Maria Trojanowska, Wydawnictwa efemeryczne w archiwach - problemy gromadzenia i opracowania. Artykuł dyskusyjny, w: Archeion, t. 105, wyd. NDAP, Warszawa 2003, ss. 101-135  

"Maria T r o j a n o w s k a, Ephemera in the archives — the issues of collecting and elaborating.

Discussion. In preliminary remarks, the author presents the centres dealing with collecting publications

which in libraries are usually placed in „documents of civil life” sections, while in archives – included

into the collections of posters, affiches and ephemera. Attention is drawn to the selection of those

publications made by libraries despite of a promoted approach that all of them should be gathered as the

illustration of social life at a given time, in a specific social, political and cultural situation. While Polish

legal provisions clearly make space for those printed materials in libraries, as far as archives are

concerned, neither the existing act on archives, nor internal regulations and chancellery standards make

an explicit reference to that type of documents.

Considering the issue of gathering the ephemera by archives, the author examines the methods and

the scope of gathering in the present practice of state archives and makes some indications for the future.

The own initiative of workers of archives seems to be a prevailing method of acquiring new material, and

to a much lesser degree, the initiative of publishers or owners. It is symptomatic, that as far as the

territorial scope of ephemera collections is concerned, they are not the subject of the territorial pertinence

principle adopted in the archives, although local and regional publications prevail. They are also

significantly varied in respect to subject-matter, and it would be difficult to indicate uniform criteria

applied by archives regarding the selection of such publications. However, the prevailing number of

prints of political contents, particularly regarding election campaigns, connected with the activity of

political parties and groups, or significant historical events on a national (e.g. the Solidarity movement) or

regional scale is easy to notice. Other materials usually collected include theatre bills, often separated into

independent collections, prints referring to economic or social issues. In view of the observed freedom in

the current practice, the author postulates to apply in the future – due to a dramatic growth of this type of

publications – the general archive materials collection standards to respect to this category. Firstly, the

territorial provenance standard: the taking over of ephemera exclusively from the territory subordinated

to the competence of the archives. Simultaneously, the fond affiliation principle should be followed –

those materials should be collected, first of all, which complement the records already taken over or

produced by subordinated organizational units the materials of which will be transferred to the archives in

the future. As regards extra-fond prints – the gathering should be continued of prints related to elections

to central or local authorities from various election committees, as well as those that document events of

historical significance for the region (micro-scale).

Another extensive subject is the elaboration of ephemera in the archives. This includes the issue of

segregation aimed at the separation of collective prints (if not doubled), as the principle of respecting the

entirety of an archival fond should be absolutely observed. The creation of collections separated, for

example, according to the chronological (e.g. ephemera from the period of the Nazi occupation) or

subject criterion (e.g. theatre related materials) may also be considered as a specific type of segregation.

Another important stage of archival elaboration is the systematization (classification), consisting in

the achievement of the most transparent, functional arrangement of units within a given collection. It is

about the choice of the decisive systematization criterion: the publisher (issuer) of the print, its contents,

form, or chronology of origin. In the author’s opinion, the only criterion which meets the expectations of

potential users is the contents of ephemeral publications. This criterion may be applied in respect to

various types of collections of prints, with a system of inter-departmental references or those on lower

levels of subject-related divisions (groups, sub-groups, entries) being an additional element facilitating

the search.

Prior to the presentation of an exemplary arrangement scheme of ephemera within a collection, the

author makes an attempt to bring order to the terminology in respect to defining and determining the

names of these materials, usually followed quite freely. Based on the available lexicographic publications

and other studies, the author proposes to introduce the following basic terms referring to ephemera, both

in traditional finding aids and in databases: affiche, poster, leaflet, brochure, press.

Another issues discussed is the inventorying. In this context, the author considers the concept of an

archival unit and an inventory unit, not always synonymous. An archival unit is each physically separate

print. In archives which decided to follow the individual inventorying of each print, it is at the same time

an inventory unit with its own reference number. In cases, however, where the subject is considered as the

archival unit (in some archives and in many libraries), an inventory unit may include many prints

(archival units). The author advocates the inventorying of unit prints, and not collectively, within the

scope of subjects (referring marginally to the issue of doubles).

A similarly non-uniform practice may also be observed in respect to reference numbers of prints:

next to sequential reference numbers of numerus currens type for entire collections inventoried on

a unit basis, sequential numbering is also used for subjects, i.e. collective inventory units, or within

subject groups or groups separated according to other criteria, in which individual prints are numbered

from 1 to x. However, in the last two cases, the reference number of a unit has a multi-segmental form

(with repeated symbols of groups of higher levels and a sequence number of the print). The author lists

the advantages and disadvantages of both the above mentioned versions of reference numbers and

suggests one more possibility: the introduction of a sequential reference number as an identification mark

of each archival unit, increasing with the inflow of prints, which would then be directed to proper subject

groups, not taking over, however, any possible symbols introduced to identify those groups. Thus, units

grouped on a subject basis would have only a numerical reference number, not necessarily with numbers

in sequence. This solution seems particularly useful in the course of inventorying in computer databases.

Referring to various names of findings aids used in the archives to elaborate the ephemera, the author

provides characteristics of a catalogue and an inventory stressing that both terms can be properly used

although these aids differ, which is particularly clear in respect to the reference number of a unit: in an

inventory, a subsequent number of an inventory item constitutes at the same time a reference number,

while in a catalogue such a number, if introduced, refers only to the position of an item within the

catalogue, while its reference number is entirely different, mostly placed as the last element of the

description of that item. The author presents the view that a card inventory made on standard NDAP-3

cards (fields 1–9) filled in for every first copy of the print should be the basic traditional finding aid for

ephemeral publications.

Next, the author makes a thorough analysis of subsequent elements of inventory description of prints

with the objective to make it uniform in terms of contents, form and external description. It is suggested

that the following data should be included in the standard description (with reference to subsequent fields

of an inventory card): name or registration number of the archives, name of the fond or collection, as well

as of the department, group, sub-group; reference number; title, i.e. graphically distinguished part of the

text; incipit – concise, initial part of the text allowing to identify printed materials; regest (summary), and

in the case of posters, word-for-word quoting of the text; name of the author of the presentation (issuer,

principal) – an office or an institution, or a full name of an individual author with his function specified;

year (possibly a detailed date) and the place of presentation; name and location of a printing house; size;

number of sheets; material used, if other than paper; manufacturing technique, if other than print;

language, if other than Polish; number of copies, if more than one; state of preservation; specific type

(poster, affiche, etc.); author (for posters); colour of paper, if other than white, and print, if other than

black; mono- or multicoloured decorative elements, e.g. bordure, vignette, imprint; reference to the fond

(collection) where the same copy is kept; former reference numbers; bibliographic description of

a publication containing a reproduction of an archived item or its copy (summary), reference to other

archives (libraries) preserving the same print, reference to another department, group, sub-group linked

by subject; possible other remarks, e.g. those on provenience.

Another aid that – according to the author – could be introduced in the archives is the card catalogue

of ephemeral publications, based on the same standard card. The most important element here would be

the corporate entry (e.g. 3rd May Constitution) with reference numbers provided of all units related to that

entry. The author provides samples of filled in inventory and catalogue cards.

The necessity to develop the following indexes is underlined and their scope suggested: subject index.

(in principle it may be a substitute of the catalogue discussed above), geographic and personal indexes.

To conclude, the author makes a brief reference to the AFISZ database pointing out that the internal

structure of a collection, so important for traditional elaboration and searching, is of secondary

importance in the event of a database inventory since developed search engines and properly constructed

so-called identification reference numbers (archives number/fond number/item reference number/page)

make it possible to retrieve any printed material within archives, fonds and collections, which is an

unquestionable advantage of a database. The author is also aware of its drawbacks and makes some

suggestions to correct them."

 

 

 

 

 

Źródło: Archeion, t. 105