stationershall

Sikhs is spelt wrong - it is not spelt Sihks. The National Archives really should take more care if it is going to post pictures - two spelling errors in two of the pictures I have looked at so far!

It is possible the spelling has changed since 1884. The National Archives would always use the original spelling from the description of the photo that is stored in the records, not what we might think it ought to be today.

sacbob Perhaps, but it does not excuse some of the many other spelling errors and inconsistencies between descriptions and tags in this particular set.

There is NO WAY the spelling of Sikh has changed since 1884! Please change it if it is not to cause offence.

Great to see everyone scrutinising our catalogue descriptions! The text within quotation marks replicates exactly the full text of Beato's handwritten notes on each photograph. They are the sum total of the information that we have on each image and their spelling reflects Beato's and prevailing norms in the 19th century. They are part of the document in the same way as details in the photograph and it would be wrong to change them. That said, this does create problems with searching which is why I (and other users) have tagged the images with modern spellings (Sikh, Suakin not Suakim as Beato has it) to make finding these items easier.

Sikhs is spelt wrongly in the description.

This is all just wonderful stuff. I look forward to endless study and enjoyment of your archives. Thank you!!

wow, wonderful walk down history. Have to point what Danny is pointing that most pictures have Sikhs spelt wrong.

Have to point out to Danny and Ashish that Sikh has also been spelt Sik, Seik, Seekh and Seek at various times in English.

WOW this is amazing Excellent well done