During the 18th century, the archive and registry of the Lippe government, which had been in one hand for centuries, were so confused that it was necessary to remedy the situation in order to rationalise the administrative work. A more precise definition and delimitation of the terms "registry" and "archive" can be omited here, especially since it had long since been carried out and oriented itself to the terms "current" and "legally effective". The attempt of 1749 to achieve a continuous order of the registry by means of a repertory alphabeticum was not particularly successful, for already in 1771 the walking secretary Clausing complained that the old order was completely obsolete by handing it over to the archive (with the appointment of the Archivrat Knoch the reorganization of the Lippic archive was initiated) and by omitting all supplements, and that the registry was practically without order (D 79 [Alte Findbücher] No. 193 Einleitung). Clausing now handed over a large part of the older files to the archive and tried to place the currents in an order schema that was based on things and storage possibilities. In his systematic structuring, Clausing referred to Pütter's model, which he gives in his Guide to Legal Practice (Pütter, Anleitung zur juristischen Praxis 1. Teil § 479 ff S. 278 ff). The order in 181 compartments was adapted to the external conditions of the registry room. This order layer is noticeable in the present inventory in some files dating back to the 40s of the 18th century, on which the old specialist signatures are also noted. External circumstances - the relocation of the government registration office - and insufficient systematic sharpness made a complete reorganization necessary in 1813. The Registrator Scherf - later Legation Councillor in Frankfurt - suggested in this year to make a new division. In the sense of his time, it was still very important to him that the storage and signature corresponded. In his proposals to Princess Pauline zur Lippe he also mentions that from the registration layer of 1771 a part of the files had already been returned to the archive, but a much larger part lay around unlisted. In addition to the reintroduction of file stitching and the purchase of file covers, Scherf's concern is the new system, which he also succeeds in applying to his part of the government registry. For already half a year later he reports on the first success of his work and presents the first two repertories (D 79 [Alte Findbücher] Nr. 194 und 5). They contained the following groups, Part One: I. Offices and Cities Subject 1-77 II. Authorities, commissions and cashiers Fach 78 - 103 III. Appendix Fach 104 - 108 The 2nd part contained in the subjects 109 - 231 beside the landscape matters mainly general police matters, but also foreign affairs and customs as well as tax matters. In addition to the new system, Scherf had faced the problem of finally separating the registry from the law firm's registry and of respecting the special registries of the feudal registry (now inventory L 6) and military cases (L 77 C ), as well as those of the fire police and road-building cases, as these had been handled by other registrars. Scherfs' goal, but also that of his successor Ulrich, was the introduction of a central registry, which was only partially enforceable. In terms of systematics, Scherf followed the order of his predecessor Clausing. He stressed that in the police administration he had separated the individual items more sharply, but often the storage was more important to him than the system. He had intended, but not achieved, to set up his own foreign policy department. His internal structure of the individual subjects is still recognizable despite all the supplements: the General Acts are followed by the Special Acts. The recording of the government military registry, which remained separate, was begun by Scherf in 1815 and completed in 1825 (D 79 [Alte Findbücher] No. 4). Scherf's successor Ulrich, who supervised the registry for decades, produced the third "Supplement" subvolume of the government registry until 1822, in which he summarized the previously separate registries of the fire police and the road construction and troop catering items (D 79 [Alte Findbücher] Nr. 6). In the case of this conglomerate, it is no longer possible to speak of an overall system in the registry. While part 1 still shows a system, part 2 is already a sequence of groups - completely disjointed a subarea: foreign -, part 3 is now only a supplement of remaining groups. In addition Ulrich made repertories of the printed matter (D 79 [Alte Findbücher] No. 33) as well as of the cracks and maps (cf. L 77 A No. 1542). The following decades in the development of the government registry are characterized by continuation, expansion and thus space shortage and cassation problems. From 1832 onwards, the number of applications from the registry to the government to collect files increased. In most cases, the opinion of the departmental councils is obtained before consent to the cassation is given. First invoice documents, forms and manual files are destroyed, but then more and more individual files. 1842 is the first time again of a delivery to the archive the speech (Abschoßsachen). But occasionally there are also rejections of a cassation: in 1846 the government considers the military reports from 1807-1816 "still of interest" (L 77 A No. 1567). Then, in 1849, larger cassations are made, which one can understand today at least by the title of the file, e.g. in the case of some files a ban on talking about political objects, 1812, one thinks a little differently today. For the first time, however, the expert opinion of the archive on the cassation proposals of the registrar Ulrich is also requested. Falkmann's principles on cassation, which will remain decisive for the following decades, are based on the "practical value" of the files. In Falkmann's view, the files that had to be preserved were those that dealt with general and lasting legal relationships. Those that related to special incidents and personalities could be destroyed (ibid. 1849 June 14). At first it was not the archivist but Oberregierungsrat v. Meien who spoke of the historical value of the files, when for this reason he rejected the destruction of the special reports of the Legationsrat v. Scherf from Frankfurt. Around this time, more and more printed matter was handed over to the library and files were handed over to the Land Cadastral Commission and the lending bank. The registry dispute with the registry of the newly formed Cabinet Ministry proceeded without much difficulty, as the government files initially used in the Ministry were either returned or continued, so that they became a genuine part of the new registry. The loss of importance of the acts of government after 1853 is not as significant as it would be if a central authority were formed. The actual administrative work was carried out at the level of the government. Only in a few areas did the Cabinet Minister have exclusive competence. After 1850, individual cassations became rarer. 1856 the files are handed over to the archive because of Lippstadt and Schaumburg-Lippe. Here Falkmann has now also recognized the presumptive historical interest as decisive for the permanent preservation of the individual files (L 79 I 20 No. 4 [now L 79 No. 40]). The government registry in its older parts became more and more ready for archiving, but it was not until 1894 that the registry produced a list of the historically valuable files. On 06.11.1899 Archivrat Kiewning then took over the reduced government files of the first 279 subjects, as it was said, only the files until 1830, into the princely Haus- und Landesarchiv. The files were "repertorized" by Kiewning in the following two years and in 1901 the government was informed of the completion of the indexing - the completion of two extensive repertories - (these handwritten finding aids of Kiewning are preserved, now D 79 [Old finding aids] No. 1 and 2). On 21.10.1901 the reduced files of the remaining subjects followed, which Kiewning recorded until 1904 (D 79 [Old finding aids] No. 3). The rest of these reduced files of the government registration of 1813 must have reached the archives in 1911/1912 (cf. D 29 J, special annual report 1912) and in the following years they were combined with the older levies in terms of storage and records. They were made available for use in the three typewritten repertory volumes. The treatment of the present stock or better the present registry layer in the archive is characterized by as little change as possible in the pre-archival order. In 1900-1904 Kiewning recorded the files which had been handed over to him in the preserved registry order by leaving the old order schema unchanged, not changing the signatures, changing the file titles only slightly - there were largely no formulations such as "Acta concerning" - and completing the running times. Larger cassations were also no longer carried out. The amount of work, apart from the handwritten work, was therefore very low. The stock contains a problem that Kiewning should already have noticed, which often caused trouble for later users of the stock and still leads to considerations now. This is the problem of the temporal delimitation of the stock both before 1813 and in relation to the new registry layer formed in 1919-1912. The historical development of the registry makes it clear that in 1813 a large number of files from the repertory of 1771 were still in existence (often dating back to 1749, the date of the predecessor mentioned), which had to be taken over for both factual and traditional reasons and were only partially continued. However, a large part of the files from the period 1771-1812 reached the archive, but only a very small part of them was integrated into the Bone archive system and is therefore hardly accessible to this day. It has therefore been considered to remove all files completed before 1813 from the inventory L 77, to incorporate them into the bones "Pertinence" inventories and then to make them more accessible. Apart from the large amount of work involved, however, the fact that the Bone holdings do not require a file management system, as is usually the case in the preserved files, speaks against this puristic separation of the registry layers, which had to lead to the fact that grown file connections had to be dissolved. Conversely, an integration of the files from the period 1771-1812, as far as they have not yet been incorporated by Knoch or his successors, would be conceivable. It would probably be important, however, that also the bones stocks would be newly registered and developed, then the factual questions can be answered more easily, even if the transitions between the registry layers are still fluid. Similarly annoying is the demarcation of the inventory from the younger strata of the government registry. The reorganisation of the registry in 1910/1912 probably set the time around 1878 as the average year, but overlaps in both registry layers are self-evident and unavoidable. A remedy of this grievance can only be achieved by a repertory unification of all strata of the government registry since 1813, a long-term goal that must be kept in mind when redrawing all government holdings (L 77, L 79 and L 80). The new indexing was carried out according to the usual rules for the recording of titles, whereby, in contrast to the time around the turn of the century, numerous changes to the file titles were now necessary. Either the old registry titles did not correspond to the content or they were incomprehensible or used a stronger concretization. There have also been occasional changes in terms of maturities, as transcripts of older transactions have either been newly recorded or marked as such, shortening the often very distant maturities of files. A similar procedure was followed for the clarification of subsequent files, so that some overlaps between the registry layers only proved to be fictitious. It was not possible to increase the number of files opened up, especially for personnel-related collective files. Such a work must be reserved for special directories, just as the old directories "property sales" still have their validity and make a better use of these series possible. With the reclassification, the basic concept of the first two parts of Scherfs' systematics was retained, but the third part, which was not in the central registry in 1813 for organisational reasons only, had to finally be included in the systematics. It would have been desirable to include the military registry as well, but since the own inventory signature exerts a constraint, the interlocking with the military supply files (Section F [VERA classification: 6.]) can only take place once all government files have been listed. The files of the Lehnkammer (L 6), which was also separate in 1813, will hardly ever be included in a complete index, since they do not know the registry layers of 1813/1878/1912. Despite all adversities, an attempt was made to find a system adapted to the holdings - the registry layer - without anticipating the complete index of all government files from 1813-1947, as this will probably have to be based on the structure of the most recent holdings. Detmold, 1976 signed Sagebiel] The inventory L 77 A was indexed in the years 1974-1976 by the Director of the State Archives Dr. Martin D. Sagebiel, 2009 the retroconversion of the typewritten finding aid by an external service provider and 2011 the import to VERA. During the final check of the VERA finding aid some inconsistencies were corrected (especially spelling mistakes, which apparently led to the assignment of double signatures, occasionally wrong runtimes). Notes, which previously stood between the units of description in the current finding aid text, can now be found as "Remarks" under the heading of the respective classification point. The references to other items ("see also E.4.d") have been adapted to the VERA classification ("5.4.4."). The old finding aids still used until 1979/80 are classified in the inventory D 79 Old finding aids as no. 437-439. Detmold, signed in April 2011. Arno Schwinger In this continuance is one of the densest traditions of the migrant work worldwide, in particular the Lipischen Ziegler. The International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam (IISG) has been researching this form of labour migration for many years. Now the research results of Prof. Dr. Jan Lucassen and Piet Lourens as well as digiatlized archival records from this stock, especially the brick messenger list, as well as references to the sources of L 77 A, L 79 and the civil status documents relevant for bricklayer research are presented in an internet portal: International Institute for Social History . There also individual Ziegler can be determined in a data base.
