Documentary culture in Aberdeen
By the later middle ages, written records were in regular use in Aberdeen. In the common books, there is evidence of the burgh administration archiving documents going back hundreds of years.
Written on the front and back of a folded page in the part of volume seven dated to 1492 is an inventory of the town’s muniments, including charters from William I, Robert I, James III and other kings, at least some of which still survive in the city’s collections.38 As well as holding royal documents confirming burgh privileges, the burgh administration created and kept records of its own. It employed town clerks. The common books offer by far the most substantial extant evidence of these clerks’ work, but the burgh administration was represented by other forms of writing, from letters to account books, written by town clerks and others.39Records were also created and kept in the burgh beyond the confines of the burgh administration. Such were the accumulations of written material by some residents of Aberdeen that they appear to have assembled substantial personal archives of documents recording their rights. An entry from Aberdeen in 1465 refers to certain charters of John of Mar and his nephew which were �tane away fra him vnwittandely’. When he openly asked about them in the kirk, this led to John Blinseile coming forward to admit that he had the charters and to explain how they had come into his possession.40 There is also evidence of individuals within the town creating their own records. One Andrew Winton was asked in 1492 to provide evidence from his own �cownt buk’ (account book) to show how much he was owed by Mathew Toschow.41
Evidence from within the common books illustrates how they interacted with the wider documentary culture of the town as well as the world beyond its boundaries.
One such interaction was the appearance of other documents copied into the books. These include incoming documents, such as letters from the king, and outgoing documents, such as a written assurance given to French merchants by the burgh authorities in 1495.42 These are distinct from written acts entered directly into the books rather than as copies. For instance, a record of an agreement between an Aberdeen burgess and a merchant of Lille made in 1463 refers to its own writing, noting that the agreement was �ackyt in the commone buke of Aberdeen with the common clerkis hande’ and �signyt with his signe manuale’, which appears below it.43The bulk of what was written in the common books consisted of the ongoing records of burgh administration rather than copies or original acts and, leaving aside the probability that such records were copied from notes or drafts, they were written up especially for these books. Nevertheless, the books often referred to other written records brought forward in the court and incorporated information from these other records. An entry from October 1488 outlines complex proceedings concerning the rights of land in the burgh disputed by Will Moir and his nephew John Moir. The entry contains frequent references to other documents and the actions performed with them. It notes that Sir John Rutherfurd, acting as procurator to John Moir, �producit’ an instrument of procuratory and an instrument of sasine breaking, and that these instruments were �opinly rede’. The court then asked for the �richtis’ of both parties. Rutherfurd produced those for the nephew, but the uncle disobeyed and left the court. It was decided that Rutherfurd was thus to remain in control of the lands in the name of John Moir until more �richtis’, presumably those asked of Will Moir, were shown to the court.44 This entry illustrates the density of other written documentation that often lay behind the information recorded in the common books.
Of course, �richtis’ and �evidencis’ called upon in court proceedings recorded in the common books could be from earlier records in the books themselves. The record of a legal action from February 1471 stipulated that the judgement depended on earlier evidence from the registers. To resolve a dispute over a barrel of salmon and some hides between William Vokat and William Anderson, Vokat was asked to show an act to support his case from the common book and, if he could, William Anderson would have to fulfil his obligation as stated in the act.45 If he could not find such an act it would be judged that Anderson had already fulfilled his obligations. Another entry, from April 1498, makes reference to an earlier record in the books. It notes that William Anderson – possibly the same person as in the previous example – had been paid by Thomas Raneir on behalf of his brother John Anderson and states that the payment was made in accordance with a record of the debt �contenit in this book’.46 A search of the books appears to reveal the earlier entry to which the 1498 entry referred, which occurred three and a half years earlier in September 1494.47 Searches of the records could be more extensive than this. In a dispute over fishings in Aberdeen in 1504 an attempt was made to find a jury (in Scots called an assize) that both parties agreed was impartial. This effort was unsuccessful and the record states that the case was then delayed for eight days �quhile the ald bukis be secht for the declaracioun of the verite’.48
These examples show how deeply networked the information in the common books was, and how they formed part of an expanding use of records in the burgh as a whole, at least for those wealthy, influential or – in records such as those recording punishments or fines – unfortunate enough to have business that needed recording. As well as increasing the volume of written documentation produced and kept in Aberdeen, the registers supplied context which linked other documents to each other as well as with original information in the register. Moreover, different records within the register linked to each other across days, weeks, months and even years. The books, then, acted like a switchboard in a wider network of written records, and perhaps emphasised the value of making and keeping written records to town dwellers and others who came into contact with the burgh administration. More directly, it gave those who controlled the burgh’s administration an increasingly useful tool with which to navigate knowledge about power and property in the burgh’s past and present, knowledge which they could employ to inform and justify their decisions.