: con-

I~rrangement:Levels of Control
I

Archival arrangement involves both ensuring

that a Gody of records ia in a meaningful internal

order and placing the records within the overall system according to which the repository's holdings are
oganizdl. The distinctionbetwen t h w two related
operations iB important. Equally important is the
differenm between physical and intellectual arr a n g e m e n ~ e e n arranging
.
actual box= and
manipulating information about records. With these
distinctions in mind we can apply our definition of
arrangement as the prof organizing and managing historical records by:
1) identifying ox bringing together sete of
records derived from a common source
which have common chamcteristica and a
common file structure, and
2) identifying relationship among seta of
records and between records and their creatom.
W definition can be applied to m y set of recor& that is to be arranged, from the m r d s of an
entire organhzation to a few boxes from a small prawithin an agency.

General Approach to Arrangement

The operational approach which has dominakd arrangement in the United States is straightforward and practical. It emanates mainly from the
experience of the National Archives in controlling
r n m of rncdem secords. Its core is the concept of
a five-level hierarchy of arrangement moving from
the larger scale t6 the smder-repository, record

group/manu&pt collection, seriea, file unit, and

document. The claseric exposition of this approach
came in a 1964 American Archivist article by Oliver
W. Ho1rnes.l This way of prmeeding was driven by
the perceived requirement on the part of archivim
to assign every document to one file unit (such ag a
folder), every Fde unit to one series and wery series
to one ofice of origin. This system for physical control and arrangement proved easy to apply. Using it
for documents in two of our sample record sets would
produce the following:

(Repitory1

State Arthives

1) Repository

Public Records

Division
2)

Rec. Grp.!

Cull.
3) Series
4) File Unit

(folder title)
5) Document

University Library
Regional History
Center
Dept. of Nat. h.Southside Gamrn.
Sew.

Park Planning
Files

House Matron's
Monthly

Capital County

&posts
Reports, 191b15

Park Plans.
197678
1973 Middletam January 1911
Municipal Park
Report
Plan

The difference between archives and manuscripts in cases like these derives from the way records are acquired. The actual work of physical arrangement in axchives usually kgina at the series
level, because that is the set of records most comWolmes, "Archival Arrangement," 2241.

Arranging and Wrib'iArchim and Manuscripts

60

Colldon: Southside Community Services

Subgroup: Souhide W e m e n t House

monly q u i d . Rather than receiving all the mco r d s o f t b D N R ~ r ~ o f t h e O f I h PmkPlplanof

nhg, the data archiva ia far more h l y on a daily
basis to e v e part of some wria of f11es such as
the planning records. The record p u p , such RS the
DNFi, which ~erpesas s general admhbhtive construct, has ahady h n estabW4 though of
coursa new record groups are established when m e
ords are m f v e d from agencies not previoul31y rep
raented ia the d v e a In contrast to the usual
d v a l concentration on serk, m a n d p t a a s
merit dads mom ofbnwith en& o o U & ~ ,
such as the southside Community SerPicea fec0rd3,
-use
in m d p t ~poaitoriest h w are the
more @iid of d acquired.
The fivepart r n d was m n modified to fit
actud practice by the addition of two &her "leveb"+ubgmups within reoord graupe/cullectionn
and 8 ~ - witbin mries. They may be defied ~ E I
follm

119C%1948)
Seriee: H o w matron'^ Monthly fiepork

II

In terms of ~ubewies,the full file structure within

the 0E.w ofPark Plleading to the 197&?8
Capital a u t y plans b
Serim: Park Planning Files
S-88:
County Parb
s u u r l m : Cepital County P I m
File Unit: Capital Couotp, 1976-1978
T h i ~full system emporganhition in
tern of the provenance and original order of the
records. It a h helps iuwtrate what amhivista call
the "evidential value" of m r d s . Evidentid d u e
&em to the way the -tion
and file s-t
of
records revads hiformation about the functions and
activitiw of an mganhth. However, this way of
o ~ ~ ~ b ~ w i t h w c o r d a ~ v i n
hfactfromBlOtlIfGtorganhWwhichhadadaS u ~ u p are
s Idk of r%wrctemahlsrinnrl
~ ~ b ~ c 0 d a e i m * ~ *
o r c m a t e d b y a ~ ~ t e ---P*-m
~
f3irb mmmmn in both e
body,or group ofaeriee dated by a-n
ChiVal d m m u m p %m
r
f
e
e
.
orgamhtioaai

activity or UBB.

* - a r e d w - j n &
~ d W l a r g e r A l e ~
The numbr of sbgm d subgroup and mhc+
riee can in theory be extended endledy. There can
be dgmups of subgroup in complex organizations,
and mabee*
of eubseriee ia complex f u strue
tureer. However, archi*
should try to nninimize
the complexity of axrangemen&so that both lwela
&odd b Iimikl if pssible to a few h g t s But the
umfulnwa of tbe additionai levels is apparent if we
return b our model obilectio~.The DNEE rew+
would be mu& mom undmitmdable if the whole
agency structure could be displayed..

Record Group: Depmbmt of Natural R e

80-

Bumau of Parb and -tion

S u k u m p : MICB
of Park PZElnning

S-up

The example of the Swthde Community Service~

recoda is perhap more hportant. At the time
the Monthly Howe Matron's mprta were mated
them was no Southside CommuniQ Sewices.but indaad the Southside Settlement The o r g a n h a m
origin of the mportg is h i t repmnt%dby the following:

as annual reporte, minutes, exemtive

dh&r'Ei c o ~ n d finartciaI
~ , r e c d a and alWdbafiangedprogramfil-ah
d d m . The ~epositorgcrtn ph-y
6
the
d m on the shelvee in an o d e r moving from the
general to the specific, rsuch as from annual regorb
to program flat, The tiom om d
* u m to
o r d e r ~ m ~ i n m o r e ~ i n t h e n e x t
ebapter. mSe
of the fil- will m f l dtheir p W d wder on khe shelw. This very W c , but not
uncommon, type of arrangement pmwmai both the
provenance of the film as a whde and the htegrity
ofthe filing 8tmdure thmugh the Beria @mF'&m
df
1
-

&I.)

TBe major WfImlth with tke syiWm derive

f b m its m e & m @ d s on phpbl grouping and
fixed hierambid &m&wee, Maiahmme of p w cal unity and o r i g i d order im appropriate for the
a c t u d f I b i + a ~ s ~ I t L n o t n ~ i n
mts d records sharing a common prove
6.
Ammgmemt by provenauce h indepdent

dam

~the~proximityoff~cords.AstheDut&
b e & in 1"by W p t i o n of an archival mIIw
tionb a w e inventory, that oolldon from a adeptific m
tof view becomes whole again. From that
mt of view, it m a t h little where t b archival

,
mum 6 1 Roa& S h c h m M l d m d In Physical F i k -

Mmaam E d d o n Dtvislon

Repository Lewl

Rtxord Groups

dueation D i m

Adminisidon

...

bgihr

subgroups
Oim
D i i
14)

Ad&

Childmn's
Program
(b
-1

Educuhl Div.
GemmIkds
(b
44-45)

proOmms.
(b
7--ldj
w

Annou-

..

wbih

"

Mumum Cwncil
Box 2, Folden 2 4 4 0

"

Youth Group

Sub-subseries

h w l Rmprts

1 .

C o u d Minutw
(Fddsrs 2733)

File Units (folders)

Item/Oocumd
"

January 1972 Minub, 3pp.

...

h M i

60
-

--

--- --

--

Arrangins and Describing Archives and Manuscripts

--

--

documents a r e kept."The major practical reason for

keeping records with a common provenance t q e t h e l would be for user convenience in bl-owsing and retrieval, as in library stacks. Since archives and
manuscript repositories have closed stacks, physical
location becomes much less crucial.
The difference between the intel~ectualladrninistrative arrangement of records by provenance (in
terms o f record groups, collections and subgroups)
and their physical grouping and internal sorting by
filing structure (in terms of series, subseries and
files) has important irnplicatjons. In many ways this
bwic duality is a more useful way to conceptuaIiz~
arrangement than the classic Holmes model. Arrangement by provenance on the record group/coll~rrtinnand aubwoup levels has no necessary physical manifestation. This type o f asrangemen t can be
entirely on paper. Given the complexity and size of
modern public and institutional records, such arrangement increasingly is only on paper, as an organizing structure for a large body of records shelved
throughout a repasibory's stack area. Thus the 19671980 park planning files should be kept together,
since they arrived together, but they do not, have t o
bc kept anywhere near n t h ~ rfilps series from the
Office of Park Planning, let alone all the other DNR

records.
As t h e planning files illustrat~,where physical
integrity of a coherent body of records exists a t nccessioning, it should be maintained to facilitnte processing and use. T h a t will bc possible with many r ~ r o r d s
from old organizations or personal papefi accessioned as a group, such as the Southside records and
the Bailey papers. IIaving arrived as complete bodies
of records, the textual materials at least can be maintained together physically as well as intellectually.
However, this is a convenient but by no means absolutely necessary situation. .4rchivish have jncreasingly recognized that their traditional idea of a unified hierarchy of levels nowitlg naturally from thc
overal I repository organization down to t h e individual documents was overblysimplistic.
Archivists now understand that arrangement
by provenance and arrangement by Filing structure
are two different hut related systems. Arrangement
by provenance provides information about; records
creators; arrangement by filing structure provides
information about records. On the one hand there is
the history of the Southside Cornunity Services and
the biography of George Bailey; on the other the type
of records which that history and that life generated.

' Muller. Feith n n d Fruin, .Wn~lzral.12.

Figure 6-2

---

The Two Types af Arrangement

Arrangement by pravcnance
A r c l i ~ v o lr c c a r d groups and mn7uscrlnt
COCJ~CIIIORI

Subgroups ( n r c h ~ v e sa n d m a n v s c r ~ p t s )sub,
5wbyr~ups

..

S a r ~ e sdocurnent~nga c t ~ v ~ t y / l u n c t i o n

Arrangement by filing structure

Scrles 01 records flled t o g e t h e S u b ~ r ~ e stb-subser~es

s,
.
F ~ l eunits
lndrvtduor documents 2 n d ~ t e m s

Note: The some series w,ll

o r f p n rep7er;ent

orrangernen! b y both provenance ond filtrg strLc/ure

The difference is ns profound as the d i f f e r ~ n c ehptween information about. an author and information
about a book by that author. The distinction helps
elucidate otller cornplicntions within each of the two
systems. Archivists are aware that complex institutional networks and relationships increasingly represent reality better than the simple monohicmrchical model in which every office has one superior.
Records in complex institutions may have no single
creator or may have different creators over timc.
The arrangement of modern archival records must
be adapted to this reality. (See Figure 6-2.)
At the same time, as David Rearman and other
theorists have noted, sets of records as such are
rarely in a hierarchical relation to each other:"
While a group of' records will have some type of internal organizing structure--most common1y alphabetical or chronological-there will usually be no comparable external organizing system dictating t h e
relationship of those records to other records. While
a program file marked "A" clearly belongs before
" 3 i n an alphabetical system, it is not so clear where
all the files under "Programs" as a whole belong in
relation te "Financial Reports," for example. Unless
there is some built-in derivation or summarimtion
of information--such as a series of indexes to a series
of cases-records are not superior or subordinate to
other records; program files are not at some inherently "lower" structural level than minutes.
T ~ hierarchical
P
model has even less relevance
to the relationship between records and the offices
.' For a n a u t s t n n d i n ~discussron of the corlFuslon over hrernrchy In archival wr~tlng.we Bearman nnd Lyt le. "l'hr Power of
the Principle of Frovenanc~."1621.

Arrangement: TRvela of Control

that generated them. Minutes and other mr&

do
not "report" to their creating body in the way that
body reporta to ita superior unit. The Iatter relationship can be illustrated on an organization chart, but
not the f m e r . Records have relationships to their
creating body and organizational environment, as
well as to other r e c o d , but these reIationshipa are
not hierarchical.
Archival arrangement should thus not be
thought of aa one unifid sy&m in which p h @ d
files and file wriw are at eome lower level than
m r d grouper, coIIectiom, and gubgmups. These are
W d two different kinds of arrangemenkrrangemerit by provenancelsecorda creator and arrangementby filing structure. Each works b& when
separatd h m the other. There is no n d for a P - e d
phydcal r e p d u c t i o n on the shelm of a hierarchy
extending all the way through an entire organizational structure and then file structure. With both
types of arrangement regarded as more flexible, information about r e r d s and information about mor& creators can be repmitented wparately and then
related through links that ilIuminate the full range
of their historical development. The complex history
of the DNR and the mponsibility for park planning
in Saratqp oomtitutea one kind of information;the
descriptions of the various recorde generated by
planning acthitie8 are another type of information.
The relationskips among these different piof
infofmstion constitute the framework for arranging
and d b b i n g records. In an imperfect but ulseful
analogy to librariea, we cern note that bibliographic
information about a bwk brings together infomation a h u t both the author, who may have writtm
sevefal books, and information abut that specific
book in order to make a complete dearription.
In practice this perspective may have little hpact on the arrangement of many traditional records
and papers. For praonal papers and many small
organizational collections, especially coIlections no
longer growing, the simplicity of structure often
d l o m a shultmeous phyical and inteIlectud arrangement. The arrangement of the B d e y papera
would not n m r i l y require a gophisticated analysis of relationships b h e e n film and creators, nor
w o d d the few minutes and reporte from the old St.
Joseph's Settlement taken over by the Southside Seb
tlement. But even in thew cases it is useful to concep
tualize physical and intellectual arrangement -parakly. For more modern organizational reco&,
it
ia certainly more appropriate than the original system on which it is baed.

81

Levels of Control
h this more complex environment, the aeriea
remains the mhst w f u I unit of anaIysis. AH noted
in h p b r 1, a senha is:
a M y of file units or documents arranged
in accordance with a unified filing system
or maintained as a unit by the organization or individual that cream them b+
cause of some other relationship arising
out of their creation, function, receipt,
p h p i d form, or use.
Arrangement is based on working with coherent sets of record^ and relating t h w records to their
origins and organizational context. &riaform the
link between arrangement by provenance and arrangement by filing; structure b w they cammanly combine physical inkgritsf with the documentation of an ongoing function or activity. Thus in the
records of the Museum's Education Division,
monthly reports of the various department heads
not only constitute a coherent set of secorde, but also
manifest a a p x ific mpnsibility and activity. Series
are thus at the center of the contemporary organization and management of records by (1) repositmylevel arrangement, (2) provenance, (3) filing structure, and (4) physical fzle unita and documents.
1. Repository-LevelArrangement. M a n y rewitaries have phy~icallyand administratively
arate divisions to which different types of record
p u p s or collections are mimed, Such arrange
ment at the repxibry level i g concerned primarily
with facilitating the logical and efficient administration of the institution. The mmt common divhion ie
the divkion between manuscripts and archives in
institutions which collect both. The Univemity Wbrary may include the University Archlvm as well
as the Regional History Center, rn that the first act
of arrangement is to mign the Southside records to
the Regional Hishry Center. A Bimilar division ie
the one often made within institutional archives be
tween organizational records and the pemnal papers of prominent officials or participants when
those individuals donate their records to the archivee.
Other divisions vary according to the nature of
the repository, ita holdings, and ita clientele. Divisions on the bask of physical form (such as m a p ,
films and photographs) are common.In these cases,
the r e p s i b r y must keep careful separation records
so that the intelLectud unity of colledions is maintained. Some repositories have ~eparatesediona of
m r d group or coIlections devokd to time p r i d e

62

h a n g i n g and Describing Archives and Wzpscripks

(pre- versus postrl$0(P) or even topics, such as milftary histmy. All such divisions should retain the
integyity of record groups, rather than divide them
among different pa& of the archives. h manuscript
repositories, vduable individual documents m a y go
to a separate secure area. In general, the number of
separate physical divisions within a repository
should be minimized, b avoid wasting space.
2. Arrangement by Provenance.Though repository-level arrangement is convenient for administrative and physical purpc~ses,the most imporbnt
organization of repository holdings is in accordance
with the principle of provenance. Repositories organize their holdings according to origin and all records are linked to at least one creator. Where records
arrive from that creator over time, arrangement by
provenance is largely an intellectual and administrative activity. However, archives and rnanuacript
repod~itorieeapply provenance in different ways acwrding to the sespective concepts of record group
and manuscript collection.
As developedby the National Archives, a m r d
graup is "a M y of organizationally related records
esCabEishd on the bask of provenance with padicular regard for the complexity and volume of the r e
ords and the administrative history of the record
creating institution or o q g ~ n k t i o n , "Everything
~
after the word "provenance" reprmenta the practical modification of pure thmry. Yet the heart of the
recordgroup remains the old European fond, defined
by Canadian aschivists as '"the whole of the documents of any nature that every adminstrative M y ,
every physical or corporate entity, automatically
and o p n i d l y accurnulam by reaeon of its function or of its activity.""h a r d groups should be the
fonds of administrative bodies with their awn rt+
sponsibiliti~,autonomy, and stability.
Most record groups meet this definition, which
in our examples could easily apply to the Departr
ment of Natural Resour- and the museum" JUucation Division. In addition to such "naturd"goups,
the National Archives created '"general" record
groups for executiv+level departmental records and
"'co1lective'"oups for the records of small but selated agencies. A general group could include the
records of the successive secrehries of a cabinet department, but not the records of the functional units
of the department, while a collective group could
Evans et al., "Basic Glossary," 428.
Bureau ofCanadian Archivista, T o w a r d e k r i p t i w Standards: Reprt and Recornnwndntione $I the Conarlian Working
Group on Dencriptiue SludardF (Qttawa: Bureau of Canadian
Archivists, 19851,7.

include the records of many different but closely relabd study cornmiasions d d e y d to the same general subject.
These adaptations are responees to the need
to organk and control huge bodies of government
archives. They emphasize the lack of rigor in the
American record group concept. The American concept represents an explicit compromise between the
logical implications of provenance and the practical
realities of the varying size and complexity of records
produced by different agenciea over different time
spans. The defmition of a Record Group also takes
into account the extent to which an organizational
unit or agency has a separate history,autonomy and
identity. In our example, if the Bureau of Parks and
Recreation had generaM a vast amount of records
and had enjoyed substantial autmomy, it might
have been established as a separate record group. If
all of the other bureaus were separate reoord p u p ,
the DNR mxretary's executive and administrative
f d a might have become the equivdent of a gene&
group.
The record group concept haa not been without
influential critics including Peter Scott in the 1960sl
and Max Evans in the 1980s."The justification of the
record group an the basis of convenient size flies in
the face of reality-- National Archivea rewrd group
average several thousand cubic feet. More crucially,
continual reorganizations of administrative stmetures cause great difficulties for mhivw trying to
maintain their records wing definite record group
Returning again to our relatively aimple example,
we may ask if the Park Planning files predating
1972 hlong to the Consenration Department record
~ u p - - s i n c ethey were generated in that deparb
ment-or to the new DNR record group? A plausible
argument can be made for either. General archival
practice assign8 the records to the DNR record
group, since that is the most recent department, and
the one from which the m r d s were t r d e m e d to
the archives. ConfmntRd with such situations, some
archivista have urged the abandonment of the record
group sysbem in favor of concentrating on arrangement by series, with any larger adminietrative units
described only as gmupingp of related series.
a The key asticlee are Peter Scott, 'The h r d Group Concept: A Case for Abandonment," American Archiviet 29 (Odobr
I%), 4 9 W ; and Man Evans, "Authority Control: An Alternative to the Rword Group Concept. A&n
Archiviet 49 (Summer 19861,245261.See a h Mario Fenyo, "The W
rd Group
Cancept: A Critique," American Archivwt 29 (April 1943, 229239; and Carl Vincent, 'The k r d Group: A Concept In Evolut ~ o n "Archiuoria 3 (197677): $16.

Arrangement: h v e l a of Control

Adaptation and mdification of the record

p u p mricept is generally preferable to complete
a h d m m e n t . For archival administrative purpowa, recoda should be identified, even if arbitranly, with gome creating or maintaining agency.
Changes, mergers, and dl kinds of adminhtrative
relationships can be represented through a variety of
descriptive elements such as hietorical agency name
Ihta and organizational charts, as well as traditional
index- and references within narrative descrip

tions.

fn such a context, the atrength of the record

group m m ig apparent. For most records, it d m
accurately represent on the large acde the organization which creak3 them, whether our M w u m M u cation Division or, a t the National Archives, an
agency like the Federal Aviation Adminigtration.
The record group also remains a more useful unit
for overall archival management, organization,and
d b p t i o n than thousands of separate aeries.Many
of the latter will have a general and relatively uninformative title Iike "Case Files" in the absence of
the traditiond record p u p information that would
commonly identify their provenance.
The orgamktion of the hoIdings of manuscript
repositories prdominantly in terns of "organic" colIsctions differa from the clamic archivd system in
ways not always fully apprmiatd. Collections of organizationalm r d s and p e m n a l papera established
on the bash of provenance are wmmonly conceived
aa the amlogues of record groups. But in fact s u ~ h
mII&ions are of'ten the entirety of the records of
their creatum. Thus, ail the recorda of Southside
Gommunity Services (onemanuscript collection)are,
in fact, equivalent to all the records of the Museum,
not juet the Education Division record p u p . Such
mauuacript oollectiona thus represent a direct and
uncompromisd appIication of the principle of provemnm. In addition, since many manuscript collections came intact BB a whole from homes or offices,
p n w e m c e can in thme cases be maintained physically as well as intellectually.
Both manuscript collections and archival mo d grouw can be divided into subgroups. Subgroups
rep-nt
admhhtratively discrete units or activities that produce records. The basic difference between a m r d pup/collection and a subgroup ie
that all subgroup have a common origin in record
mupa or collections, while record groups and collectiom should represent reasonably autonomoue ageneiea or organhtiona. Howwer, NInokd above, an
orgariktiond subgroup that is -1
and indepen-

63

dent enough can be establishd as a separate record

group, according to r e p i t o r y policy.
Subgroups are sometimes mnfueed with =rim,
h u ~ they
e are often small enough to be documented in one set of files. I t is not at d l uncommon
for a small office-an archival s u b g ~ o u p t ahave
generam only one seriea, such as minutee, which
have enough vaiue ta be retained in an institutional
archivm, Subgroup denote the context of m r d s
creation; s e r i are
~ the recbrds themeelvw. &en if
the s u b ~ u and
p the aeries are physicaIly identical,
as in the cam of the minutea, the distinction i~ important conceptually. In fact, a single minute b m k
representing all the sunriving recorda of a d e w
ment can be simul~neouslya subgroup, a wriee,
and a file unit.
In large organizations,there cam be many levels
of eubgroupa, sub-suagrOups, and ao on reflecting the
administrative structure.S u b p u p can also be establishd for the records of predmessor, merged or
relatd organizations ahorbed during the organieation's history. Activities and functions ahould be
grouped where a number of related series would
have no other gtructural Iink. If an individud'e papers Iack any formal structure, archivists sometimes
create subgroups of related seriea of busin=, civic,
or pemnal activities or functions.
Subgroups, like record groups, present the
same problems of constant flux in active organhtions. Such change ia even more common at the office
and program level of erubgrouping than at the higher
organizational levels. As a practical matter, sub
moup should therefore be limit& as much aa possible to fairly stable units and function%.A business
archim, for e m p I e , may create subgroups on the
basis of continuing functions such as production,
marketing, personnel, and fmancea.
Our sample collections illustrate gome of these
considerations. The simpled case i~ the m w u m ' e
Education Divieion. The recorh of organizational.
units within the division auch BS the International
Prcgmrn and Children's Program8 form obvious sub
group. In the w e of the Public Relatiom Department, loc~tedwithin the Education Divieion until
1965, crase-referencm in different dmxiptive tools
will link t h b recorde subgroup with the poet-1965
Public Refatione Divieion record group. But the pre1965 records should remain part of the Education
Didion'e historical materialn. The Education Division itself mporta to the aesociate director for administration, whose tecards form a epamb record
gr0UP.

64

Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts

The 1967-1980 park planning files are more

complex. For administrative purposes the files would
be part of the DNR record group, with cross-referencing to the pre-1972 Conservation Department record
group. The files w a d d also be identified with the
Bureau of Parks and Recreation subgroup. The question would be whether to establish the Office of Park
PIanning as a separate sub-subgroup. If the office's
only records were one relatively small series sf planning files, they might be treated as a series within
the bureau, though they could be treated as a subgroup which happened to consist of just one series.
Since in this case the Office of Park Planning has
been in existence since 1958 and has several other
series in addition to the basic park plans, the office
records become a subgroup of the bureau records
subgroup. This sub-subgroup will not, however, include the records of the park planner on staff from
2935 to 1958before the office was created, since these
are already organized as a series within the records
of the old Conservation Department. (See Figure 63.)
The manuscript co1lwtions present different
challenges.One set of recor&+those of the Whomsoever Mission-found at Southside Community Services was identified as a separate collection during
accessioning, because it always functioned ag a separate organization. To the extent they can be identified separately, records of the various predecessors of
the current agency will be established as subgroups,
including the records of the two settlements a b
sorbed by Southside Settlement, the Day Nurseries
agency with which it merged, and the direct precursors of the agency such as the Union Mission, Southside Settlement, and Southside Community Center.
In addition there will be subgroups based on the
agency's recent structure, such as the Youth Services Division and the Adult Literacy Propam.
These subgroups will serve as a conceptual framework, though associating specxc series of records
with the various subgroups will be a complex task.
With the Bailey papers, the major issue will be
whether any subgroups are needed. Assuming the
records are in a sensible filing order, a further level
of structure may not be required. Subgrouping might
be convenient if there are many small sets of folders
each documenting a different civic activity or financial matter. A more interesting issue would be the
disposition of Mary Bailey's correspondence and her
files relating to her work with the museum, If easily
separable they could constitute a separate collection
on the basis of a separate creator. However, if they
are integrated into a much larger corpus of George
Bailey's files, such a separation would violate prove-

nance in the sense of the records' origins and maintenance, as well as violating original order. Depending
on the contents of the entire collection, and the opinions of the donors, the collection could ke identified
as George Bailey's Collection of Bailey Family Papers. This type of decision h o m e s the province of
policy and judgment.
3. Arrangement by Filing Structure. Archivists organize and manage physical groups of records
primarily in terms of series and subseries which they
identify or create. Arrangement by provenance has
no &re&relation to the internal order of individual
series or the arrangement of series with respect to
each other. Arrangement by filing structure, in contrast to arrangement by provenance, is concerned
with the reality of sorting, grouping, and shelving
the records themselves. It is also concerned far more
with the starage, handling, and retrieval require
ments of records in different physicat formats. Since
some series anive zts accretions over time to ke
stored in various lmations, arrangement by filing
structure is not always a physical arrangement.
However, the physical aspect is usually much more
important than in arrangement by provenance, The
language of provenance is a language of creators-Office of Park Planning, George Bailey, Southside
Settlementwhile the language of series is the actual language of r e c o r d d a r i e s , minutes, ledgers,
correspondence, or grant proposals,
The standard defmition of a series noted p r e
viously describes two kinds of series. The first is
based on a coherent filing system in which a set of
records is arranged alphakticdly, chronologically,
geographically, or according to some other consistr
ent classification system. Such series include the
common and easily recognizable record types like
minutes, reports, correspondence, Ease files, and accounts.(See Figure 6-4.) The second kind of series is
a set of records which may be a mixture of fiIe types
and arrangements, but which derives some unity
from either a common format, such as the park planner's maps, or from a common function or activity.
These may be records relating to a subject, a p r e
gram, or a branch office, and may thus resemble
subgroups in that they will consist of different types
of files. A series entitled "Planning Review, 1980"
might bring together several kinds of records, but
their creation and use in a specific activity will make
them part of one series. In disordered collections,
archivists can establish all of these different series
as needed.
The series is the key unit for pr-ing
because
it combines both the file structure of records and the

Ffgurs 6-3 Records Creating: Park Planning Inrtitufional Canisxtr, 1967 mnd 1980

1967 Department of Consewdon

Deportment of Conservation

I'

Fish and Game Commission

Parks and Recredion Commission

I
I

Forks

Historic

Division

Sites Bwreau

Lokes and
Streams Division

Manummts
Bureau

1
Maintenance

1980 Department of Natuml Resources

Department of

Natural Resources

-I**

***%tote Ermironmentol
Qualify Council

l nfergovernrnenlol
Planning Group

Assistant Secretory for

Assistant Secretary for

Assistant Secretary for

Outdoor Recreation

Resource Management

Administration

Bureau of Porks
and Recreation

Bureau
of WildlZe

I
Weilands
I
I

e-llL----L
m

Park Planning

Porks

Office

Division

Management

-emCC

Land

Miner$m-4-.-d

Management

Mines and

Forests and

Woter
Recreation

Historic and
CulturnF Sites

Management

Securify

Services

Special

Programs

D i d Reporting

Coordinating

-----I-

Provision of Planning/Suney Services

Arranging and Describing Archivw and Manuscripts

68

FEgura

6 6 Camman f ypss of Functional

Remrds Series

Memo-ando

Motion Pictures
Newsletters

Notebooks
Aufhorizotions

Otganizotional Chotts
Bank Staternsnts

Press Releoses

Prodornotions

Correspondence

Publimtions
Recornmendotions

Research Notes/F~Ies
Resolutrons
Schedules
Financial Stataments

Histories
Indentures
Indexes
Invoices
Journals
'lows
'lectures
ledgers
Legal Opinions
Lntters (sentJrecsived)
Letterbooks

Logs

Monuols

Speeches
Storernents

Statutes
Studies
Surveys
Testimonials

'restilnony
Tronscripts
Videotapes
Vouchers

Warw R
Wills

~ S

documentation of a record-creating activity. Experience telIs us that activity ia often better described in
terma of tangible serieeminutes, tax lists, memcretnda-than in terms of constantly changing bureaucratic facades. A series represents the combination of physical file integrity and a spec~ficfunction
or activity. In this way, the integrity of a series presen= the values of both provenance and original:
order. Each type of record at the series level has its
own characteristics, which archivists should understand. By their nature, minutes contain a dserent
kind of information from annual repom or staff
memoranda; annual budgets are different from ledgers. This recognition of the importance of dimrent
types of records as conveyors of different kinds of
information further enhances the central role of s
rim in archival processing and use.
Archivists denote subsenes where there are si
nificant and logical divisions within a series. S u b
rim must be an integral physical part of a =rim
maintained as a unit. There are two major typs of
subseries. The first occurs when a aeries is divided
into two or more parts, as in a correspondence file
divided into "Lettera Received" and "Letters Sent,'"
or a unified research file divided according to different topics. The second occurs, when subsets of files
are "n~ested"in a larger set. Am individual's "Financial Records" may be arranged alphabetically, but
a t the letter "T" a whole chronologidly arranged
set of tax returns may appear. These tax returns
constitute a subseries. Subseries almmt always derive their existen@ from the way they are physically
embedded in the larger series structure, Original
order in such situations mems physical file order.
(SeeFigure 65.)
Unlike the relation of subseries to series, the
ordering of wries in relation ta each other is purely
arbitrary. This issue relates both to the placement
of records physicatly on the shelves, a n d to the listing
of records in archival inventories and other finding
aids. Traditional registry sygtems usually provided
a fmed structure for all the different series p d u c e d
by an office, and the retention of that structure was
an integral part of the retention of "original order.'"
Such registry systems have been rare in the United
States, however,and archives commonly acquire Berim that have no predetermined relationship to
other series from the same organization.
On the basis of the principle of original order,
when records arrive from. an organization or individual in a wt order that is not purely capricious, that
sequence should be retained. But there is no inherent
"'organic" link or ranking that d i c t a h the physical

Arrangement: Levels of Control

67

Figure 65 Ssrin ond Subseriss, Purk Pknnlng Aisr mr Trunstsrred from Agency

t 8W67--Park. Planning F i k { s e r i ~ )

Box ff
1-4

S 9

Sububserlmr

Sub8erles
Departmentol/Divisionol
Files

Annuol Planning Summaries,

1976-80 [Box I , Folders 1-5)
.
(Other Files)

Stota Park Plans

Apple Volley S. P. Renovation

. ...

(Other Parks)

10-13

County Park Plons

Adorns County

Pork Mops

Stote Parks (Box

.... .

...

14)

Coun!y Parks (Box 15)

order in which the series constituting a collection

should be arranged. There is nothing to mandate
whether or not staff memoranda blong before or
&r financial records. Attempfx by archivists b devise principles for such relationships were an outgrowth of the system which joined arrangement by
provenance and arrangement by filing structure in
one u n i f d hierarchy, The ordering of seriw was the
link between the two different types of arrangement,
eince it creahd the i m p m i o n of a hierarchy of filing
Btructum immediately subordinate tn the hierarchy
of mfd.creatinp Mies. But as we ahall see in the
next chapter, the arrangement of =rim is a matter
of mnvenience and judgment, not fundamental archival principles. It is essentially an estimate by the
archivist of the relative scope and impor&nce of the
various aeriea.
?nour model t..ecorda, the park planning Filw of
the Office of Park Planning r e p r e n t a fairly typical
series. The 1967-1980 files are actually an addition
tb the already ezisting wries of 1935-1971park planning filea &red elsewhere in the archives. The fouryear overlap btween the two aeta of files ie typical
of situations in which individual fdes remain active
for wrying lengths of time before being traderred
to atorage. The 1965-1980 files will form an addition
to the e M i g series, rather than a new series, became in our scenario they are part of an ongoing fde
structure,with regular chronological breaks. Within
the new addition there are records which will be
n t o d separately from the standard paper files, such
m tap, photographs, and audio md computer
t a p . As hae been h r d , thie does not reflect on
the intellbua9 integrity of the series. Their common

Budgets, 1 9 7 6 7 9 (Box 5,
Folder 1)
(Other
Aspects)
Harrisville Nature Preserve,
1 9 3 S 7 7 (Box 10, Folder
I).
(Other Parks)

(Other Countiss)

14-15

Suhububssdm8

provenancewill keep the bxtdand nontextual records linked administrativeIy and intellectually, regardless of separate storage or even separate indexing and retrieval systems. The =rim also contains
Files which represent activities c a r r i d on and documented by other qpnciea before the government reorganization of 1972,but these files remain with this
aeries. In the Office of Park Planning, the series of
planning fdm was fonnally maintained in four sub
divisions-DNa/Division directives, atate parks,
county parks, and map; these are maintained as
mbseries,
The m w u m ' s Mucation Division records flw
trate a m r d gruup which was tmferred as a unit,
so that the s u m u p s , eeries, and s u b r i e s are in
the physical relationship to each other that was established by the division. Even if there are unpredictable sequences of file p u p (perhapa International w
s has been placed before Children's
Progmnm,or grant proposaLs ahead of minutes), it
is best to retain this eubgroup and eeriedevel order.
Here the phpical and intellectual arrangement can

be one.
The most diff~cultchallenge will be the identification of seriea within the Southside Community
Senrim rmmrda. Changes in organization and mission, in record formats and types, and in directors
and administrative secretaries over a century could
d
y produce more than Flfty identifiable aeriee in
fifty boxes. The Day Nursery, for example, mjght
have retained only t h m cubic feet of records, but
these could include four series--minutes, program
files, scrapbks, and files of the Middletown Day
Nuraery Aesoeiation. Some of the other mriea could

68

Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts

extend over the course of m r a l organizational

changes, complicating the relationship of %ria to
subgroups. A consistent series of reports to the
United Way since 1940 will carry successively the
names of Southside Settlement, Southside Center
and then Southside Community &Services. With small
sets of folders the archivist will have to decide
whether to view them as s u k r i e a of larger series w
group them into programmatic subgroups, such as
'cHealalthProjects." For the totally disordered records
dating 1968-74, the staff will have to create series
based on a atudy of b t h the pre1968 files and the
we1 l-ordered posb1975 records.
G-eorge Bailey's files more closely resemble
those of the Museum Education Division. His personal papers as transferred from file cabinets were
already in file groups which can fairly w i l y k cornbined Iby the repository into subwups ("Civic Affairs"), series ("PersonalCorrespondence"),and even
s u k r i e s (Mortg~esby year withn "Finances-Personal").While there will typically be mme folders or
documents difficult to categorize, the coIlection as a
whole will retain its full order inbct.
4. Arrangement by Physical FYe Unita.
Olzginal order is applied most directly in handling
physical file units such as folders or bound volumes.
In contrwt to serle, whose constituent parts can be
in different parts of a repository, file units really can
be in only one place at a time. The order of the units
imby the creator is the very structure which
defmes the film as a series. Generally that order is
chronological when the series documents a regular
activity, such as minutes of meetings. The order may
ke alphabetical when it docurnenh programs, bpi=,
organizations, or people, such as case files arranged
by the name of the client. The arrangement can also
be by some internal classification ~ y s t e mlike
, a decimal subject claasfication, usable if the archives can
find a codebook or clagsification scheme in the mods. Series created by an archivist from loose papers

will usudly be arranged chronologicalPy or alphabetically, according to the type of function or activity
they document.

Within file units such arr folders, individual dmuments will also be in some chronologid or alphabetical order which should be retained. In practice,

the holdinga of archives and most manuscipt r e p i toriea are so Iarge that archivists rarely review item-

level arrangement. In addition, in the absence of

close mpxvision, use itself often causes documents
to b m e disordered within folders. Only where
there are individually valuable documents should
the aclocation of such item be a major concern. Detded arrangement usually ends with the
ordering of file units, not their conknh. The major
exception ie the case of records which are to be m i c r ~
filmed. Such m r d s must be in a precise and l o g i d
item-level order, since images cannot be reshuffled
or viewed more than one at a time.
Our sample archival records raise few problems
of file-unit arrangement. Typically the only park
planning textual records needing detailed arrange
rnent are the repom on apecific parks from the park
planner's office. These will be used heavily and ueem
will ask for individual items. In contrast, the Southside recards arrive with boxes of unsorted lmse papers from 1968 b 1974. They also include many
bound volumes which need b be brought together
by provenance and type (Settlement House minutes,
camp ledgers, etc.); they then must be asrangd
chronologically. Several series in the Bailey papers
might be aman@ in some detail. The autograph
series will certainly have to be arranged alphabetically and listed by ikm. This is the procedure the
historical society would use with individual "artificial callectiom" donated by collwtors. In addition,
the general comspndence geries might be arranged
alphabetically by incoming correspondent since that
would be the way documents would normally be re
queated, bs with the other recoda, the detailed arrangement ofaome series does not imply the detailed
arrangement of all wries.
The different types of arrangement desmibed
in this chapter provide the framework for the organization of records from divisions at the repository
level through the placement of individual d m ments. That framework allows archivisb to mange
records in the distinct ways appropriate to the preservation of provenance, filing system, and physical
integrity. An d k d in the next chapter, it also
provides as well for the organization of completely
disordered records. The arrangement of any specific
body of records is a function of ita own physical and
intell&ual characterktica. But the practices and
p d u r e s of arrangement take place within the
larger system reviewed here.

//

Chapter 7

/ ?

1 Arrangemen): Practices and Procedures

Because both records and repibries are sa

varied, arrangement in practice can be a whole
range of activities from simply approving a received
filring system to establishing order in a mass of disordered documents. Whatever the initial s t a t e of a set
of accessioned records, the procws of arrangement
~houldaccomplish several gods. Records should be
physically grouped inb coherent series and subseries. Within those file structures individual file units
will bz either in the order received or in an order
&blished by the archivist. Records should be identified with their administrative and/or functional
origins, as part of larger record groups, manuscript
collections and subgroups.Whether thme identifieations are purely on paper or a h manifestd in a
physical arrangement will be determined largely by
the nature of the records, Manuscript collections are
more likely than complek archival record groups
ta be maintained as physical as well as intellectual
units.
Arrangement in public and institutional archives is often a p s m of preservation of original
order. In argmhtions with well&blished records
management programs, most r m & arrive in a
wmprehensible order from established functional
entities, Archivists should verify that order and enmre that they have r?o&
information about the
creator or creatom of the records. The creator will
in many caw^ differ from the immediate source. In
the majority of cases where these issues raise no
problems, the basic goals of arrangement have been
met. Further work (reboxing and refoldering, and
listing file headings1 is optional and often clerical.

The arrangement of manuscript collections

very often involves much more detailed work at the
folder level and measionally even at the document
level. Here archivists m a y have to create, replace
or reconstitute a filing structure. Even well-ordered
manuscript colledians commonly contain some disordered or misidentified records. Because 811thcallections offen represent the entirety of an organization's or individual" records, rather than particular
series, the staff must deal with b t h arrangement
by provenance and by filingstructure, Manuscript
curators as well as institutional archivists can also
be confronted simultaneously with changes in record-creating activity, organizational structure, and
the nature and content of records, further complicatr
ing their work.
Manuscript curators may be less likely to re
b i n arbitrary or idiosyncratic original filing order,
since manuscript repositories concentrate on satisfying external research n&
rather than the needs
of intesnd administrators. The most common challenge in manuscript arrangement is to create from
disoralered c~Electionsa complete and detailed arrangement based upon provenance-an arrangement which reveals the reasons the files were created. In addition, individual documents of special,
value are more likely to be found in manuscript reposibries than in aggregations of institutional and
government records.
Despite these differences, there are impartant
similarities between archival and manuscript arrangement. Archival records frequently contain
some disordered files, while manuscript coElections

Arran#$np:and Describing Archives and Manuscripts

70

received from contemporary organizations resemble

institutional archives. T h e overall goab and sequence of work of archival and manuscript arrange
ment are aimilar. The ultimate goal is an arrange
ment of records that will permit their effective use
by facilitating description. The mume of work at all
repositories can include the following stages: preparatory work, arrangement by provenance, wrieslevel arrangement, rearrangement, arrangement of
fiIe unita and documents, and physical handling and
storage.

Preparatory Work
Before arranging a group of records,an archivist should h m e familiar with their origin, contents,arrangement and condition. Much of this information should be available from the various
form and summary description8 created during the
a-ition
and acemioning stages, However, the
a r c h i d should generally do some further research
into the h i s h y and context of the creators of the
records, and the activities documented. Such re
search should not be exhaustive at this stage, but
could involve reviewing internal histories, organization charts, biographical dictionaries, local encycl*
pedim, and other standard reference works. The archivist should aim become familiar with related
records held by the repsiaq.
Research sets the stagefor the initial examination of the records and any accompanying descrip
tions. A review of the boxeg themselves and what
ever Iiats have been created provides a gobd
summary of the contents, arxangement,and physical
condition of the recorda as a whole. T h e archivist
should take notes on existing file structures, obvious
gaps in the records, loose or disordered documents,
and the types of records which usually require pr*
cessing at the item level. B a d on previous research,
the archivist should be able to recognize maor subjects and events, imporbmt individuals, and the
overall strengths and weaknesses of the records in
terms of content. Major organizational changea not
mentioned in aecessioning recoda should also be
noted. ks preparation for further work,aids to processing such as annual reports, internal histories,
autobiographical sketches, and organizational
charts can l
x identified and even copied for use by

the archivist,
Following the review of the records,the archivist can determine their specific p m i n g needa.
Thh can take the form of an explicit work plan ( m x
Chapter 5), The plan will require the archrvist to

explain and justify the proposd arrangement, the

associated staffaasignmenta and mquird resources,
and the impact; ofthe work on reference and conservation.
depend in^ on decisions about the nature of the
m r d s and their processing needs, the archivist
may conduct further sesearch before beginning arrangement.If the records as a whole are in disorder
or are unusudly complex, the archivist may hare to
function for a t h e as an institutional historian or
biographer. Only with a full undemtanding of the
context and activities that generat4 the records
over time can they b properly arranged and described.
The nature and order of the records alm dicta- the q u e n c e inwhich the work of arrangement
p-.
When recar& arrive in order with a coherent structure, arrangement work proceeds from the
largest unit to pmgremively more detailed subdivision~.In such situations, arrangement eonaista
mainly of placing record containers on the ahelves
as received-reboxing them into archivalquality
containers where n w - a n d recording infarmation a b u t each record-creating ndrninistrative
Ievel and suMiviaion. This help the archivist to prepare for the descriptive work to follow.
In our m e u r n example, information about the
Education Division record group as a whole wouId
be derived by the archivist froman overview of the
divisional records as summarized in a-ion
forms.
The archivist would then review the information
about the records of each of the departmenb which
form the subgroup. Finally, the individual series
documenting functions and activities within the department subgroup would be identified. It would be
v i b l e for the whole prccem to p r d without
any physicd rearrangementof files. Arrangement of
such ordered r w r d group can easily proceed to a
given level of detail and then atop if necessary. The
archivist may further refine the recorde later. (See
Figure 7-1.)
Most collections of personal papem and dieordered or complex organizational records are not so
amenable to arrangement from the top down, The
archivist in these cases must identify the coherent
file wts which form series and then d a t e those
series with recordereating bodies. Once established,
the ~ e r i e swill aleo provide the structure within
which folders and dwumente can be placed. The
Southide Community Services records typify digordered and complex collections.With no overall order
ta the r w r b , the archivist cannot work from the
top down. Imtaad, the varioua cries, v o l m w , and

Arrangement: Practices rand frocdlures

Figure 7-1

Museum Education Divisicn Records, Unified Intellec)ual/PhysicaI Breakdown

Subgroups
Diviseon Director

Children's Progroms

71

Adulf Programs Deporlrnent

School Districl Programs
Volunteers Council
International Programs
Adm~nistrofiveSecretory
Public Relations Deportment
Education Division

Ssrles

Boxes

1-1

5- 6

7-14

Administration
Programs
Personnel
Correspondence
Reports

Progroms
Budgets
Memorondo
Stoff
Publiciv
Reports

.......
15-28

Boxer/Foldarr

2-3/1-15
3/16-27
3/27-39 to 4
5/ 1 - 12
5/13-31

5/32-42
6/ 1-8
4 / 9 - 14
6/15-30
7/1-9

.......

Annual Programs

1511-76/7

.......

.......

Council Minutes

29/1-18

.......

.......

36-39

Reports

.......

36/1-9
.......

40-42

Div. Accounts

40/1-16

29-35

43
44-45

.......

.......

General Files
Publicity Lists

43/ 1-27

Minutes
Annuol Reports

Publicity

other documents must be assembled, and the overall

order produced as a result of arrangement.Here, the
work of arrangement produces an order rather than
an existing order prducing an archival arrangement.
The different approaches are based on the dual
roles that series play-they represent file structures
or t y p s as well as dmument activity, Both of these
functions should be respected in those situations
when arrangement must begin by establishing series
rather than by identifying series within subg~oups.
Thus in George Bailey's papers it would n o t IE appropriate ta create an all-encompassing correspondence
series simply on the basis of record type. If Bailey
maintained his correspondence in separate groups
by activity, there should instead be a separate correspondence series for each of Bailey's activities. There
might be one correspondence series for his civic affairs and another for his business affairs. Conversely, if he grouped different types of records from
different creators together in dmumenting some
civic activity, that activity should be the basis of the
series regardless of the mixture of sources and record

43/28-4 1
44/1-25
44/26-38
4 5 1 1-22

types. Thus his files on the 1956 Republican National

Canvention might include correspondence, local
cornrnittm minutes. travel and expense documents,
a convention program, and a signed thank-you note
from President Eisenhower.
Some manuscript collections are so disordered
that they must be painstakingly reconstmcted from
the documents up, reversing- the whole process micd of archival groups and series. With collections of
more than a few dozen documents this is naturally
very time consuming. However, it really is unavoidable if the materials are ta be available for use. As
discussed below, the whole collection must first be
examined in order to identify the different types of
records and possible series. Once a framework of
series is established, individual documents can k~
sorted accordingly.

Arrangement by Provenance
Records should have been identified by record
group or collection during accessioning. However,
this identification should be confirmed, and such ba-

72

Arranging and Describing Amhives and Manuscripts

sic information aa dates and volume verified. The

remrds may alaa receive a record group or collection
numkr at this stage. The record group or collection
number d be different fromthe aotlessjon number.
It will be wespecidly important if more than one ae-ion
is to te processed together as a p u p or wll h i o n . The record group/collection number will be
used in all future processing and reference work.
Mwt of the work of arranwment by pmve
nance concerns the identification or establishment
of subposps. It is irnporbnt to recognize, however,
that not all mrd g r o u p or oollection8 are neceasariIy divided into subgroups, nor do all series have to
be clwtered into aubmups. Subgroups are used by
archivists only when their existence is juetified by
organizational structure or some tJnpe of general
function or activity. S u b p u p s derived from eKisting
organizational divisions should be maintained separately from each other when the records are boxed
and listed. The records relating to each subgroup will
be listed along with the reason for the subgroup's
creatian. With very large organizatiom, common
wnse and r e p i t o r y policies should dictate when
to stop creating subgroups for every admin-tive
unit or type of organized activity. At some point,
r e c o d of activity can be established as series rather
than as subgroups, even if the activity baa some organizational manifmtatioa. The
of Park P l m
ning will have a separate BtaEf member for county
parks, but since the permanent records generated by
that individual are relatively few and form part of a
larger fde structure on planning, there would not bea separate County Park Planning subgroup.
Subgroups created by archivists, especially in
work with mm&pt
collections, may lack the
physical unity of mbgroup maintained by original
m&creahrs. Certainly the aeries meatd by archivists will be in no preestabhhed order in relation
to each other. Instead, the archivist will ereate sub
p u p s on paper by listing together series which have
some common relationship of origin, form or activity. But this work depends u p n , and follows, the
arrangementof the records thernselrea into coherent
eeriea. (See Figure 7-2.)

tion, creation, recomtitution, and rearrangement.

AI1 but the fm include mrne physical manipulation
of records. The identification and maintenance of
~ e r i e ain a m b l e order is the easiest alternative.
It becum in many public and institutional a r c h i v ~
where arrangement pr&
through a p
m of
successive subdivision. The creation or mnstitution of gerEes is more common in manuscript work.
The tedious work of rearrangement ia needed when
either archival records or rnanwripte- arrive in an
mangement that is i m v i b l e to interpret or i~ pas
itively counterprductive to research.
The identification of mriw in well-ordered collections ia generally a matter of h r n i n g the obvious coherent Filing p u p a , sometbeg with the ass&
h c e of an internally produced file eystem outline.
Breaks in Siles m u d eolely by clerical action are
not jusW~rntionsfor the establishment of separate
genes. Lf n
w , such problems can b handled
as subseries. Suhriea should also b u d when
there are two interdependent sets of records, such as
old aettlernent house regidem divided into eeparate
h o l m for men and women.Archiviste should follow
the practice of the office of origin in such determinations. The park planning files were always maintained within the office as one series with four BUMvisions, so the &ate archives will not tv to make
separate series out of the county parka files and the
state parks fdea, even though these record sets have
the characteristics of series.
The creation or reconstitution of series in disordered colI&ions is EI much more mmplex task. The
archivist f a d with such a collection has ta survey
it completely, recordhg the t y p , dates, order, and
condition of all groupings of Wes and all uncldable film. In addition to ~ u c h
details, thia survey will
provide a centext in which to view the creation of
possible subdivisions. It will often be nmemary to
compare file headings with fde contents thoroughly.
Relying on any lists prepared during a-ioning
and without physically moving any recoda, the archi& can prepare a tentative arrangement of series
and subaeries. The proposed arrangement will be
reviewed with coIleagues and further refined during
processing.

Series-level Arrangement
The o r g h t i o n of files into series is the cnu.
of all archival arrangement. It involves grouping rec& into coherent units,placing them intol a provenance-based context,and ordering the series in relation to each other. There me eaaentidly four
rnethoda by which series are generated-identifica-

Series will Z>e creatd on the h l s of type and

activity as previou~lyd k d . A chronological order will be recreated or established for series such
as minutea or periodic reports,while program f d ~
and carreapondence may be aortal alphabtically.
Other internal -1118,
such as a numbering system
for case files or a geographic d i n g for counties, will
be reatabliehed where comprehenaibla. The trained

73

Arrangement Practices and Procedures

-

Figure 7-2

Series and Subgroups--The Bmiley Papers

in fils cabinets hemdings

saris.

assigned

Middletown Republican Porty

Political Activrtres

Sorotoga Republican Porty

Republican Notionol Conventions

Political Activifies
Political Astivi t ies

Middletown Chamber o l Commerce

Civic Activities

Middletown Chamber, Executive Committee

Bedford Falls 5ov1ngs ond l o a n

Civic Activilies
Business Activities

First Notional Bonk

Business Activities

Middletown Rofoty

C~vicActivities

Middletown Elks
( 1 4 Middletown Groups-l

file each)

Civic Activities
Civic Activ~ties

(8 Sorotogo Groups- l l files)

Civic Activities

Businessmon's Club

Civic Activities

Bankers' Roundtable

Business Activities

Southside Community Center

Cnic Activ~ties

Southside Community Center Board

Civic Acfivit~es

Southside Community Center. Choirmon

Civic Activ~ties

Middletown Museum of Art

Mary Bailey

Diories-Peter
Diaries-Mory

Peter Bailey collect~on

Mory Bailey

Barley

Boiley

Correspondence-Family

Personal

Correspondence

Personol

Scrap books

Personal

Soratogo State University

Personal

Elm Siree? House

Personal

Lake Winomonowoc Properby

Personal

United Fund

Civic A c t i v i t ~ e ~

finonciol Statements

Personol

Bonking Reoding Files

Business Activities

Speeches ond Lectures

{To be divided)
(To be divided)

Miscetloneous

archivist" knowledge of the general characteristics

of different types of series in different types of coIlections can be of vital assistance in identifying potential series in disordered collections. Archivists
should be familiar with the general principles of records management as well as with the historical evolution of rndern file creation and maintenance pract i c e ~ .The
~ identification of potential series in a
'Some standard records rnenaEement texts are Mins M.
Johnson and Norman F. Kallau~,Records Mona,qerncnt, 4th ed.
(Cincinnati: Southwestern Pu bllshing Ca.,1YK61; Violet Thomas
et a!., Remd.9 Managerne~t.$ s t e m and Adrnlrrktrattnn (New
York: John Wlley & Sons, 1983):and Patricia F. WniIace et sl.,
t?rnd<
hfanafi.~rnenl-In l ~ g m
ted I nformalton SLvxs
l ~ r n s ,2nd 4.
(New York John W i l ~ y& S n s , 19871. Among the Few articles on

disordered collection will be assisted by a knowledge

and examination of similar types of records and record-creating bodies.
As in the creation of archival r m r d groups,
some practical considerations enter into the creation
ofseries. In the Southside records, if there were two
the history of file systems are Joknne Y a k , "Internal Communication Systems in American Business Structures: A Framework
to Aid Appriaitial," Americnn Arrhiuist 48 (,Spring 19%) 14115% JoAnne Y n M , Control t h r o u ~ hCorn munlrations tRaltimore
Johns hop kin^ Pr-, 1989): find JoAnne Yntes. "From P r m Book
and Plpeon Hole to Vert~calFiling: Revolution i n Storage and
ATor Correspondence," JournaI ofRusiness G m n i u n ~ c a f ~ l n
19 (Summer 1982):5-26, Chapter 9 of Schellenberg's Modem Archrue,~#Ian discuses filing.

74

Arranging and k t i b i n g Archives and Manuscripts

suwiving folders each dealing with the Settlement's

nursing, dental, health ducation and medical clinic

activities, they might b m e part of a series called
"Health Activities"; but if there were a cubic foot of
records on any one of those activities, it ww1d be
constituted a ~eparateseries.Such adaptations are
especiatIy Imporhint with small mllwtions in which
each folder or record type could theoretically constitute a wries, It b not always necessary to divide all
the files of a small collection or subgroup into series.
Collmtians of just a few h x m would often do better
with a simple alphabetical and/or chronoloFfia1 arrangement. Personal papem consisting of one lmx
including a few diaries, m r a l dozen lettern, a serap
book, some memorabilia and various financial records such as a deed and a will would not have to h
formally divided into a halfdozen wries. All that
would be needed would b~ to organize and list the
F f l by
~ type and then chrono~gicaIlyby file unit.
The u~ualgoal of arrangement Is a collection
physicalIy divided inte diacrete series or subseries to
illustrate function or activity, and assembled, at
least on paper, into different subgroups ta document
creating organizational unib. In the Southside collection, there may be a halfdozen groups of records
which document the camp program over the mume
of frfty years, including its seveml changm of organization and Iocation. Some record sets are obvious
series, such as counselm's reports and lists of eamp
ers, while others might be a few folders each on various programs or activities scattered over the years.
All such groupings have to be sorted and identified
wries, subseries or, for all the camp records b
gether, a subgroup.
The final stage of geries arrangement is h~record some basic identifying information about the s e
ria. In mll+rganizd proceesing pragrama, this activity will draw upon work done during accessioning,
and help lay the foundation for the more elaborah
descriptive work to follow. Basic information to be
recorded a b u t each ~ e r i e sincludm creator, title,
time span, volume, and arrangement, as well as a
summary description of its contents, Series titles
supplied by either the creator or the archivist generally combine a function or activity with a type, as in
Director's Compondence or County Plan P r o p
als. Archivista often assign or supplement titles
where the identification supplied by the eresrtar
would be either misleading or inadequate for users.
In identifying creators and titles of records and
papem and indicating their volume and date span,
archivists should follow the descriptive rules conveyed in Archives, Persoml Papers, and Manu-

scripts: A Catalagcng Manual by Steven Hensen (2nd

edition, 1989). AB far as possible, all of the basic
descriptive information recorded a b u t each seriea
should be compatible with internal r e p i t o r y pdiciea and the national descriptive standards which
will be outlined in the following chapters. However,
practical considerations will usually dictate that the
series-level work done during arrangement will have
to b comiderably reFmd and placed into a larger
context during the fmal description of a group of

records.
Once the records are atranged into series they
may be arranged on the shelves in any sensible progression. Where m&arrive in a oornpteb and
logical order, that order will naturally be mainb i n d . In the abaence of such an order, archivista
have developed conventions for the progression of
series, beginning with the Dutch rule that general
minutes should come first. As David Gracy I1 wrote,
series should be asranged in relation t
o each other
"in order of the extent and value of the information
within them,"2 This commonly means a progression
from the general to the specific, and from policy making to implementation--such as from executive reco
ords Eo progsam records to housekeeping records.
Similar prooedures place the records of a central
office bfore branches and a director ahead of an
assistant direcbr. Within clusters of series at the
same Ievel of importance, a chronological arrange
rnent may be employed. The thrust of these canventions ia to maximize the evidential value of the whole
corpus of records in documenting the actual workings of an organization.
The ordering of serim within record group has
Iong posed a chalIenge to American archivists, who
generally eauld not rely on an mtablished framework of European regidxy systems.Yet Holmes r e
fersed to it as "the heart of archival work" MUM
the archival inventories were essentially reflections
of a fmed ordering of the wries on the ~helves.3Archivjsta believed that just as subgroups had a logical
relationship within w o r d groups and file units had
an order within series, aa eeriea ~houldbe arranged
within subgroup or record groups and mlledions.
While such ordering ki W u l , its intrinsic importance waa overemphasized;the uee of computers has
rendered it even less vital than it had been. Inrhad
of relying solely on one fmed wriea order a~ the link
between arrangement by provenance and arrangement by series, appropriate computer data base p m
a Gracy, Armmgemmt and

Description, 10-

Holrnes, "Archival Arrangement," 29.

Arrangement Practices and Procedures

mas can provide a whole r a n ~ of

e intellectual links
m d pawr arrangements, Series can be listed in different orders, and m a y appear in dwcriptions and
Eists as part of more than one s u b p u p or record
group. At the same time, the mmplexity and continual change of modern organizations makes it increasingly dificult to fix one appropriate order for
records, Even in older colkctiona, the notion that
some tm of records are more impartant than others has been questioned by users ranging fmm genealogisb hsocial historians who bypass the minutes
and concentrab instead on such "lower" ranked a e
ries as case fdes, personnel records, and p m p m

records.
The Southside and W e y oollections illustrate
many of the problems. The parent Southaide Settlement (founded in 1900) i s older than the Tenth Street
Settlement (founded in 1903) which it absorbed in
1946.However, placing the records of the latter c h m
nologically in the middle of the farmer is awkward
at best, Placing the Tenth Street files before the
records of the larger Settlement has no inherent
l a c at all, yet it is the usual procedure. It is conve
nient and it preserve^ the separateness of the Tenth
Street r m r d s , How should the dozens of prmam
series documenting the 1920s tn 1968 be ranked?
Any ranking that, for example, placd
documenting the camp after those documenting the
Youth Division would be purely arbitrary, though
not in any senw wrong. No rule can tell. the archivist
dealing with Bailey's p a w n whether to place the
business files before the civic files,or the impolrtant
Republican Party papers before the more routine
Chamber of Commerce files. The archivist ghould
concentrate on ensuring that the individual series
are coherent and are arranged in some sensible manner.At the conclusion of the whoIe prmess, the st&
may have been through a wt of records as many as
four times-to determine an overall plan of work, to
identify groups of fdes, to sort them by series and
subseries, and to arrange the series and subseries in
relation to each other. (See Figure 7-3.3

Archivkb rearrange records either by breaking up exiating divisions between series or rearranging fdes within a seri-. As a violation of original
order, rearrangement is a controversial practice,
though we have seen that Schellenberg endorsed it
in the interest of facilitating use. Some archivists
have gone beyond the usual consensus that original
order should be r e p l a d only where it is incompre

75

hensible or purely random. They argue that while

original order documenting the activity of the organization should be retained, an order documenting
merely the activity of file clerks has no value, even
if the order is understandable and rational.'
The museum's Education Division can serve as
an example. The division might have had an sdministrative semretary who at the end of every year
merged reports, programs and other files from all
departments within the division into one annual alphabetical file. Thw, under "1959" one might find
first the Budget Summary for Adult Programs, followed by the Budgets for the other departments,
then Correspondence for Adult Programs,and then
the other departments'Compondence, and so on.
The whole file sequence would start over again for
the 1% records. In this case the original order hides
h t h provenance and activity. To resture the evidence of both, the files should be rearranged by department and then alphabetically and chronologically by file type. Thus, all the Adult Programs
Department files would be together, and w i t h that
subgroup all of the Budgeta would be together and
arranged chronologically. This type of arrangement
preserves the work of the creators of the records, not
their keepers,
Rearrangement of impeded but usable file BYE
kme should be very selective. The work is extremely
labor intensive. In addition, variant file orders can
be created on paper without physical manipulation
of the fdes. In most cases of an imperfect order, fdes
should only be r e a m & when the alternative is
obvious and the work can be done quickly. Archivists
must ensure that tihe new order of the files is based
not on serving hypothetical research needs, but on
reconstructing the activity that p m d u d the records. R e a r c h interestg are notariody subjective
and changeable. Rearranging materials to suit
either one group of individuals (such as academic
historians or genealogists)or one type of possible we
(such as quantification or legal research) is almost
guaranteed to ensure that the records will b usable
only by a small group of people or for a short epctn
of time, or both.

Arranging FiIe Units and Documents

In most cases, the ordering of fde units and
dmuments is a routine clerical activity once the 8erim and subseries have been established, The ordering of folders and b u n d volumes according to the
See @ally

Frank &lee, "Disrespecting Original Or-

der,"American Archivist 46 (Wintar 1982):2 6 3 2 .