I am interested in opinions about use of the terms 'archives' and
'manuscripts'. I have found that archive books differ in the definitions
that they give for these terms. I manage a collection comprising accessions
of architects' personal and business papers and an in-house archive. I am
constantly finding that people confuse the two, and am thinking of calling
the acquired archives 'manuscripts' whilst the in-house archive remains the
'archive'. It is the case, however, that many of the accessions are
'archives' as they form a record created and maintained by an individual or
office. Are repositories generally informal about the way they use these
terms, or is there a general consensus? Is it an unforgiveable sin to use
the term 'manuscripts' for collections with printed material, and also some
published material, such as press cuttings?
_____________________________________
Jane Collings
Curator, Manuscripts Collection
Royal Institute of British Architects
Tel: 020 7307 3615
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Manuscripts Website:
http://195.171.22.22/site1/library/bal09_02.htm
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
Royal Institute of British Architects
66 Portland Place, London, England W1N 4AD
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|