victorians

Showing is spelt wrongly! Sudanese is spelt in an unusual way! Tag says Suakin - description says Suakim - which is correct?

Shew is an archaic spelling of show and is probably how the original description was written.

The obsessive comments about spelling are tedious. I've known many photographers for whom spelling was - shall we say - not the number one priority. And "shewing" is, in any case, not mis-spelt, as a knowledge of Victorian literature would shew.

But what I actually wanted to say before being irritated by a previous comment is how wonderful it is to see these old photos. The light they show on architecture and the life of those days is fascinating. Anyway, the real problem with this photo is not the spelling, it is that Beato didn't bother to level his camera properly!

Paul You are easily irritated! It seems to me a reasonable expectation that the National Archives would make the effort to maximise accessibility of these pictures with correct labelling and tagging. If you could be bothered to look at my other comments, you will see what I mean.

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.

What a fantastic Site to explore, Top Notch !! well put together and the visual history great way to learn. Thank You !!!

Commissariat is spelt incorrectly, it has two m's.

I recognise from other comments here that some of the spellings are using archaic forms and are taken from the original descriptions - but it raises an interesting debate about accessibility. If people want to find the material, here or in any archive, are they going to be able to do so if archaic or incorrect spellings were used and the modern equivalent is not also provided for search / reference purposes?

Ah. This one is an error. That is Beato's spelling but my intention was that image titles and tags would use modern spelling to help with searching. Oh well. Easily fixed.

it's really great to know Danny is checking all your spelling, isn't it!