Loose Archives papers

By windstorm on Wed, 04/21/2021 - 20:31

Forums

I was trying to find a good example in evidence explained to follow and am not sure I made the best citation. This is for an original record in loose paper files in the Baltimore City Archives. Records are sorted into record groups, sections etc. Documents are in numbered document order which do not necessarily fall by date just more of a random assortment with each numbered and usually grouped in a year or something similar.  Any thoughts or better models would be appreciated. 

Baltimore City, Maryland, Baltimore Record Group 3, Series 1, Baltimore City Commissioners 1797-1899, box 27 (1821), Petitions and Applications, document 31 "Bond and Gough Streets, request for well and pump"; Baltimore City Archives.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/22/2021 - 08:45

Windstorm, you have captured the essential elements, but the arrangement of those elements is just a bit jumbled.

You mention “trying to find a good example” for this archived record. The key to your problem lies in the discussion at the start of the Archives chapter, in the first section: “Basic Issues: Archival Arrangements.”   There at EE 3.1–3.5 you’ll find the basic principles. 

  • 3.1 ("Archival Arrangements) describes the way archives organize their records and gives an example using a U.S. record set that is adaptable to almost every archive in the U.S.
  • 3.2 ("Archival Style Guides") discusses why citation suggestions differ from one archive to another
  • 3.3 ("International Differences") discusses a critical differences between the way archive material is handled in the U.S. vs. some countries internationally.
  • [Etc.]

Note, especially, this guide-point in 3.3.:

When we analyze your citation, we see the following:

  1. The intent of the citation seems to be the use of International style rather than U.S. style, starting with the largest and working down to the smallest, but it doesn't actually do that. It begins with the largest element (the city/state), skips the next logical element (the archive), then follows the unnamed archives' organizational scheme from the largest (the record group), down to the smallest (the document)—then jumps back to the next-to-largest item (the missing name of the archives).  In brief: 
  • City, State
  • Record Group
  • Series Number & Name
  • Box Number & Name
  • Document ID
  • Name of Archives
  1.  In contrast, the example at 3.1 gives us this:
  • Document ID
  • Series Number & name, with volume:page
  • Record Group Name
  • Name of Archives
  • City, State

With regard to using the 3.1 example as your model: the one difference in the structure of that record set from the Wisconsin Historical Society vis-à-vis the collection you used at the Baltimore City Archives is that yours has box number/name while the 3.1 example has volume/page.