in a similar manner and also makes it easy to
go right to the type of object you want we you need to plan exhibits or
programs.
With archival collections, you don't worry so much about maintaining record
types, with the possible exception that you want to keep oversized with
oversized and certain types of media in certain storage conditions. However, for
ease of access, and to avoid future donor-related problems, cataloging and
storage based on the accession number is probably the best, in my opinion.
Consider this scenario (which I'm certain everyone has had to endure at
some point at their museum):
You received a donation of a lot of manuscripts and objects a
while back. A patron comes in who knows that you have that particular collection
of items in your holdings and wants to see it. How good is your cataloging and,
unless it's a seriously high profile acquisition, how quickly can you locate it?
Was it catalogued or stored in an easily retrievable way?
Worse yet is when the donor comes in 20 years later and wants to show his
items to family or friends, what if you can't find it? It happens.
At our museum, many larger acquisitions were broken up into different
categories and scattered to the four winds within our collections. Finding such
an acquisition in its entirety can be virtually impossible. At the same time,
breaking sets of items or documents up into relational categories can also lead
to wasted space on your shelves. One of the tasks I'm facing as we move
toward completing the cataloging of our archival collection is rehousing
documents that were separated into categories in the boxes, with most boxes
being about 70-80% empty. Not good for meager shelf space, and certainly not
good for the documents.
We don't need to renumber, we just have to work the catalog a little more
efficiently. All acquisitions from a single source at a single time should be
catalogued as a single collection: the Joe Donor Collection is the fond. If
there are different types of objects or media, you could break it into series
based on the different types of items or the different categories of information
contained within the acquisition.
Here's a fast example: All the manuscript and documentary items we received
from the County of Ocean are cataloged at the fonds level: County of Ocean; the
series level classification is the department of branch of government from which
the records originated: such as judicial, County Clerk, Sheriff's
Department, County Treasurer, etc.; the item level, of course, is
the individual item: i.e. docket books, execution ledgers, sheriff's sale
ledgers. Right now we're cataloging the Justice of the Peace Dockets: f: County
of Ocean; s: Judicial; i: Docket of AB, Justice of the Peace.
How the items are arranged in storage should not dictate how you catalog.
If you catalog well, you should be able to find the item within the catalog and
get it from storage based on your location information. For this reason, you
need to be specific when entering location: shelf location, box number, folder
number. Put it all in.
Regarding Lisa's statement:
> Previous staff/volunteers also
numbered everything (for example - in an archival
> collection of hundreds
of documents, each page is numbered and described by
> item) and when
cataloging this collection on Past Perfect, would be more apt
> to
describe at the series/folder level instead of item level unless the
item
> is particularly noteworthy.
You could catalog each item in this case into
Past Perfect. But it could take an inordinate amount of time to fill in the
information for each item. We have a similar issue with the records of a local
business from the turn of the century.
Besides ledger books, which may or may not be catalogued within a general
category of Ledgers due to the size of that collection, this particular set of
records includes 6 boxes of receipts, invoices and cancelled checks. To number
and catalog each one would take way too long and not be very productive. I am
leaning toward this approach when we get to (and we're saving it for last): We
will go fond and series only in Past Perfect under a total collection heading -
the company's name is the Collection, in this case the fond will be the type of
record and the series will be the geographical subcategory since this collection
is already organized this way: records dealing with other business within our
county, within the state, other states.
I have plenty of time to decide how best to do this. But one thing I don't
see us doing is entering each item into Past Perfect. The series level
description will include the number of documents within that series, i.e..
2000.2.1-100, where 1-100 is the range of individual items. I am not sure how
useful Past Perfect is in making finding aids. If I can generate a report that
will give me a useable finding aid that I can make available to our patrons, I
will gladly spend the time entering each item. If I can't, it would be more
useful to create a quick access database and create a finding aid that
way.
If anyone has had good experience with creating finding aids from within
Past Perfect I would love to hear about it.
I apologize if this post was overly long or if I'm reinventing the
wheel.
"Telling the Stories of Ocean County"
Historically Speaking
ALHFAM -FPIPN vice-chair for trivia, errata and
miscellany
[log in to unmask]
"The ordinary distinctions in society are often vague, and imply no just
pre-eminence: rank and titles are
adventitious things and instead of
designating merit or virtue, are frequently the baubles of imbecility, or
the sparkling decorations of meretricious pageantry"
William Griffith, on behalf, and by order of the New-Jersey Society for
promoting the gradual Abolition
of Slavery, Twelfth Month (December) 20th,
1803
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Numbering system advice
> Dear List:
>
> We have a collection of some
6,000 objects/items (maybe more). We recently
> purchased
PastPerfect for cataloging the objects and archival collections.
> The
problem is that we have three different numbering systems in place and
>
was wondering if it was worth the time to re-number everything.
Previous
> staff/volunteers also numbered everything (for example - in an
archival
> collection of hundreds of documents, each page is numbered and
described by
> item) and when cataloging this collection on PastPerfect,
would be more apt
> to describe at the series/folder level instead of item
level unless the item
> is particularly noteworthy.
>
> Any
thoughts or advice from others who have encountered collections which
>
needed help?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
>
Regards,
>
> Lisa Moellering
> Archives and Research
Services
> Holocaust Museum Houston
> 5401 Caroline Street
>
Houston, Texas 77004
> 713.942.8000 ext. 110
> 713.942.7953
(fax)
> [log in to unmask]
> www.hmh.org