by Theodore R. Schellenberg
Staff Information Paper Number 18 (1951)
[Note on Web Version ]
Staff Information Paper Number 18 (1951)
[Note on Web Version ]
- Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 0
- Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 Binder
- Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 X 7
- Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5th
What’s New in Version 1.5.2. Fixes an issue that could cause the app to incorrectly update the Inspector panel when the user lock and unlock the database. Record Shops; Register; Log In; Mort Garson’s New Reissues Show Off the Range of His Synth Legacy. Database Guidelines; Discogs Shipping; Join In. Get Started; Sign Up; Contribute; Add Release; Contributor List; Help Translate; Discogs.
Introduction
This Staff Information Paper deals with the principles of arrangement of records followed in the National Archives. It will discuss those principles as they apply to the arrangement of record groups, subgroups, series, and individual items.
Basic Principle of Arrangement
The basic principle of arrangement is that of respect des fonds, sometimes spoken of as the principle of provenance. The meaning of this principle has been explained by Dr. Waldo G. Leland in the Report of the [Illinois] State Education Building Commission to the Forty-Eighth General Assembly (1913), page 50, as follows:
Each public office is an administrative unit, and its records form a homogeneous groupreflecting its activities. This large group naturally falls into subgroups, and the subgroupsinto series following the organization and functions of the office. The principle that must beborne in mind then, is that the archives must be so classified that the organization andfunctions that have produced them shall be clearly reflected by them. This is the substanceof the famous principle of the respect des fonds.
The principle of respect des fonds, on the development of which additionalinformation can be found in Staff Information Circular No. 5, was formulated by Frencharchivists in the period following the French Revolution. It provided a rational basis forarchival arrangement, substituting a system of preserving records by organic units orfonds for the old practice of arranging records by subject groups that were artificiallyestablished by the archivist. The system implicit in the principle is that every document willbe traced to its origin and will be maintained as part of a group having the same origin. Thisguiding principle, which was refined and modified to suit the needs of various Europeanarchival agencies, was given a theoretical justification by the Dutch archivists S. Muller, J.A. Feith, and R. Fruin in their Manual for the Arrangement and Description ofArchives (New York, 1940. 225 p.; an English translation from the 1920 edition) andby the English archivist Hilary Jenkinson in A Manual of Archive Administration (rev.ed., London, 1937. xvi, 256 p.).
The first postulate of the principle of respect des fonds is that records will bemaintained in the organic units or fonds in which they were originally accumulated or,conversely, that they will not be regrouped by subjects or in accordance with any otherscheme that may be devised. In France a fonds was regarded as all records of aparticular institution, such as an administrative authority, a corporation, or a family. InEngland the term 'archive group' was used instead of 'fonds,' and this term was definedby Hilary Jenkinson as an accumulation 'resulting from the work of an administrationwhich was an organic whole, complete in itself, capable of dealing independently, withoutany added or external authority, with every side of any business which could normally bepresented to it.' In the National Archives the term 'record group' is used and has beendefined as 'a major archival unit established somewhat arbitrarily with due regard to theprinciple of provenance and to the desirability of making the unit of convenient size andcharacter for the work of arrangement and description and for the publication ofinventories.' The 'record group,' as this definition makes clear, is not precisely the sameas the 'fonds.' Although in practice a 'record group' often will also be a 'fonds,'sometimes it will include several 'fonds' or only part of one. The meaning of the term isclarified in Staff Information Circular No. 15.
The principle of maintaining records in the organic units in which they were accumulatedhas gained universal acceptance in the archival profession. The usages growing out of thisprinciple, however, have varied considerably from country to country. These apply chieflyto the order in which records within a fonds are to be maintained. The Frenchcircular in which the principle of respect des fonds was first enunciated directed thatrecords within a fonds should be arranged by subject groups, and that items withinsuch subject groups should be arranged chronologically, geographically, or alphabetically,as circumstances might dictate. In Prussia, where records were properly arranged byregistry offices before they were released to archival agencies, the Registraturprinzip orprinciple of registry, was developed, which provided that the arrangement given recordsin registry offices should remain intact. The manual compiled by the Dutch archivistsemphasized that the arrangement of records is determined by the organization of the officethat produced them, that the original arrangement given the records should be maintained,and that the primary work of the archivist is to restore the original arrangement where it hasbeen disturbed. The propositions developed by the Dutch archivists were accepted byarchivists of other countries. Various rules for the arrangement of records withinfonds were developed, providing in general that the order given records within anagency or a registry office should be preserved and indicating the methods that should befollowed in restoring the original order where it had been disturbed or lost or in devisinga new order.
Adobe after effects 2020 v17 0 1. The principle of provenance has gained acceptance in the archival profession for a varietyof reasons. (1) The principle serves to protect the integrity of records in the sense thattheir origins and the processes by which they came into existence are reflected by theirarrangement. Most Government records are accumulated in connection with officialactions, and as the actions of Government are related to each other through function andadministrative organization, so the records are most intelligible when they are kept togetherunder the identity of the agency or the subdivision of an agency by which they wereaccumulated and in the general order given them by that agency. (2) The principle servesto make known the character and significance of records; for the subject-matter containedin individual documents can be fully understood only in context with related documents.If records are arbitrarily torn from their context and rearranged under a subjective or anyother arbitrary system of arrangement, their real significance as documentary evidencemay be obscured or lost. (3) The principle provides the archivist with a workable and economical guide in arranging, describing, and servicing records in his custody. Arbitrarysystems of arrangement cannot be applied to records without infinitely complicating thetask of the archivist, for the complexity and diversity of their subject-matter makes theapplication of such systems impracticable if not impossible.
ARRANGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Arrangement of Record Groups
In the National Archives an initial determination on the arrangement to be given recordsis made at the time they are allocated to records branches. The allocation of records ismade on the basis either of their relation to some broad subject-matter field (such asdefense, industry, or natural resources) or of their technical character (such ascartographic or audio-visual). Subject-matter relationships, however, are defined at thisstage mainly in terms of the functions of the agencies that created the records. Thusrecords created by the Department of Agriculture and by independent agencies concernedwith agricultural activities are allocated to the Natural Resources Records Branch, andwithin this branch to the Agriculture Records Section.
A second determination of the arrangement of records is made when they are allocatedto record groups. A record group consists, as a rule, of the documentation produced by anadministrative unit at the bureau level of the Government. These units may vary incharacter and size, as is evident from Staff Information Circular No. 15. In their entirety,however, the record groups embrace all governmental agencies from which records havebeen accessioned by the National Archives, and their number will be increased asrequired to encompass accessions from other agencies.
Determinations on the placement of record groups in the stacks are made within therecords branches of the National Archives. Various factors have made it difficult to arrangethe record groups in a completely logical pattern. The most important of these is thecharacter of the Federal Government, which produced the records. The multiplicity ofGovernment agencies and the complexity and fluidity of their organization make impossiblea completely logical arrangement of all record groups. Another important factor is themanner in which records were accessioned. In its initial years, the National Archives wasconcerned with bringing into its custody the large volume of records that had accumulatedin the Federal Government since its establishment. This accumulation of records was released tothe National Archives piecemeal, in innumerable small lots. The volume ofrecords to be attributed to a particular record group, therefore, could not be anticipated;and advance calculations on the space required for each of the record groups could notbe made with accuracy. The records to be attributed to a particular record group could notbe identified until their origins had been analyzed. And the availability of stack space andequipment was often a factor in determining the placement of records.
It is important to have an ideal stack plan as a guide for all physical movements of recordsso that gradually increasing quantities of records can assume relatively fixed positions. Ifall record shifting is done with such a plan in view, the number of shifts and their magnitudewill be minimized.
Basic to any plan, of course, is the establishment of some fixed points of orientation in eachstack area. Because of the diversity of the shapes of the several stack areas and of theways in which the equipment is laid out in them, no general rule can be prescribed for theestablishment of these points. But, whatever the starting points may be, the order of therows should be established along the wide aisles on which they abut, counting from left toright. The order within a row should again be from left to right by sections; and within eachsection from left to right and from top to bottom.
An ideal plan of arrangement can be accomplished only gradually over the years as thetwo variables for each record group -- the intake and the outgo -- approach stability, that is,when all records worth preservation up to a practicable and convenient terminal point havebeen accessioned and the maximum reduction in volume has been achieved by disposal,microfilming, or the removal of records to Federal Records Centers. This stability isreached first, naturally, with closed record groups. It will be speeded up or slowed downaccording to the availability of labor resources for moving records into and out of thebuilding. The continued existence of unequipped areas in some branches is recognizedas a complicating factor. With open record groups stability can be only relative and partial,and any plan of arrangement for them must leave some space at least for future smallincrements. In planning the arrangement of record groups, two guiding principles can befollowed:
1. Record groups should be arranged in an organizational or a functional relation toeach other. -- The object to be attained in the arrangement of Government records is to show by their placement in the stacks the organization and functions of theagencies that created them.
The organizational method of arranging record groups is ordinarily preferred when it ispracticable. This plan of arrangement should be followed whenever record groups have beenestablished for each of the several bureaus or offices constituting a large Governmentagency, such as an executive department. When this is the case, the groups should bearranged in conformity to the hierarchical structure of the larger agency. The record groupsrepresenting the secretary's and staff offices would be placed first, followed by recordgroups representing the bureaus or other offices arranged in some logical order. This planof arrangement is illustrated by the placement of the records of the Department ofAgriculture. These records are allocated to a number of record groups. The groupestablished for the general records of the Department, consisting of the records of theOffice of the Secretary and certain staff offices, was placed in first position, while thegroups established for the records of bureaus were arranged by name alphabetically.Where record groups have been established for the field offices of an agency, they shouldbe placed near the groups covering records of the headquarters offices.
Where the organizational method of arrangement is impracticable, or for some goodreason less desirable, a functional method should be used. Under this method ofarrangement the relative locations of the record groups will reflect the functional relationsof the agencies or offices in which they accumulated. Record groups established for asuccession of agencies or offices related by function should be arranged so as to show thedevelopment of the governmental organizations that performed the function. Normally suchrecord groups should be placed in chronological sequence, the group of a predecessoragency or office preceding that of the successor agency or office. For example, RecordGroup 108, Records of the Headquarters of the Army, which has the terminal date 1903,would be followed by Record Group 165, Records of the War Department General Staff,which took over part of the duties of the Office of the Commanding General.In the case of record groups created by independent agencies, those that relate tocommon or similar functions should be placed near to each other, in alphabetical,chronological, or some other logical order. As an example of this type of arrangement,reference may be made to record groups that document the Government's activities inrelation to mining and minerals. Among them are Record Group 89, Records of the FederalFuel Distributor; Record Group 150, Records of the National Bituminous Coal Commission;Record Group 194, Records of the War Minerals Relief Commission; Record Group 222,Records of the Bituminous Coal Division; Record Group 223, Records of the BituminousCoal Consumers' Counsel; and Record Group 57, Records of the Geological Survey.Certain of these record groups that correspond to administrative units of the Departmentof the Interior might be arranged according to the organizational positions of those unitsin the Department. But the departmental arrangement might be modified to allow therecords of the National Bituminous Coal Commission, an independent agency, to beplaced immediately before those of the Bituminous Coal Division of the Department, whichsucceeded to its functions. The groups that are not directly related to units of theDepartment might then be brought together in a colony of record groups near those thatare identified in some way with the Department.
Considerations of accessibility may be taken into account in determining the arrangementof record groups in the stacks. The activity of a record group may be so great as to justifyplacing it out of its normal position in relation to other record groups in order to bring itcloser to the branch search room. Similarly, the size of a record group may raiseconsiderations that would make it desirable to modify a strictly organizational or functionalpattern. But only in exceptional circumstances should consideration of activity and size bepermitted to override the basic scheme of arrangement.
2. Record groups should be maintained as integral units. -- The logic thatunderlies the creation of record groups requires that the records in each record groupshould be kept together without intermingling with them the records of other groups.Deviations from this rule should be permitted only when parts of a record group requirespecial equipment or are security classified, so that they cannot be kept with the group towhich they belong.
Arrangement of Subgroups
Once a plan has been chosen for the arrangement of record groups showing their relationsto each other, the next step is to provide for the arrangement within each recordgroup of its subgroups. Arrangement according to a scheme is more important at this levelthan at the level of the record group. As in the case of the arrangement of record groups,the subgroups should be placed, insofar as possible, in logical relation to each other -- according to hierarchy, chronology, function, geographical location, or subject. In theAmerican Historical Review (volume 18, page 24, October 1912) Dr. Leland wrotethat records should be so arranged that 'they at once make clear the processes by whichthey have come into existence,' for they 'are the product and record of the performanceof its functions by an organic body, and they should faithfully reflect the workings of thatorganism.' To arrange records in this manner the archivist must have a thoroughknowledge of the administrative history of the organism that produced them. He must knowits origins, its functions, and its organizational and functional development, includingchanges, transfers, or terminations of its functions or organizational units. The basicpreliminary to the arrangement of records, therefore, is a study of the organizational historyof the record producing units, their administrative procedures, the functions for which theywere organized, and the records which they produced. On the basis of this study, thearchivist must determine which method of grouping records will best show their character,significance, and relationships. Various methods, which are discussed below, may befollowed either singly or in combination.
1. Subgroups may be arranged in an organizational relationship to each other.Usually an agency for which a record group has been established is subdivided into anumber of smaller organizational units, the records of which may be considered assubgroups. These subgroups may be arranged in accordance with either the administrativestatus of the organizational units or the order in which the units were created.
The arrangement of subgroups should normally reflect the hierarchical structure of thecreating agency. This arrangement will be possible whenever the record group consists ofa number of subgroups that are clearly distinguishable on the basis of their origins inparticular organizational units. Subgroups will be distinguishable on this basis in the degreeto which the organizational units that created them maintained their own filing systems.Usually 'bureaus' of oldline executive departments have 'divisions' or 'sections,' thefunctions of which are well defined and result in separable and identifiable bodies ofrecords. In such cases the administrative status of the organizational units shoulddetermine the placement of the record subgroups; the subgroups created by the highestsupervisory or central office should be placed first, and after them the subgroupsrepresenting subordinate line or operating offices should be arranged in descending orderof authority. If the latter are coordinate in authority, as, for example, 'divisions' within a'bureau,' they should be arranged in alphabetical order or in the order of theirestablishment.
The hierarchical approach to arrangement is also possible with respect to a record groupcontaining both central and field office records. The subgroups representing the centraloffice should be placed first, and after them the subgroups representing the field offices.The field office subgroups, however, may be arranged in any one of several ways. Thoseof numbered regional offices, for example, may be arranged numerically. This arrangementhas been followed in arranging the regional records of the Soil Conservation Service. Thesubgroups of named units may be arranged alphabetically. Thus, in the record group of theUnited States Army commands, the subgroups of the camps, posts, and stations of thecontinental United States and Alaska have been placed in one alphabetical sequence. Or,the subgroups may be arranged geographically, as is the case in the record group of thenaval districts and shore establishments, in which the numbered naval districts have ageographical basis. The geographical and numerical arrangements are sometimescombined, as in the case of the minute books of Selective Service local and appeal boards,which are arranged alphabetically by State and thereunder numerically by draft board.Records of the navy yards may be arranged geographically, as the yards are frequentlylisted in the order of their location from north to south along the Atlantic Coast beginningwith Portsmouth and ending with Key West.
Central files units, wherever they appear in the organization of an agency, constitute anexception to the rules for the arrangement of subgroups along hierarchical lines. Such unitsare regarded as record keeping rather than record-creating units. Of the records kept bythem, those that are general to the bureau or other administrative organization served bythem or that are in an organized file maintained for the organization as a whole should beplaced before all other records of the organization; those that are clearly identifiable 1Srecords of other single administrative units and not incorporated in a systematic filingsystem should be reunited with the records of the units to which they belonged.
Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 0
The arrangement of subgroups may reflect the historical development of the creatingagency. A strictly hierarchical arrangement of subgroups will not be possible when the unitsthat created them passed through successive organizational changes. The chronologicalsequence of the creation of the organizational units, other than their administrative status,will in such cases determine the placement of the subgroups. If indistinguishable bodiesof records were created by each of the successive organizational units, they should bearranged in order of time. Thus the subgroups of a predecessor unit should be placedbefore those of its successor.
Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 Binder
2. Subgroups may be arranged in a functional relationship to each other. -- Frequently agencies for which record groups have been established have passed throughso many organizational changes that the records accumulated by many superseded ordiscontinued units within them have lost their administrative identity. The functions of theagencies may have remained unchanged though the units that performed them may havebeen altered or abolished; and the records pertinent to the functions may span many suchunits without any clear breaks to distinguish those that were produced by the successiveunits. In such cases, the subgroups will naturally be arranged according to function. Thismay be done in any one of several ways. The subgroups may lend themselves to achronological arrangement that will reflect the growth of functions; or they may lendthemselves to an arrangement that will reflect the order in which the different functionswere performed; or they may lend themselves to an arrangement that will place generalsubgroups relating to more than one function before those relating to single functions.
3. Subgroups may be arranged according to the types of records involved. -- Occasionally the natural subgroups of records within a record group do not correspondeither to organizational units or to functions but correspond rather to types of records thatcut across both functional and organizational lines. In such cases it is the physicalcharacteristics of the records that distinguish the subgroups and largely determine theirarrangement. The arrangement may reflect the chronological development of the records,as in the Office of the Secretary of War, from the 'book period' through the 'record cardperiod' to the 'modern period.' Or it may have regard to the content of different recordtypes, placing the types whose contents are general, such as correspondence, before thetypes of specific content, such as contracts.
Arrangement by Series
Within the subgroups, series should be arranged according to some logical pattern thatreflects the interrelationships among series and where appropriate the relationships ofseries to organization, functions, chronological periods, places, or subjects. The ultimatephysical arrangement of series on shelves should be anticipated as far as possible whenrecords are initially stored, and this arrangement should be carried out so that when awell-organized inventory has been prepared it will correspond to the physical arrangement ofthe records. Amoyshare anymusic 5 0. (See Staff Information Circular 14, p. 3 f.)
Where the subgroups of records have been established on the basis of their organizationalorigins, the series within the subgroups should be arranged in relation to the functionsperformed by the administrative units that created them. And where several series relateto the same function, those of a general character, relating to more than one activity underthe function, should be placed before those that are specific and relate to single activities.Or the sequence of the series may reflect the order in which the functions were performed,as, for example, beginning with 'applications' and ending with 'discharges.' Or it mayreflect the chronological growth of records around a given function, as when the first seriesrepresents the earliest record accumulation and later series represent subsequentaccumulations.
Where the subgroups of records have been established on the basis of their functionalorigins, the series within them should be arranged so far as possible in relation to theorganizational units of the agency that performed the functions. The series created by staffoffices should precede those produced by subordinate administrative subdivisions; theseries of the larger subdivisions should precede those of the smaller; the series ofheadquarters offices should precede those of field offices; and the series of antecedentoffices should precede those of the offices that took over their functions. If the records ofthe organizational units have not been separately maintained, the series may be arrangedin relation to the various activities carried on under the function represented by thesubgroup. The series may thus be arranged in the chronological order in which suchactivities were instituted, in the order in which they were performed, or in an order thatwould place series dealing with the function as a whole before series dealing with particularactivities carried on under it.
Where the subgroups of records have been established on the basis of their types, theseries should normally be arranged on the basis of their administrative origin, or their subjectcontent. Series produced by particular organizational units should be arranged inhierarchical order; series that are distinguishable only by reference to their subject contentmay be arranged either chronologically or in such a way that those of a general andsummary nature will precede those of a specific and detailed nature.
Normally in arranging series of indexes the following rules should be observed: An indexshould precede the series to which it relates. It should precede a group of series if it relatesto more than one series. If it relates to a number of series that are not together, it shouldbe placed before the largest or most used series that is indexed. Exceptions to these rulesare permissible where indexes cannot be filed in narrow equipment or narrow aisles, andwhere for convenience and efficiency they need to be filed in the central aisles and nearthe service desks.
Series and isolated pieces of uncertain provenance should be placed at the end of therecord group until their proper attribution can be determined.
Arrangement of File Units
The final, and most detailed, step in arranging records is concerned with single documents,folders, dossiers, volumes, or other file units. File units, it was noted in Staff InformationPaper No. 17, usually consist of records kept together because they relate to the samesubject or transaction, or because they have the same form. These units, which vary insize and character, are usually placed in a sequential arrangement that is determined bythe type of filing system employed. In a subject system -- whether it is arranged on analphabetical, a subject-numeric, a classified, or some other basis -- records will ordinarilybe filed together under subject captions, each of which may cover a folder or severalfolders, which, in turn, may contain a number of separate documents. In a case file system -- whether it is arranged alphabetically, numerically, or in some other way -- records willbe assembled in case folders or dossiers. Where records are kept together because ofsimilarity of form, the units of form will often be considered as the file units. This is the casewith respect to bound volumes.
If, then, a series was established on the basis of the arrangement given the records -- in thesense that all file units arranged under a particular system are regarded as one series -- the problem of the archivist is fairly easy. He should simply maintain the series in the orderimposed upon it by the originating office. The serial order given the records, whetheralphabetical, numerical, or chronological, should be preserved.
A problem of rearrangement arises when this order has been disturbed or lost, or when,in exceptional circumstances, it is unintelligible. In such instances the archivist shouldattempt to restore the order given the records by the agency while they were in current use.In a subject system, for example, the aggregation of folders or dossiers kept togetherunder subject captions should be placed in alphabetical order, if an alphabetical-subjectsystem was employed, or in the order of the classification numbers, if a system ofclassification was employed. Within the folders the individual documents should be placedin proper sequence. In modern file folders it is customary to file such documents in reversechronological order, the last item being placed first, while in many older folders theopposite order is employed. The order followed by the creating agency should be observedby the archivist. In restoring the arrangement of files reference should be made to the filingschemes, if such exist, or to indexes, subject captions, folder labels, file notations, and thelike.
Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5 X 7
If a series was established on the basis of the form of the records -- in the sense that allrecords of a given form are regarded as one series -- the problem of the archivist, again, isfairly easy. A series consisting Of records having the same form, however, may becomeunarranged more easily than one organized under a particular filing system. This isespecially true with respect to bound volumes. Normally bound volumes should be placedon the shelves in chronological order or, if numbered, in numerical sequence.
Records — Database And Organizer 1 5 5th
If the arrangement given records by the originating office is unintelligible or one that makesreference servicing difficult, the archivist may devise a system of his own. Such newsystems must protect the integrity of the records by reflecting their functional oradministrative origins and must be designed to facilitate the uses that can be anticipatedfor the records. An example of such rearrangement is found in the order given theclimatological reports that were received from the Surgeon General's Office, theSmithsonian Institution, the Signal Office, and the Weather Bureau. Under the originalarrangement of these reports, it was impossible to ascertain what climatological dataexisted for a given place. Under the rearrangement plan, the series created by each of theagencies were kept intact, but the volumes containing the reports were unbound and theindividual reports within them were arranged by places (States and localities) and thereunderin chronological sequence. Another example is found in the work on the records of theUnited States Senate and House of Representatives. In this case a classification schemewas devised in which a 'key' or 'code' symbol was assigned to each kind of records.The symbol combines chronology and type of record. Sessions naturally follow inchronological pattern; hence 1A stands for the First Congress and l5A for the FifteenthCongress and so on. The rough copy of a journal was assigned symbol A1, no matter inwhich Congress it originated. This symbol was combined with that used to designate theCongress, thus lA-A1, 2A-A1, or 15A-A1. Similar symbols were used to designate other typesof records and when combined with those of the different Congresses serve to indicate theplace of each type of record in the over-all scheme of arrangement.
If records are received from an agency in complete disarray, with no perceptible order, thearchivist again may devise a system of his own. Series of miscellany, in particular, shouldbe arranged in whatever order is best suited to make known their character andsignificance. The individual items within such series may be grouped by subject, activity,type, place, or time, depending upon the nature of the records. In developing a system ofarrangement the maxim that 'simplicity is the shortest road to accessibility' should befollowed.
Note: This web version was prepared in 1999, based on:
Theodore R. Schellenberg, Principles of Arrangement, Staff Information Paper Number 18, Published by the National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, 1951: 14 pages.
This version may differ from the printed version.
See Also:Theodore R. Schellenberg, Principles of Arrangement, Staff Information Paper Number 18, Published by the National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, 1951: 14 pages.
This version may differ from the printed version.