Provenance

Provenance and Naming the Record Group.

The principle of provenance (often referred to as respect de fonds) is fundamental to the arrangement and description of archives. Along with the preservation of original order, it allows us to preserve the context within which the archives we are working with were created and used.

Unlike books, archives do not simply convey information through the text they embody. They are also a record of the activity of those who created them. Their great value to research and law is that they are almost always an “unconscious” record of that activity. By retaining original order and observing the principle of provenance, we preserve the integrity and evidential value of the archive.

If the contents of… records are intrinsically bound up with the life of the individual or the functions of the organization from which they emanated, and cannot be fully understood apart from them, it follows that those records must be retained as a body. This is a clear and straightforward principle that in turn dictates the nature of the documentation that the archivist must assemble, and the manner in which it is presented to the user. Who was the person who created or assembled these things? What was the nature of the organization that created these documents? What was the governmental function or life activity that produced these materials? Respect des fonds/Provenance provides the cultural context in which the records become intelligible. It also serves as the basis for authenticating and assuring the reliability of the contents of the records. (Introduction to Archival Organisation and Description - Getty Information Institute)

A body of archives which share the same provenance is referred to as a record group. The record group (also known as a ‘fonds’, particularly among European and Canadian archivists) has been defined as:

The whole of the documents, regardless of form or medium, organically created and/or accumulated and used by a particular person, family, or corporate body in the conduct of personal or corporate activity.

The record group or 'fonds' is the basic unit of description used in NRAM.

It is helpful to think of provenance as the origin of an archival collection. It encompasses not only the creator of the records, but also subsequent users of the records (prior to their deposit in an archival repository). In identifying provenance you are effectively tracing the history of the records from creation through to designation as archives.

Identifying the provenance and naming the record group, can be a very simple process or extremely complex. Records and papers often move from one organisation or individual to another. Many different people and agencies may "stamp their mark" on records or papers before they come to rest in an archival repository. Collections of multiple provenance are far from uncommon.

Consider the following examples:

Example One. Single Provenance

The secretary of the local Probus Club donates the minutes, correspondence and master set of newsletters to your archive.

In a situation such as this, the collection has been created, used and donated by only one organisation: the Probus Club. The principle of provenance dictates that this record group will receive the name "Probus Club". Subsequent acquisitions of official records of the same branch of the Probus Club will be added to this record group.

Example Two. Multiple Provenance

Your archive receives a collection from John Smith several months after the death of his father Wilfred Smith. Wilfred had a fascination with the past and had built up a substantial private collection. This collection is now being passed to your archive. It contains:

nineteenth and early twentieth century photographs of New Zealand obtained from unknown sources,
Admission Registers and inspectors reports (1887-1917) of a local school
A log book from what appears to be a local pound (1885-1993)
various Smith family papers, amongst them a substantial collection of diaries kept by Mary Jane Smith (1854-1888), letters from the same period addressed to Mary Jane, letters from Edward Smith written to his parents Elizabeth (nee Jones) and Robert during World War One, and letters from various members of the Brown family to William Jones (1862-1878) (presumably a relation of Elizabeth's).

In a situation like this the provenance of the collection is much more complex. Your first challenge is to understand it. Think about it in terms of tracing the history of the collection. It probably started in two quite separate and unrelated places: one set of records were being created/accumulated by Mary Jane Smith while another set was being accumulated by William Jones. Mary Jane's records stayed in the Smith family after her death and eventually became the property of Robert Smith who married Elizabeth Jones. William Jones turns out to be Elizabeth's grandfather. She took custody of his papers after the death of her father. In the meantime their son Edward had seen active service and written about ten letters to his parents, all of which they had kept.

As children Robert and Edward had both attended the local school as had a number of siblings - there are many Smith names in the Admission Registers. However, there is no evidence that they had any other connection with the school. How the Registers came to be a part of this collection is uncertain, but it appears likely that Wilfred (Edward's son) had picked them up as part of his collecting activities. The pound logbook also appears to have no connection with the Smith family other than as a collector's item.

Then there are all the photographs. Some are clearly from the Smith and Jones families. However, others are not (some of these, but not all, have notes on the back saying who gave the photograph to Wilfred. It appears that family photographs and photographs collected from other sources have all been jumbled in together.

So what's significant in a confused picture like this and how do you deal with it? The general practice is to assign the record group name to the most recent user/creator of the archives. John donated the collection to you. However, he does not appear to have played any role in creating the collection. It was his father Wilfred who brought the collection together in its current form. The collection as a whole is best described under Wilfred‘s name. However, other aspects of provenance are also very significant. The pound book will be an official record of the local council. Its presence should be made very clear in the description and name entry fields (you may even want to pass it on to the Council if they have an archive - in which case you should keep a very clear record of its former presence in the Wilfred Smith Collection). The School Records should be treated in a similar way. You must bear in mind that each of these items is significant to two record groups: Wilfred Smith and the School/Council. In other words they have a meaningful place in both contexts and it should be clear to researchers that this is the case.

The photographs should be dealt with as an artificially compiled collection. After all, this is what they were to Wilfred, the last creator and user of the collection. Any other information you can discern about their provenance can be recorded in the description.

In cases of multiple provenance, the name of the record group should be that of the most recent creator/user of the collection (unless that person or organisation has done nothing but store the records).