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.
Scott D. Peters
Research Director/Archivist
Ocean County Historical Society
26 Hadley Ave., P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
(732) 341-1880
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
"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 -----
From: "Lisa Moellering" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
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
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).