Provenance of a Personal Collection – Archival Accession, Arrangement and Description

Genealogists have a lot to learn from archivists when it comes to the personal collection of documents we accumulate.

Accession

When new materials are received, the first thing an archivist does is record:

  • where it came from
  • who it belongs to
  • roughly what is included
  • any legal agreements or conditions of use imposed by the donor

My parents gave me a box of genealogical goodies few months back as they had moved to a smaller residence without stairs.    Dad said he doesn’t mind what I do with it.  These statements comprise a very informal, and somewhat vague, accession record.  When presented with such a collection, we often do not make notes of the provenance or context of the acquisition, but we should.

Accession information is generally included in archive catalogues only as a reference or access category, as some of it may be private e.g. the donor’s identity.  Acquired collections may resemble an auction job lot you bought for the one item that was not junk, so they need to be sorted and organised.  In archival terms, the collection needs to be arranged.

Arrangement

Archival arrangement collects items together in a way that preserves the provenance and context in which they were created and used.  The arrangement is reflected in the structure of the catalogue.  Each item is assigned a logical position within a hierarchy of categories.  Taking an example from my personal archive, the marriage certificate for Joshua Arthur Smith & Beatrice Elizabeth Davis (RWC/1/4/4), was acquired as part of a discrete bundle from Winifred Clarke (RWC/1/4) in connection with the death of Raymond Walter Coulson (RWC) and filed by his administrator (RWC/1).  I sorted the items in Winifred’s bundle by date of creation, as they weren’t in any order.

In a big archive’s online catalogue, you might only see the entry for the marriage certificate, but you need to check the hierarchy to get the full story.   My personal catalogue looks like this.

Reference Title Description Dates
RWC Raymond Walter Coulson (1922-1997) collection Papers, photographs, correspondence, memorabilia and probate documents of Raymond Walter Coulson of 322 Aston Hall Road, Aston, Birmingham, who died intestate on 24 May 1997.
RWC/1 Probate file Compiled by [my dad], administrator for the estate of Raymond Walter Coulson, between May 1997 and January 1998.
RWC/1/4 Winifred Clarke late Coulson, nee Smith (1906-1996) collection Bundle of birth, marriage and death certificates, probate and burial documents, 1 photograph.  Given to [my dad] in 1997 by the residential home where Winifred Clarke last resided, as no other relative had claimed them. 1860-1996
RWC/1/4/1 Marriage Certificate – George Smith & Clara Webster 20 Jul 1860
RWC/1/4/2 Marriage Certificate – Walter Davis & Elizabeth Walton 06 Jul 1874
RWC/1/4/3 Birth Certificate – George Edward Coulson 21 Nov 1902
RWC/1/4/4 Marriage Certificate – Joshua Arthur Smith & Beatrice Elizabeth Davis Church of England, St Saviour’s church, Saltley parish, County of Warwick.  Original certified copy of the Marriage Register, page 109, no 217,  23 May 1904 23 May 1904
RWC/1/4/5 Birth Certificate – Joshua Arthur Smith 28 Aug 1923
RWC/1/4/6 Marriage Certificate – George Edward Coulson & Winifred Smith 14 Dec 1929
RWC/1/4/7 Death Certificate – George Edward Coulson 04 Feb 1957
RWC/1/4/8 Death Certificate – George Edward Coulson 04 Feb 1957
RWC/1/4/9 Bill for funeral of George Edward Coulson 22 Feb 1957
RWC/1/4/10 Grant of exclusive Right of Burial 01 Mar 1957
RWC/1/4/11 Will of Winfred Clarke 14 Jan 1971
RWC/1/4/12 First Codicil to Will of Winfred Clarke 16 Nov 1973
RWC/1/4/13 Death Registration certificate – Winifred Clarke 03 Jul 1996
RWC/1/4/14 photograph – elderly woman & baby n.d.

Description

Archival description pulls together the information needed to identify, manage, locate, and interpret the contents of a collection and explains the context of a collection’s creation and functions.  Information that applies to a whole group of items is included in the record for that level, becoming more specific at deeper levels of arrangement.  My example includes an item level description of the marriage certificate, and how and why it was acquired (i.e. the context) in other levels of the hierarchy.

Genealogical citation geeks may recognise many of the elements of a genealogical citation are included in my catalogue.  That makes me wonder why catalogue details are not embedded in digital images of documents we routinely download.  Now that would really add value to online data offerings.

Detailed description takes lots of time and archives receive many accessions, so do not expect archive catalogues to contain item level descriptions with names of people.   Only very important collections may be fully described.

Winnie’s collection

The collection accumulated by Winifred, known as Winnie, is an excellent springboard for researching her family, particularly the Smith side.  If you want to put a face to the name, she featured in ‘Is it George or Jack?  Engagement photograph identification’.  This collection identifies her parents, grandparents, and all 4 great-grandfathers.

Chart of Winnie's ancestor & custodians of her collection

Chart showing Winnie’s ancestors and the relationships of custodians of her collection

The chart presents Winnie’s relatives and shows people who have had custody of her parent’s marriage certificate (green), and the person whose death lead to its acquisition (red).  A bread crumb trail of custody is:

Beatrice & Joshua > Winnie > elderly residential home > Dad > Me

Marriage Certificate - Joshua Arthur Smith & Beatrice Elizabeth Davis

Marriage Certificate – Joshua Arthur Smith & Beatrice Elizabeth Davis

Bride: Beatrice Elizabeth Davis, aged 26
Groom: Joshua Arthur Smith, aged 41
Date: 23 May 1904
Location: St Saviours, Saltley, Warwickshire

Beatrice and Joshua appear on the 1911 census at 13 Ash Tree Cottages, Alum Rock Road, Saltley, Birmingham.  The household was headed by Clara Smith, Joshua’s mother and included 4 year old Winifred, the couple’s daughter.  I can’t help wondering if the mystery photo of an old woman and baby might be Winnie and her grandma Clara.

The National Archives reference for this census record is RG 14/18172/25.  Fancy trying out the catalogue?  Can you work out what each of the reference elements means?

The 25 item refers to the number marked on the schedule, a form comprised of one sheet of paper.  The catalogue does not include any item level information i.e. individual schedules, but the group of schedules.

RG Records of the General Register Office…
14 1911 Census Schedules
18172 Registration district no 385 (Aston),  Registration Sub-District no 1 (Deritend), Enumeration district no 25

© Sue Adams 2013


Representing Multiple Marriages and Crossing Connections

Information gleaned from my maternal grand-parent’s marriage certificate indicates that Isabelle Jones first married a man with the surname Brown.

Marriage Certificate - Alfred Frederick Bull & Isabelle Frances Rebecca Brown

Marriage Certificate – Alfred Frederick Bull & Isabelle Frances Rebecca Brown

Bride: Isabelle Rebecca Frances Brown, widow
Groom: Alfred Frederick Bull, bachelor
Date: 1 February 1937
Location: The Register Office, Birmingham
Bride’s father: Charles Bertram Jones
Groom’s father: William Osborne Bull

Further research supports the family story that Isabelle and Albert were introduced to one another by the relatives of Isabelle’s first husband, Charles Henry Brown.  To complicate matters Charles’ brother, George Brown married Alfred’s sister, Ann Dorothy Bull.  OK, there are too many relationships in that sentence, so I want to draw a chart that helps me visualise them.

Traditional genealogy charts and reports work from one individual and follow two basic patterns, ancestral and descendant.  Hourglass charts effectively stick an ancestral and descendant chart together at one individual.  Most genealogy programs feature all-in-one or extended charts.  Individuals with multiple relationships, appear more than once.  For example, Family Tree Maker 2010 produces this chart:

Extended Family Tree Chart for Isabelle Frances Rebecca Jones

Extended Family Tree Chart for Isabelle Frances Rebecca Jones

Notice that Alfred Frederick Bull and Charles Henry Brown appear twice and the chart has two separate ‘trees’.  I have colour coded the three families for clarity.  FTM 2010 allows manipulation of charts, so I fiddled around to try to represent this family on one joined up diagram with no crossed lines.

Manipulated Extended Family Tree Chart for Isabelle Frances Rebecca Jones

Manipulated Extended Family Tree Chart for Isabelle Frances Rebecca Jones

Although it seems clearer to me, it might not help anyone else.  It breaks the conventional placement of older generations at the top by turning the Browns upside down.  What do you think?  However, people such as Isabelle’s son-in-laws and grand-children will not fit. The glaring problem is the lack of scalability.

Perhaps it is time for a radical re-think.  In 2010, an alternative un-conventional approach was published in an academic paper[1]Geneaquilts, the prototype software produces this:

GeneaQuilts chart

GeneaQuilts chart

It is not as intuitive as conventional genealogical charts, but it copes well with complex relationships and is scalable.  I used the highlighting feature to mark the same 3 families.

The GeneaQuilts website claims two genealogy programs have implemented the charts.  Unfortunately, neither is functional.  First, Progeny’s Charting Companions for FTM, PAF Ancestral Quest and Legacy features ‘Trellis charts’.  I downloaded and installed the evaluation version Charting Companion for FTM, but the program presented an error message that indicated I should update FTM 2010 to 19.0.0.207 on start-up and failed to open the data file.  The latest version for FTM 2010 is 19.0.0.206.  Second, Geneapro’s own website states that it does not provide the full functionality yet.  Furthermore, I failed to install this software, due to inadequate documentation on external tools required.


[1] A. Bezerianos, P. Dragicevic, J.-D. Fekete, J. Bae, B. Watson. GeneaQuilts: A System for Exploring Large Genealogies. In IEEE InfoVis ’10: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Oct 2010, Salt-Lake City, USA

© Sue Adams 2013


Parish Register and Transcript Comparison with Implications for FamilySearch Index

In the last post, Now you see it, now you don’t – IGI and FamilySearch, I discussed the shortcomings of the FamilySearch index for marriages in Claverley.  The index is based on a published transcript, so just how accurate was the transcript?

The title page bears the name of the honorary secretary of the Shropshire Parish Register Society, W.G.D. Fletcher, but the introduction tells that this transcript was made by Lieutenant-Colonel G. S. Parry[1].  Also included are descriptions of the ten original registers, for example:[2]

Vol. X. Contains Marriages, 1813-1937, on printed paper forms, 3 to a page, printed in pursuance of the Act of 28 July 1812, by Geo. Eyre and Andrew Stahan.  Of these forms, 223 on the first 75 pages are filled in, the rest of the book remains blank.  There is a printed title page and one fly-leaf. It is bound in vellum.  Size, 15 ¾ x 10 inches.

The original registers are available on microfiche at Shropshire Archives.  The above description is accurate making it easy to identify this volume on fiche numbers 9 & 10[3].  Both the original register and transcript record:

  • For the groom and bride:
    • names
    • parish of residence
    • status e.g. bachelor, widow
  • Date
  • Parental consent
  • Banns or Licence
  • Name of the officiating clergyman
  • Names of witnesses (signatures)

The transcript is not an exact copy as it omits the standard form text, abbreviates some terms and names, and reformats the information.  Notes added by the author indicate that parish of residence is omitted when it is Claverley and name of the presiding clergyman is noted for blocks of records.  Other omissions are signatures of the bride and groom as they have already been named and indications of illiteracy (e.g. x her mark). The original register’s page numbers and record entry numbers are omitted, but the sequence of records is preserved.

So the transcript contains a great deal more than an index, but as it is not a complete copy.  It should really be described as an abstract.

Of the 223 records in Volume X[4], I found 25 discrepancies between the original register and abstract:

no field abstract register
13 year 1815 1814
23 witness Eleanor Glover -
29 witness Susan. Harrison Susanna Harrison
31 witness Eleanor Glover -
35 witness John Smith -
37 witness William Ball -
43 witness Ann Jones -
45 witness Hannah Rushtow Hannah Ruston
61 witness Sarah Adams Sarah Evans
63 witness Sus. Smallman Susanna Smallman
64 bride name Matlida Pope Margaret Matilda Pope
76 witness E A Re__hall [?] -
78 witness Ann Harley Sarah Ann Harley
84 groom name Thomas Bennet Thomas Kennet
89 groom name William Rowly William Rowley
104 witness Job Noke Joab Noke
119 witness John Doughtey John Doughty
130 groom name Thomas Parson Thomas Parsons
133 groom name Vicarage Culwick Vickaridge Culwick
135 witness Philip Crompton, Phoebe Sophia Rhodes -
181 witness Mabel Branford -
182 witness Wm Ball -
184 witness Wm Ball -
203 bride name Elizabeth Churchyetts Eliza Churchyetts
206 witness Jane Devey Jane Devy

11% of records in this sample contain an error.  How important is this?

The most common errors are the omission (10, 4.5%) and mis-transcription of witness names.  One record omitted witness names altogether (no 135), one unreadable witness (no 76) was omitted, and the rest of the omissions occurred when there were more than the 2 witnesses required by law.  Witnesses are often relatives of the bridal couple, so may provide important genealogical clues.   However, the omission of William Ball may have little genealogical significance.  He witnessed a high proportion (28, 12.6%) of the marriages between 1813 and 1837, a pattern that might indicate frequent availability to serve as a witness, perhaps as a lay official of the church such as a church warden.  Mis-transcription of witness names (8, 3.6%) was more common than that of bride (2, 0.9%) and groom names (4, 1.8%), suggesting that these were less carefully transcribed.  Witnesses tend not to be included in marriage indexes, so these errors are not repeated in the FamilySearch index.

Errors in the bride and groom names and date are repeated in the FamilySearch index, at least for those records included in the index.  A search for exact matches would fail to find a particular record.  However, a soundex search that matches names phonetically should cope with the spelling errors encountered in this sample.  Search algorithms could potentially cope with standardised abbreviations.  In this sample Susanna has been abbreviated in two different ways (nos 29 & 63).

The published transcript was produced in 1907, using the technology of the time.  It is certainly easier to index a printed work than handwritten records, so using the original registers would not necessarily been more accurate.  Sequential page and entry numbers were specified in the 1812 Act to guard against the loss of records.  Had at least the entry numbers been included in both transcript and index, identification of individual records and checking of the completeness of the data set would be much easier.  The 31% records missing from the FamilySearch index vastly outweigh the small proportion of errors in the transcript:

Year no marriages in FamilySearch index no Marriages in register difference % difference
1813

5

5

0

0.0

1814

5

7

2

28.6

1815

4

10

6

60.0

1816

2

3

1

33.3

1817

3

6

3

50.0

1818

3

5

2

40.0

1819

4

7

3

42.9

1820

7

10

3

30.0

1821

8

12

4

33.3

1822

10

15

5

33.3

1823

5

9

4

44.4

1824

6

6

0

0.0

1825

4

11

7

63.6

1826

5

7

2

28.6

1827

5

8

3

37.5

1828

9

12

3

25.0

1829

4

5

1

20.0

1830

6

7

1

14.3

1831

5

9

4

44.4

1832

6

9

3

33.3

1833

8

11

3

27.3

1834

15

17

2

11.8

1835

11

12

1

8.3

1836

9

16

7

43.8

1837

4

4

0

0.0

Grand Total

153

223

70

31.4


[1] Fletcher, W.G.D. 1907. Shropshire Parish Registers.  Diocese of Hereford. Vol X. privately printed for the Shropshire Parish Register Society.  p. ix.

[2]  ibid. p. vi.

[3] Church of England. Marriage Register. 1813-1837. P68/fiche8-9. Shropshire Archives, Shrewsbury

[4] Fletcher, W.G.D. 1907. Shropshire Parish Registers.  Diocese of Hereford. Vol X. privately printed for the Shropshire Parish Register Society.  pp. 409-423.

© Sue Adams 2013


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 289 other followers