1. Introduction
This study considered the relationship between archival techniques and finding aids for architectural records in the United States. Clarifying this relationship can also contribute to the establishment of archival practices in Japan. For this purpose, we first provided an overview of the project plan, which was prepared by archivist Nancy Loe as a grant proposal (Chap. 2). We then organized the component elements of finding aids, which were created according to the project outcomes (Chap. 3). Finally, we compared the outcomes with the proposal (Chap. 4).
2. Outline of Loe’s grant proposal
We reviewed a project plan for the archival processing of architect Julia Morgan’s papers and records. Nancy Loe, an archivist at California Polytechnic State University, prepared the plan as a grant proposal with five chapters for a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Loe wrote about archival techniques and finding aids in Chapter 2, Methodology and Standards. Section 2, Arrangement and Description summarized the archival techniques: Arrangement with Shepherd and Waverly Lowell’s Standard Series, Description at the folder level, and Addition of Project Index. Section 4, Finding Aids, EAD Web Sites, and MARC Records provided ways to create finding aids: EAD (Encoded Archival Description) and MARC (MAchine-Readable Cataloging).
3. Organization the component elements of finding aids
Subsequently, we organized the component elements of the finding aids for the Julia Morgan Papers, which were created according to the project outcomes for a 2005–2007 grant, in terms of arrangement and description. Focusing on the arrangement at the series level (EAD only) and the description at the collection and item level, the targets were four online repositories: the EAD web site in OAC (Online Archive of California), MARC records from WorldCat, KLOA (Kennedy Library Online Archive, California Polytechnic State University), and Calisphere.
4. Comparison and Discussion
Finally, we discussed the archival techniques and online finding aids by comparing the project outcomes with the proposal. First, OAC was compared to the Standard Series at the series level arrangement (4.1). Second, OAC was compared to the archival description standard DACS (Describing Archives: A Content Standard) in terms of description at the collection and the series levels and of the container list (4.2). Third, we compared OAC and WorldCat in the collection-level description, and KLOA and Calisphere in the item-level description (4.3). Finally, the characteristics of archival techniques and the interrelationship between all finding aids were discussed (4.4).
5. Conclusion
In this study, we examined the relationship between archival techniques and finding aids for architectural records referring to Loe’s grant proposal and the project outcomes. The results clarified the following points regarding finding aids: (1) a finding aid is composed of modules such as a container list, an index, and an inventory; and (2) a finding aid could be prepared in multiple ways. Furthermore, this study indicated the following characteristics of archival techniques as procedures for composing finding aids: (i) an inventory is made by an arrangement at the series level of multilevel finding aids with the Standard Series representing the creator’s functions and activities; (ii) a container list and a project index are made by descriptions of multilevel finding aids mainly at the folder level and partly at the item level; and (iii) Not only multi-level finding aids by EAD but also single-level finding aids by MARC are made to enhance access. This study was limited to case studies; in the future, I would like to adapt archival techniques utilized in the United States to the practice of archival processing in Japan.
