To:

Archivist

From:

Director

RE:

Next collection to process

In reviewing the list of collections waiting to be processed, I noticed one coming from the building at 101 Main St. in Charleston, SC, that contains land surveys. I would like you to process this collection next. Also, I have assigned an archival trainee to you as you organize and describe the collection, so please explain not only what you are doing, but why.

STEP 1: Preliminary work on the collection: gathering information.

Review information in existing accession records or other transmittal documents such as donor agreements, transfer forms, records retention schedules, and disposal authorizations.  It may be necessary to move back and forth between these sources to compile background information needed for further analysis of the materials. 
Review this step in "Archival Processing"

The archivist discovers the following information from the accession records. The collection was given by George Maybank in 1995, and came from the top floor of a building at 101 Main Street. Maybank, who was renovating the space to make more offices, brought the materials to the archives in five irregularly-sized whiskey boxes. The gift form shows that the collection includes documents and land surveys ranging in date from the 1890s to the 1930s. Also in the accession records is a statement from the donor that as he went through the papers looking for stamps, he found some documents dating from before the Civil War. This fact alerts the archivist to be on the lookout for the possibility that some documents might be older than the gift form indicates.  
 

Research in sources external to the collection. Review this step in "Archival Processing"

Since the donor did not know who created the records, the archivist seeks clues to whose documents these were by asking the question: Who were the tenants of the building at 101 Main Street between the 1890s and 1930s? City directories listing building occupants by street address may provide an answer. There is not a complete run of city directories for the period in question, but there are enough to identify a surveyor, S. Lewis Jervey, who leased the building at 101 Main Street in 1905 and again between 1910 and 1932. The archivist then consults the institution's donation forms, reference files, and other collections to see if there is additional information on Jervey there. Since none was found, it is necessary to turn to the collection itself for more clues.

Conduct a preliminary review of the collection materials. Review this step in "Archival Processing"

The archivist makes a preliminary survey of the boxes to see what is in them. The first box contains many notebooks, while the second and third contain personal and business letters, either addressed to S. Lewis Jervey or written by him. So far, the evidence suggests that this collection was created by Jervey. The next box, containing receipts for work done by him, strengthens the archivist's confidence in this hypothesis. The last of the five boxes contains copies of plats with Jervey's signature on them. At this point in the inspection, the collection appears to be Jervey's records. If this is the case, there are still a few factors that don't quite fit which stir the archivist's curiosity. The pre-Civil War materials mentioned by the donor have not appeared. Also, the first box contained notebooks, but Jervey's name didn't appear on those sampled. Whose are these?

Research in sources external to the collection.  Review this step in "Archival Processing"

With this question in mind, the archivist goes back to the box of small notebooks for a closer look. The name on the front of the first one is John A. Mitchell. The name sounds familiar to the archivist, who decides to check the catalog to see whether there is information on Mitchell there. The hunch pays off. Mitchell was a surveyor who did a great deal of work in the city.  The archive holds papers pertaining to work he did after the Civil War. 

Preliminary review of collection materials. Review this step in "Archival Processing"

Having discovered this important link between the Mitchell holdings in the archives and the collection being processed, the archivist returns to the first box. The cover of the next notebook reveals that these are copies made by Mitchell of books originally generated by Charles Parker. The cover reads: “Copied by John A. Mitchell Jan. '61 from Charles Parker's notebooks.” Who was Charles Parker? 

Research in sources external to the collection.  Review this step in "Archival Processing"

The archivist makes another trip to the catalog and reference files to see if there is information on Parker. This search turns up nothing. The archivist next consults the local tombstone index and learns that a Charles Parker died in 1859. No further information is readily available, so the next hope is that there will be more information about Parker in the collection itself.  
 

Preliminary review of collection materials. Review this step in "Archival Processing"   
 

The next notebook contains a note that it was copied by John A. Mitchell in 1861. The next two are also copies and are numbered "4" and "5".  These seem to form a series of notebooks of Charles Parker's original notes. There is also a notebook with plats for Charleston in 1817. The archivist makes note of the fact that this collection will be a wonderful resource for people researching the early built environment of the city. The question of how the copies of Parker's notebooks ended up with Jervey's papers still remains, however.  The best guess is that Mitchell was a surveyor who either knew Parker or took over Parker's business, or the notebooks could have been stored in the building prior to Jervey's occupancy.  

To check this last hypothesis, the archivist returns to the city directories to see if either Mitchell or Parker had a connection to the building at 101 Main Street. Finding no evidence that either had worked or lived in the building, the archivist concludes that there may be another type of link between Jervey's papers and the copies of Parker's notebooks. It seems appropriate to treat them as different parts of the same collection, and to remain alert for clues about ties between Jervey and Mitchell.

STEP 2. Part 1: Organization and Arrangement.

Analysis of the collection's organization and arrangement.  Review this step in "Archival Processing"

There is no discernible order to Jervey's papers. The letters are from many different sources, with several groups of letters from different architectural firms in Charleston. The question is now: How should Jervey's papers be arranged? 

Plats

The plats are of different sizes and cannot be stored in letter-sized or legal-sized folders. Based on their physical size, the archivist creates a separate series for plats within the Jervey papers.  This decision will require that  different-sized storage containers be used for the different size materials.  

While working with these materials, the archivist notices that some have sustained water damage and that mildew has caused some of the sheets to stick together. These damaged items should be sent to a conservator to be cleaned and stabilized before they are refiled with the rest of the collection.

Should the letters and receipts be filed together?

This leaves the letters and receipts to be considered, and raises the question of whether these should be grouped together or separately. One approach is to put everything found in a collection in chronological order. Another is to separate items according to material types, then arrange them chronologically, a practice this institution usually follows. If this is done, the letters and receipts would each be treated as a separate series. Before proceeding with this step, however, the archivist checks to make sure that the receipts are not enclosures for the letters, which would establish a close link between the types of materials. Since no such relationship if found, the separate series are created.  

The size of the Jervey collection is also a factor in this decision. The quantity of letters and receipts warrants a separate series. Had the collection consisted of only a few items, it would not have been necessary to do this. While it is valuable for an institution to have standard procedures for arranging collections, there are always cases when a different solution is warranted. Here the archivist must exercise judgment about what arrangement makes the materials most easily accessible.

Receipts

With separate series established for the letters and receipts, the archivist now turns to the arrangement of the receipts. If the original filing order had remained intact, it would have been maintained, and any loose receipts would have been inserted into the existing filing system. In this case, the original order of the receipts is not evident, so the institution's practice of arranging the items chronologically is followed.

Letters

The next series to consider is Jervey's letters, which do not appear to be arranged in any particular order. The groups of letters from Charleston architectural firms do not seem to be in any order, either. It is possible that the letters were originally filed either by correspondent or by project.  The archivist reads through the letters looking for evidence of this type of arrangement without disturbing the current order of the letters. Some letters are grouped by project, but there are also letters concerning these same projects scattered throughout the collection. In addition, there are a considerable number of letters about similar projects unrelated to those mentioned in the grouped letters.  

Since there simply is not enough information to establish that the letters were originally sorted by project, the archivist decides to arrange the letters chronologically. Arranging the items in this manner will provide a consistent framework for researchers to locate them in the series, and it will be easier for researchers to cross-check between the receipts series and the letters series for related information.

Notebooks

The first notebook that the archivist examines is numbered "4" and contains a note that it was copied by John A. Mitchell in 1861. The next notebook is numbered "5."  These seem to form a series of notebooks based on Charles Parker's original notes.

Notebooks: Conservation and storage

Before the notebooks can be put back in sequence, it is necessary to note the physical condition of the documents. The covers of the notebooks feel very gritty. The archivist carefully cleans the covers by brushing them off with a soft-bristle brush, brushing from the middle out to the edges to avoid just moving the dirt around on the covers. Notebook number "54" is in very fragile condition. It will be necessary to microfilm it so that researchers can have access to the information without handling the book itself. Perhaps it could be photocopied while waiting for microfilming to be done. Once the books have been cleaned and the condition noted, they can be put in order.

Notebooks: Organization

Putting the books in order reveals that there are 136 notebooks, sequentially numbered, containing copies of Charles Parker's original notes. There are also 24 notebooks that S. Lewis Jervey used to record rough sketches of plats. The 24 notebooks will become a series in the collection of papers generated by Jervey.

The final collection outline

After systematically going through the Jervey papers the archivist has organized them into two main series, further subdivided into subseries:  
1. Papers generated by Jervey

• Letters (arranged chronologically)Receipts (arranged chronologically)Notebooks by S. Lewis Jervey (arranged sequentially)
• Plats (arranged chronologically)

2. Mitchell's copies of Parker's notebooks (arranged sequentially)

STEP 2. Part 2: Content analysis.  

Analysis of scope and content of the collection.  What is the relevance of the collection to the institutional mission?  Review this step in "Gathering and Analyzing Archival Information"

The accession records indicate that the new collection was acquired because of its detailed plats of poorly documented areas of Charleston. In the past, the archives has been very careful to reference in its finding aids information that would help preservationists document the built environment. It will be important to bring out this fact in the final description. To be consistent with what has been done in the past, the archivist will need to be on the lookout for references to any buildings or extraordinary details concerning construction. 

Analysis of scope and content of the collection.  What historical context is relevant to collection content?  Review this step in "Gathering and Analyzing Archival Information"

The archivist checks sources to find out what was happening in the city during Parker's time. It is noted that there was a hurricane in 1821 and a fire in 1838 that devastated a neighborhood at the city limits. The area north of Calhoun Street was not incorporated into the city limits until 1848. Flooding was a constant problem, and civic leaders sought to control it during this period.  

The archivist focuses first on Mitchell's copies of Parker's notebooks around the time of the Civil War. It has already been established that the earliest of Charles Parker's notes date from 1813 and the latest from 1858. The archivist recalls that in first sorting the books of Parker's notes and plats, it appeared that the plats were for areas of Charleston that were relatively new in the 19th century. Also included are memoranda for work done for different individuals. It is not known why the notebooks were created, nor is it clear how and why they ended up in Jervey's papers. Since there is no further information about Mitchell or Parker in reference sources, the answers to the following questions will have to come from the materials themselves.  

• Who was Charles Parker?
• Clearly he was a surveyor, but for whom did he work?
• Did his work focus on any specific areas of Charleston?
• What kind of work did he do?
• Did he record anything not directly related to his work?
• What is the relationship among Parker, Mitchell, and Jervey?

The archivist is now prepared to read the notebooks more closely. As this work progresses, the archivist records information that seems important.  The difficulty is finding a balance between recording too much information, which is counterproductive, and omitting something that may be found to be important later on. It will be necessary to record enough information so that the type of activities documented in the notebooks is made apparent, thus allowing researchers to decide whether they are relevant to their research needs.  

With this in mind, the archivist turns to the first notebook for closer examination. On the first page is a detailed plat for an area on the neck of Charleston's peninsula with property lines and footprints of houses, including such details as the location of windows, porches, and external stairs.  

As the archivist examines subsequent notebooks, notes of work done for different clients, among these the city of Charleston itself, are found.  One entry appears to be a bill with Parker's name and a title beneath it in small script. Examination of the title with a magnifying glass reveals that he was the city surveyor, which explains a great deal about the collection. Knowing that Parker was the surveyor for the city is an important clue to the provenance of the collection. The archivist goes to antebellum city ordinances to determine whether there is information about the duties of this office. Among the 1838 city ordinances is a position description stating that the city surveyor was responsible for surveying streets, gutters, and other public infrastructure as well as for general survey work. This information will be helpful in understanding and analyzing the materials.  

During the initial review of the collection, the archivist had noticed columns of numbers next to street names. Now the purpose of these is revealed by a caption at the top of one list, which reads, "Number of bricks needed from Messr. Horlbeck." Clearly, Parker was measuring the number of bricks needed to pave various streets, and Horlbeck, a prominent Charleston businessman, whose papers are also in the archives, was furnishing the bricks. The archivist decides that it will be necessary to check the Horlbeck collection to see whether there is further reference to this work.  

The notebooks also contain entries for different clients. Evidently, Parker was working for the city and also working as an independent surveyor for James Petigru, James Tupper, Otis Mills, and the estate of Elias Smith. Plats showing high-tide levels in areas of the city still prone to flooding are also found. One shows the City Market with flood levels similar to those recorded during recent heavy rains. Another plat shows flood levels on Water Street. There is a sketch labeled “canal,” which puzzles the archivist momentarily, since there are no canals in this part of Charleston. Further research shows it to be a canal to drain the flooding caused by high tides. The notebook also reveals directions for mixing mortar to withstand salt water as well as formulas for mortar for house construction. The archivist, knowing that local preservationists have inquired about such information, makes note of this item.  

Parker also surveyed properties throughout the city, but most frequently he worked those in sections that were new in the antebellum period. He also did a considerable amount of survey work in the area north of Calhoun Street, after it was annexed into the city.  Contrary to the archivist's expectations there was no evidence in the notebooks of the 1838 fire or the 1821 hurricane.

Analysis of scope and content of the collection.  What activities are documented in the collection?  Review this step in "Gathering and Analyzing Archival Information"

The archivist examines all 136 notebooks, making notes about their contents. The predominant activities reflected in them are the survey work for the city and private clients, calculation of numbers of bricks needed for city streets, and planning of canals to drain areas flooded by high tides. Throughout the notebooks are directions for mixing mortar, primarily for drainage canals.  
 

STEP 3: Create descriptions in the form of catalog records and finding aids. 

Create descriptions in the form of catalog records and finding aids.  Review this step in "Archival Description"

The archivist now takes the detailed notes recorded while working with the collection and creates a register to describe its organization, arrangement, contents, and context. Researchers will use this information to identify whether the collection contains information relevant to their research needs and where in the collection it is located. The archivist will then write a summary of the description in the finding aid to be used to create a catalog record for the collection. Below is a series-level catalog record for the part of the collection analyzed in the tutorial:

Sample catalog record

Mitchell, John A.  
Copies of Charles Parker's notebooks, ca. 1860s.  
136 v.  

Charleston, SC, surveyor. Mitchell made copies of Charles Parker's notebook prior to the Civil War. Parker was surveyor for the city of Charleston, SC, from 1817 until his death in 1859.  

Copies of Charles Parker's notebooks contain plats of the city of Charleston, SC, and related notes and memoranda pertaining to surveys made by Parker as city surveyor and as an independent surveyor for clients such as James Petigru, James Tupper, Otis Mills, and the estate of Elias Smith. Notes and plats include details such as property lines, the locations of features such as windows, porches, and external stairs on buildings, amounts of bricks purchased from “Messrs. Horlbeck” for the paving of city streets, and directions for mixing different types of mortars. Most plats are of newer sections of 19th century Charleston, and many pertain to areas of the city prone to flooding, showing high tide levels and the location of drainage canals.