Archive for category: RCVS Archives Project

Annotation by Fred Smith in a notebook

Now that over seven months have passed since I started this project – it is time for another update!

Most of my time so far has involved looking closely at all of the archive material relating to Major General Sir Frederick Smith, which is the first stage of cataloguing the collection. I needed to look through all 49 boxes of the papers so that I could get a broad idea of the type of content, the recurring themes, and any existing structure in the collection.

The Smith papers had been kept in loose piles in several cupboards here at the RCVS

I created a spreadsheet to record this information, one file at a time, making notes to summarise the contents. This early stage of recording information is very important, as I will rely on this spreadsheet to help me make decisions about how to organise the files, as it would be impractical to get all the actual files out at once to compare them.

The decisions I needed to make relate to the following questions: what does this material record? Why did Smith create this? What aspects of Smith’s life and work does this relate to? When did Smith create this? Does it relate to the items before and after it? Do these items belong together, according to Smith’s original order, or did he mean to keep them separate?

Screen cap of my spreadsheet of data

Whilst I recorded the answers to these questions, I needed to try and think like Smith and also think like a potential researcher using these collections. It is impossible for me to inhabit the mind of a long dead Army veterinarian, and it is impossible for me to predict the specific research interests of every future archive user. Therefore I needed to ensure I was two things – conscientious and consistent.

Being conscientious means I accurately record the condition and situation in which I found the material.  There are ‘clues’ that Smith left for me: changes in his handwriting; evidence of papers that were stapled or glued together, but separated over time. However, I must not automatically assume material is connected. Sometimes I made note that two items might be connected, but it is impossible to be sure. If I wrongly grouped things together, a researcher may infer a shared context between the items. For example, a photograph of a battlefield stored between a letter from an ex-comrade of Smith’s, and undated manuscript notes about the Boer War. It is either possible that the photograph was sent to Smith by his friend, or that he used the photograph to inform his notes. Or neither. Or both! I cannot know, but if I maintain the photograph’s proximity to the other documents, a future researcher can make that decision for themselves. Similarly, I made sure I kept together things that definitely relate to each other, as a loose photograph of an anonymous battlefield loses its context once separated from the letter and notes.

Files of loose papers with no obvious order were kept as they were found whenever possible

Consistency is also key – both in terms of what I decided a document is about, and the words I used to describe it. Future researchers can then trust my catalogue to point them to everything they want, and only what they want. For example, there are letters in which Smith states his views on how veterinary surgeons are perceived compared to medical doctors. In my spreadsheet, I used words and phrases that describe the subject, e.g. “status of veterinary profession”, and continued to use that exact phrase when Smith writes about it again. Ideal words and phrases are broad enough to be conceivably used by a researcher as a search term in the catalogue. However, if they are too broad, e.g “medicine” they will apply to so many items they will be effectively useless at narrowing down results. Fortunately, Smith had already organised his papers, and annotated many notes and articles with a clear subject title, and so I was able to use his own terminology whenever appropriate.

“Put with Physiology files” – Smith made annotations on his papers, which helped him organise his files, and also left instructions for a future biographer to find

Once I had finished my spreadsheet of 299 files of papers, I was ready to move onto the next stage – arrangement into a hierarchy – which I will discuss in my next blog post.

The papers have been re-housed in acid free archive boxes, to prevent any further damage

After completing the listing and arranging of the Frederick Smith collection, I now move onto the nitty gritty of archive work – writing descriptions. You can see the descriptions I’ve completed so far on our newly launched archive catalogue, and I have linked to specific records on the catalogue as examples below.

Homepage of our online archive catalogue

This stage essentially involves describing the material to an appropriate level of detail, in order to best inform researchers what the items are before they are fished out of storage for them to see.

As with the previous two stages, there is no one correct way of describing archives – but there are rules to follow. The international standard for archival description has been drawn up to promote consistency when searching across multiple collections around the world. However, many archive repositories also have their own house rules to better suit their unique collections.

The essential rule is to describe from the general to the specific. If something is true for every item of the collection, then that should be mentioned at the highest level of the hierarchy (Fonds), if something is only true for one batch of files within a series, it should be mentioned at series level. If some sections of material are comprised of very varied files, then the description of the section would probably be brief (e.g. FS/2), and more detail added as you described smaller batches within it (e.g. FS/2/2/2). You should avoid repeating information unnecessarily, but as most catalogues are now accessed online, you do not know that a researcher who finds a description of a specific file will necessarily read the descriptions at higher levels of the hierarchy. Therefore some repetition of essential contextual information can be helpful.

The Smith collection in a hierarchy structure

It is important to be concise in description, as the researchers really want to spend as much of their time as possible reading the actual material, rather than just descriptions of it. An archivist should also avoid copying the content of the material (unless you want to include a formal transcription of the text). This may sound obvious, but it can be a challenge to summarise a letter rather than copy it. For example, when trying to find the best way to phrase an argument put forth in a letter, it will often seem easier and quicker to directly quote the author! This is also the case for lists of names or places etc.

FS/3/1/4/58 “I now have to deal with the following:- Moses of Palermo…” Smith lists future research subjects.

It is useful to include as many names of individuals as possible, to make it more likely that your material is found in an online search. However, you do not want to mislead researchers into thinking the papers include a wealth of information on Joe Bloggs, when actually his name is one of many on a list drawn up by one correspondent to another, as a suggestion of potentially interesting authors to read! Another example is this draft letter [FS/3/1/13/50], in which Smith is asking about the existence of any portrait of Bracy Clark. It seems that Smith never successfully found one, and so any person searching online for a long lost Clark portrait would be misled by a description of this letter as discussing ‘a portrait of Bracy Clark’. Instead I have tried to make it clear that Smith himself is struggling to find one. People can travel a long way to visit archive repositories, and so you do not want someone to have flown from Australia to the UK in vain!

Another simple rule, but sometimes very difficult to follow, is to not use qualitative language to describe the material. You may find a beautiful sketch on the back of a letter, or a hilarious account of a meeting in a diary, but you should not use words such as ‘beautiful’ or ‘hilarious’. Even seemingly harmless words such as ‘interesting’ or ‘simple’ are too subjective. Archivists should stick to the facts in the catalogue, and use outlets such as Twitter or blogs to highlight material they think is particularly wonderful. However, it is useful to describe quantities if possible – again to avoid misleading a researcher into thinking a file is stuffed full of notes on a subject, when actually there are only brief mentions in  one or two letters. [e.g. FS/2/2/2/1/8]

FS/2/2/2/1/1 These paintings of the liver from Smith’s case notes are, in my opinion, beautiful. But that’s definitely not something everyone would agree with!

As the title of this blog post suggests, a simple rule of thumb is to say what you see – no more, no less. However, sometimes the archivist needs to do a bit of speculation in order to better describe the material. For example, this letter [FS/3/1/3/11], which has been dated by Smith as 24th March 1911. Judging by the content of the letter, it seems to make more sense amongst letters from March 1912, and so I assume Smith accidentally wrote the wrong year. (It happens to the best of us!)

I have also tried to include the modern names of locations, if they have changed since the time the material was created. For example, Smith worked in Bengaluru, India in the 1880s, but at the time it was referred to by the British forces as ‘Bangalore’. It is possible that a researcher would use either name when searching, so both are included in records such this [FS/2/2/2/1/1].

Whilst cataloguing Smith’s correspondence, I noticed that he referred to consulting very old manuscripts at the British Museum. Of course, since Smith’s time, the British Library has been established, and much of the historical manuscript collection has moved there. I mention in the catalogue that these sources are in a new location, in order to hopefully prevent someone searching for material in the wrong place! [FS/3/1/2]

FS/3/1/2/2 Reader request slip from a research visit to the British Museum in 1911 – this book is now at the British Library

Finally, I add comments if I notice that something is obviously missing, or badly damaged, so that some unfortunate researcher doesn’t get the blame for it at a later date.

The wonderful thing about cataloguing online is that it is never set in stone. As I continue to explore the collections here at RCVS, and speak to the people who will use them, I’ll learn new things about Smith’s work, and the veterinary profession as a whole. I can add this further information to the catalogue at any time, and continue to improve the descriptions.

So please take a look at the catalogue, and let me know what you think!