The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory - Allen Press

328 American Archivist / Vol. 57 / Spring 1994

Research Article

The Concept of Appraisal andArchival TheoryLUCIANA DURANTI

Abstract: In the last decade, appraisal has become one of the central topics of archivalliterature. However, the approach to appraisal issues has been primarily methodologicaland practical. This article discusses the theoretical implications of appraisal as attributionof value to archives, and it bases its argument on the nature of archival material as definedby traditional archival theory.

About the author: Luciana Duranti is associate professor in the Master of Archival Studies Pro-gram, School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies, at the University of British Columbia.Before leaving Italy for Canada in 1987, she was professor-researcher in the Special School forArchivists and Librarians at the University of Rome. She obtained that position in 1982, after havingheld archival and teaching posts in the State Archives of Rome and its School, and in the NationalResearch Council. She earned a doctorate in arts from the University of Rome (1973) and graduatedegrees in archival science and diplomatics and paleography from the University of Rome (1975)and the School of the State Archives of Rome (1979) respectively.

Dow

nloaded from http://m

eridian.allenpress.com/am

erican-archivist/article-pdf/57/2/328/2748653/aarc_57_2_pu548273j5j1p816.pdf by guest on 30 May 2022

The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory 329

Appraisal is the process of establishing thevalue of documents made or received in thecourse of the conduct of affairs, qualifyingthat value, and determining its duration.The primary objective of appraisal is toidentify the documents to be continuouslypreserved for an unlimited period of time.The identification may target either docu-ments within an archives (i.e., the whole ofthe documents made or received by oneperson or organization while carrying outits activities), or archives among archives.In the former case, we have appraisal forselection. In the latter case, we have ap-praisal for acquisition.

Because the ultimate goal of appraisal isto add to the holdings of an archival insti-tution or program, it might be said that ap-praisal, whether conducted within anarchives or among archives, is one of themeans for accomplishing the archival func-tion of acquisition, and the present archivaldiscourse might be directed toward theconcept of acquisition in archival theory.However, this would circumvent the fun-damental issue that needs to be explored:the theoretical validity of the concept ofappraisal within archival science.

It is evident from the archival literatureof the last decade that appraisal has grad-ually grown in the mind of many archivalwriters from being a means to an end tobeing the core of all archival endeavors.'However, this development has not been

•It would be too long to cite here all the writingsof the last decade that have focused on appraisal. Fora substantial bibliography and a critical discussion ofboth European and North American works, see RickKlumpenhouwer, "Value Concepts in Archival Sci-ence," unpublished Master of Archival Studies thesis,University of British Columbia, 1988; Jane Turner,"A Study of the Theory of Appraisal for Selection,"unpublished Master of Archival Studies thesis, Uni-versity of British Columbia, 1992; Terry Cook,"Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Ar-chival Appraisal," in The Archival Imagination. Es-says in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor, edited by BarbaraL. Craig (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists,1992), 60-69. Also, the issues of Archivaria 33 (Win-ter 1991-92) and 34 (Summer 1992) contain a largenumber of articles on appraisal.

preceded by an exploration of the conceptof appraisal in the context of archival the-ory, but only by a continuous reiteration ofits necessary centrality to archival work inmodern times, as if the repetition of a state-ment made it true and the necessity of anactivity made it legitimate. And it has tobe emphasized that the activity in questionis attribution of value to archival material,not selection or acquisition of archival ma-terial.

Beginning with Friedrich Meinecke atthe turn of the century in Germany, PhillipBrooks in the 1940s in the United States,the Grigg Committee in the 1950s in Eng-land, and Terry Cook in the 1990s in Can-ada, an ever-growing body of archivalliterature has wrestled with the identifica-tion of taxonomies of values and the for-mulation of methods for attributing them.2

This body of literature has also contributeda number of ideas that, in all those coun-tries, have become characteristically asso-ciated with the concept of appraisal: thatappraisal must be impartial (not partial toany type of user), objective (not influencedby the personal outlook and interests of theindividual carrying it out), and professional

2See Hans Booms, "Society and the Formation ofa Documentary Heritage: Issues in the Appraisal ofArchival Sources," Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987):84; Phillip C. Brooks, "The Selection of Records forPreservation," American Archivist (1940): 221-34;United Kingdom, Committee on Departmental Re-cords, Report, by Sir James Grigg, Chair, Cmnd. 8531(London: HMSO, 1954); Terry Cook, The ArchivalAppraisal of Records Containing Personal Informa-tion: A RAMP Study with Guidelines (Paris:UNESCO, 1991). The reason only four countries arementioned here is that no other Western country's ar-chival literature has dealt specifically with appraisal,for conceptual reasons that will be discussed later inthis article. Australia should be singled out from thissilent group however, because its absence from thebody of literature on appraisal is based not on theo-retical conceptions but on the adoption of the methodsarticulated in the American literature. The volumeKeeping Data: Papers from a Workshop on Apprais-ing Computer-Based Records, edited by Barbara Reedand David Roberts (Sydney: Australian Council ofArchives, 1991), is a notable exception, also becauseit represents an attempt to question the American wayand to revisit traditional British ideas.

Dow




330 American Archivist / Spring 1994

(the ultimate responsibility for it must bethe archivist's); it must be based on knowl-edge derived from analysis; and it must beaimed at providing the complete picture ofsociety.3 However, on the one hand, theproliferation of writings in the countriesmentioned above has as a counterpart aquasi-complete silence on the subject in allthe other Western countries, and, on theother hand, the feverish discussion that hasanimated the archival literature in NorthAmerica, Germany, and England seems tohave suddenly reached an impasse. In thelatter case, the values have been denned,the methods for attributing them have beenarticulated in a number of different ways,contrasts between opposite approaches(provenance versus pertinence, top-downversus bottom up4) have repeatedly beendemonstrated and compromises attempted,and in some places institutional implemen-tations are on their way, while in others lifegoes on as usual. All that could be saidseems to have been said, and the ideas for-mulated seem unable to produce new ideasor to regenerate themselves. The proverbialdust is starting to settle on the appraisalquestion, leaving archival science practi-cally unchanged.

When it happened, the rising of appraisalto stardom on the archival scene seemed to

be the real "paradigm shift" in archivalscience, a development that was going toleave behind for good the old world of ar-chives and all those who remained associ-ated with it. Has this paradigm shiftreached a dead end, and showed itself tobe just a "historical shunt"?5 In otherwords, should appraisal be made an inte-gral and necessary component of archivalscience and, as such, determine a revisionof all its accepted methods and practices?The answer to this question depends on theanswer to another more fundamental ques-tion: What is the relationship between theconcept of appraisal as attribution of valueand archival theory?

The Foundation of Archival Theory

Archival theory is the whole of the ideasabout what archival material is, whereas ar-chival methodology is the whole of theideas about how to treat it. Archival prac-tice is the use that archivists make of boththeoretical and methodological ideas intheir work.6 As mentioned earlier, appraisalhas been examined within archival scienceat the methodological and practical levels.To examine the concept at the theoreticallevel, it is necessary to confront it with theideas about the nature of archival material

'From a study of the appraisal literature, it is easyto identify impartiality and objectivity as the Englishcontribution to the general discourse, professionalismand analysis as the American contribution, and thecompleteness of the outcome as the German contri-bution. However, it has to be emphasized that allthese ideas have come to be commonly accepted bythe archival profession, which has questioned themvery rarely and never directly.

•"The provenance approach bases appraisal on theanalysis of the administrative and documentary con-text of the archival material in question, while thepertinence approach bases appraisal on the total socialand cultural context of that material. For a brief ex-planation of the two approaches, see Luciana Duranti,"ACA 1991 Conference Overview," ACA Bulletin 15(July 1991): 24. The top-down approach is discussedin Cook, "Mind over Matter," 52-57; the top-down/bottom-up relationship is discussed in Heather Mac-Neil, "Weaving Provenancial and DocumentaryRelations," Archivaria 34 (Summer 1992): 197.

3The expressions paradigm shift and historicalshunt were used by Hugh Taylor to refer respectivelyto the transformation of culture, records, users, andarchivists in the computer age ("Transformation inthe Archives: Technological Adjustment or ParadigmShift?" Archivaria 25 [Winter 1987-88]: 12-28), andto the dedication of old recordkeepers to historicalresearch and the service of historians ("InformationEcology and the Archives of the 1980s," Archivaria18 [Summer 1984]: 27).

Tor a detailed examination of the components ofarchival science, see Trevor Livelton, "Public Re-cords: A Study in Archival Theory," Master of Ar-chival Studies thesis, University of British Columbia,1991 (forthcoming from SAA and Scarecrow Press),10—19. For a more accessible discussion of the sub-ject, see Luciana Duranti, "The Archival Body ofKnowledge: Archival Theory, Method, and Practice,and Graduate and Continuing Education," Journal ofEducation for Library and Information Science 34(Winter 1993): 10-11.

Dow





and to ascertain whether the idea of attrib-uting value to archives is consistent withthe elements and characteristics of such na-ture.

Most of the archival theorists who havetraced the rise and development of archivalliterature in the Western world believe thatarchival theory, as a self-contained body ofideas about the nature of archival docu-ments, had its origins in the laws and ju-ridical writings of the eleventh century andwas enriched in the texts of medieval glos-sarists.7 However, the fundamental con-cepts of archival theory are rooted inconcepts embedded in Roman law, whichhave lingered for centuries and are so in-grained in our Western culture that wekeep perpetuating them even when we can-not remember the reason for doing so. Twoof those concepts have a direct bearing onthe ideas that have been associated with ap-praisal in this century, and they deserve acareful exploration. They are the conceptsof perpetual memory and public faith.

The most ancient archival documents,8

either in the original or as transcriptions oflost originals, contain a formula, usuallyplaced at the end of the salutation: in per-petuum, adperpetuum, or adperpetuam reimemoriam? This formula established the

'See, for example, Eugenio Casanova, Archivistica(Siena: Lazzeri, 1928), 333; Leopoldo Sandri, "Lastoria degli archivi," Rassegna degli Archivi di Stato18 (gennaio-aprile 1958): 109-34; and Giorgio Cen-cetti, Lo Studio di Bologna. Aspetti, momenti e prob-lemi (1935-1970), edited by R. Ferrara, G. Orlandelliand A. Vasina (Bologna: Editrice Clueb, 1989), 17-27.

'Throughout this article the term archival documentwill be used to refer to any document made and re-ceived in the course of affairs, regardless of its form,of the nature of its creator (public or private, organ-ization or individual), of its place of preservation (of-fice of creation or legitimate administrative successor,or archival institution), of its degree of currency, andof its use. Therefore, the term comprises the meaningsof record, manuscript, and paper (s).

9Cfr. Alain de Boflard, Manuel de DiplomatiqueFrancaise et Pontificate, vol. 1 (Paris: Editions Au-guste Picard, 1929), 265; and Georges Tessier, La Di-plomatique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,1966), 43.

function of the document with respect tothe fact it was about. Because only thepresent can be known, a device was nec-essary to freeze the fact occurring in thepresent before it slipped into the past, andthe document, as embodiment of the fact,had the function of converting the presentinto the permanent.

However, it is essential to emphasizethat the Latin words permanens and per-petuum meant continuing, enduring, stable,lasting, uninterrupted, unbroken, without aforseeable end, and that the concept of per-petual memory, which was an integral partof Roman law, was never linked to theideas of eternity or infinity. Rather, the linkwas with ideas of continuity (or absence ofinterruptions), stability (or absence ofchange), and endurance (or absence ofknown term). Consequently, when the con-cept of perpetual memory was expresslylinked first to archival documents and laterto archives, it was meant to carry with it-self no obligation of eternal preservation,but only an implication of trustworthiness.For example, the Corpus Iuris Civilis con-tained prescriptions that the acts (gesta)—that is, the documents attesting actions—bekept in archives in order to preserve con-tinuing, and therefore uncorrupted, mem-ory of the actions, and to guarantee thepublic faith (ut fidem faciant) or truthful-ness of the documents themselves.10

The Roman legal concept of public faithhas more relevance in archival theory thandoes that of perpetual memory. It might besaid that, while the idea of perpetual mem-ory expresses the relationship between ar-chival documents and the facts they attestto, that of public faith expresses the rela-tionship between archives and the society

'"Justinian, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Novella 15, 5 and2; C.I,4, "De episcopali audientia," 30; D. 48,19,"De poenis," 9. An action is a movement of the willaimed at a purpose, manifested in a perceivable way.See Luciana Duranti, "Diplomatics: New Uses for anOld Science. Part II," Archivaria 29 (Winter 1989-90): 6-7.

Dow




332 American Archivist/ Spring 1994

they serve. In the ancient and medievalWestern world, archival documents wereconferred trustworthiness by their preser-vation in an archives, and it is essential toremember that the term archives in thiscontext refers to the place where archivaldocuments were kept by their creator. Asa consequence, not every entity could havean archives; only the persons or corpora-tions invested with sovereign power hadthe right to establish one in their own ju-risdiction (jus archivi or archivale).n

The fact that, according to Roman law,only public authorities could have an ar-chives implied that only archival docu-ments created by public authorities incarrying out public affairs were endowedwith public faith. This did not mean, how-ever, that only those documents could betrustworthy. As a consequence of the pro-bative capacity of archives, documents cre-ated by private persons in carrying outprivate affairs could be attributed publicfaith by being deposited by their authors orlegitimate successors in an archives.12 Theidea was that unbroken custody in reliablehands (being a public authority by defini-tion meant being considered reliable)would protect the documents from corrup-tion, would guarantee their trustworthiness,and would ensure the truth of their content.However, the practice was open to abuse.Private persons began to deposit false doc-uments in public archives to lend thempublic faith. It appeared clear to the legis-lators that if unbroken public custody wasa sufficient guarantee of the reliability ofthe documents created by sovereign bodies,it did not perform this function for all otherdocuments. Thus, public faith came to de-pend on another element identified as es-sential by the legislators: form. In theCorpus Juris Civilis, Novella 73 describes

"Francesco Calasso, Lezioni di storia del diritto it-aliano (Milan: Giuffre, 1948), 258.

12Justinian, Novella 15.

the characteristics documents must have inorder to be accepted in a public archives.

In time, the form of the documents be-came so essential to their trustworthinessthat public custody began to lose relevanceand, as long as custody could be proveduninterrupted and secure, the authenticityof documents was sufficient guarantee ofgenuineness.13

The emphasis on prescribed forms de-termined the development of a differentconcept of archives. One might say that,until the third century, legislators and ju-rists considered archives to be the placewhere the documents produced in carryingout administrative activity were main-tained, retrieved, and generally serviced. Ina very real sense, public faith derived tothose documents from their being created,maintained, used, and selected in the or-dinary and usual course of business. Infact, selection was part of the effectivemanagement of those archives, a selectionembedded in routine and procedure, bywhich summary documents gradually su-perseded the detailed ones, and completedocuments superseded notes and sketches.No evaluation was involved, and thereforeno appraisal. Rather, the traces of all factswere preserved, their intensity as profoundas the effects of those facts had been at thetime of their occurrence. Thus, perpetualmemory was served as well as public faith,but, more importantly, public faith waslinked to a legal concept that has surviveduntil our times. This concept, with whichwe are very familiar, is that of "circum-stantial guarantee of trustworthiness," ac-cording to which the circumstances of adocument's creation and maintenance arean adequate indication of its reliability.14

''"Authenticity" referred to the presence in a doc-ument of all prescribed forms which enabled it to bearwitness on its own; whereas "genuineness" meantthat the document was what it purported to be. SeeDuranti, "Diplomatics," 17-18.

"A document offered as evidence to establish thetruth of the facts it contains is considered "hearsay"by both civil and common law because its content is

Dow





However, after the third century, the cre-ators of archival documents began to payspecial attention to documents endowedwith legally prescribed forms, to the pointof preserving them separately from all theothers, in the most secure place. Conse-quently, a dichotomy developed betweenthe "archives-sediment," made of the doc-uments routinely accumulated on thebenches of the offices in the course of busi-ness, and the "archives-treasure," made ofthe authentic documents embodying com-plete transactions, which were extractedfrom the archives-sediment to be main-tained in a safer place. The absence ofproper care eventually made the documentsin the archives-sediment disappear, victimsof natural events or human vicissitudes,while those in the archives-treasure re-mained as continuing proof of events past.

Thus, public faith came to be associatedby legislators and jurists with two other fa-miliar legal concepts that have surviveduntil our times: best evidence and ancientdocument. The best evidence concept at-tributes probative capacity only to originaldocuments or authenticated duplicates ofthem, and the ancient document concept at-tributes probative capacity to documentskept in secure and reliable custody for along time.15

The Roman legal concepts of perpetualmemory and public faith as they related to

not stated under oath, and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. However, a document can be acceptedas evidence if it falls within an exception to the hear-say rule. One exception is the existence of circum-stantial guarantees of trustworthiness: thecircumstances of a document's creation are acceptedas an adequate substitute for cross-examination.

15An original document is the first to be issued ina complete and effective form—that is, the first ca-pable of reaching the consequences for which it wascreated. An authenticated duplicate is an imitativecopy declared conform to the original that it repro-duces by an official authorized to do so by the legalsystem. (Duranti, "Diplomatics," 19-20). For moreinformation on the probative capacity of archival doc-uments, see Heather Heywood, "Appraising LegalValue: Concepts and Issues," unpublished Master ofArchival Studies thesis, University of British Colum-bia, 1990.

archival documents and archives consti-tuted the core of the legal writings of Me-dieval jurists, such as Accursius (1184-1263), Cynus Pistoiensis (1270-1336), andBaldus (1327-1400). They also entered thestatutes of most Medieval city states and,on this basis, norms were issued prescrib-ing methods of arrangement and descrip-tion of archival documents to protect theirprobative nature. But, most importantly, asRoman law became the common civil lawof Europe and the basis for its spiritual andcultural unity, those concepts became thefoundation of all European thinking aboutarchives. They also became the nucleus ofEuropean archival theory as it developed inthe writings of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century jurists,16 and as it was received,

"For a detailed discussion of this subject, see ElioLodolini, Lineamenti di storia dell'archivistica itali-ana (Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1991), 27-65. It should be pointed out that Roman law is thefoundation of both the civil law and the common lawsystems, because its principles and concepts are em-bedded in the principles and concepts at the core ofboth legal systems. However, it has to be emphasizedthat the religious frays of the sixteenth century deter-mined a divergence in the development of the legalconcepts linked to archives between the Europeancountries which remained Roman Catholic and thosewhich stopped to recognize the binding power of thepronouncements of the Roman Church. A significantexample of such divergence relates to the probatorynature of private archival documents preserved in pri-vate archives (i.e., archives of families, banks, hos-pitals, etc.). In the course of the seventeenth century,a series of decisions of the Sacra Rota endowed withpublic faith private archives or individual archivaldocuments which either had been preserved for a longtime within the same recordkeeping system (an elab-oration of the concepts of "ancient document" andof "circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness,"both related to the "perpetual memory" idea), or pre-sented all the appropriate characteristics of form (anelaboration of the "best evidence concept"), or hadbeen maintained and inventoried by a notary or by an"archivist"—that is, by a professional purposely em-ployed who could vouch for the reliability of the re-cords system and the trustworthiness of the archives(Elio Lodolini, "Giurisprudenza della Sacra Rota Ro-mana in materia di archivi [secoli XVI-XVIII]," Ras-segna degli Archivi di Stato a. XLII [gennaio-aprile1982]: 7-33). Therefore, while in Roman Catholiccountries like Italy and Spain private archives havebeen treated just like public archives and regularlyacquired in public archival repositories or, if pre-

Dow





through the elaborations of the nineteenth-century archival theorists, by Jenkinson,Cencetti, Brenneke, Bautier, and the manyothers who have enriched the European ar-chival literature of our times.

If some of the archival methodologicalideas derived from that body of theory,such as the principles of provenance andoriginal order, reached the other side of theAtlantic quite easily, through the writingsof Leland, Buck, Posner, and Schellenberg,the ideas about the nature of archival ma-terial never really entered the North Amer-ican archival discourse. Instead, theyremained typically anchored to the Euro-pean tradition.17 However, they constitutethe body of theory on which methods ac-cepted also in North America rest andevery new archival methodology has to bebased, and against which the concept of ap-praisal should be examined. As there is novariation in the articulation of those ideasamong the various archival theorists, forpractical reasons linked to language andavailability to North American readers, thetext of Jenkinson is chosen here as theframework for discussion.

The Characteristics of ArchivalDocuments and the Attribution ofValue

Jenkinson wrote that a "documentwhich may be said to belong to the classof Archives is one which was drawn up orused in the course of an administrative orexecutive transaction (whether public orprivate) of which itself formed a part; andsubsequently preserved in their own cus-tody for their own information by the per-son or persons responsible for thattransaction and their legitimate succes-sors."^ Because they are created as ameans for, and a by-product of, action, not"in the interest or for the information ofPosterity," and because they are "freefrom the suspicion of prejudice in regardto the interests in which we now usethem," archival documents are impartialand "cannot tell . . . anything but thetruth."19

This characteristic of impartiality, ac-cording to which archives are inherentlytruthful, makes them the most reliablesource for both law and history, whose pur-poses are to rule and explain the conductof society by establishing the truth.20 Ar-

served by their creators or by private archival repos-itories, closely watched by the governments throughregulations and controls, in the other countries likeEngland and Germany private archives are considereddifferent from public archives mainly because de-prived of probatory capacity. (Even from a purely his-torical research point of view, public archives areconsidered privileged sources with respect to privatearchives.) This might be the origin of the dichotomybetween public and private archives in England, evenif not in the United States (See note 49). In Canada,the French influence on the juridical concepts relatedto archives must not be undervalued; certainly the"total archives" concept has no roots in Anglo-Saxonculture.

"The only exception in North American literatureis Margaret Cross Norton, who understood and be-lieved in those theoretical ideas. See Norton on Ar-chives: The Writings of Margaret Cross Norton onArchival and Records Management, edited by Thorn-ton W. Mitchell (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 111.:Southern Illinois University Press, 1975), for examplepp. 13, 25-38, 56, 240.

18Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Adminis-tration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), 11 (Jenkin-son's emphasis). In his manual, Jenkinson defines thearchival document, rather than archives as complexesof documents. Later, he defines archives as "the Doc-uments accumulated by a natural process in the courseof the Conduct of Affairs of any kind, Public or Pri-vate, at any date; and preserved thereafter for Refer-ence, in their own Custody, by the personsresponsible for the Affairs in question or their suc-cessors." ("The English Archivist: A New Profes-sion," Selected Writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson,edited by Roger H. Ellis and Peter Walne [Gloucester:Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1980], 237). Both defi-nitions contain implicitly or explicitly all the elementsthat characterize archival material as such. It has tobe pointed out that archival institutions or programsare among the "legitimate successors" mentioned byJenkinson.

"Jenkinson, Manual of Archive Administration,11-12.

20Impartiality is a characteristic of archival docu-ments, not of their creators, who are naturally partialto their own interests. To protect the impartiality of

Dow





chival documents provide "first-hand evi-dence because they form an actual part ofthe corpus, of the facts of the case."21

The second characteristic of archives isauthenticity, which Jenkinson links to thecontinuum of creation, maintenance, andcustody. Archival documents are procedur-ally authentic for three reasons. They arecreated credible and reliable by those whoneed to act through them. They are main-tained with proper guarantees for furtheraction and for information. And "they aredefinitely set aside for preservation, tacitlyadjudged worthy of being kept" by theircreator or legitimate successor as "writtenmemorials o f . . . activities in the past."22

The third characteristic of archives isnaturalness. "Archives are not documentscollected artificially, like the objects in amuseum . . . , but accumulating naturallyin offices for the practical purposes of Ad-ministration."23 The fact that archival doc-uments are not contrived outside the directrequirements of the conduct of affairs—that is, that they accumulate naturally, pro-gressively, and continuously, like the sed-iments of geological stratifications24—provides them with an element of sponta-neous yet structured cohesiveness.

archives is to protect their capacity to reveal the bi-ases and idiosyncracies of their creators. This is whyit is so difficult to guarantee the appropriate mainte-nance of current and semicurrent documents by theircreators, be they organizations or individuals: it can-not be done without aisrting them to their documentsinherent value but, if creators are made too vividlyaware of the power of their documents, they may be-gin to draw or alter them for the benefit of posterity,and the documents would not be the un-self-consciousresidue of action but a conscious reflection on it.

21 Jenkinson, Manual of Archive Administration, 4(Jenkinson's emphasis).

22Jenkmson, Manual of Archive Administration, 8-9,39.

23Public Record Office, Guide to the Public Re-cords, Part I: Introductory (London: Public RecordOffice, 1949), 2.

24"Les documents se deposent au contraire dans lesarchives exactement comme se foment les sedimentsdes couches geologiques, progressivement, constam-ment." Robert-Henri Bautier, "Les Archives,"L'histoire et ses methodes (Paris: 1961), 1120.

This cohesiveness is the presuppositionof their fourth characteristic, interrelation-ship. Jenkinson explains it by saying thatevery archival document is closely related"to others both inside and outside thegroup in which it is preserved and . . . itssignificance depends on these relations."25

In other words, archival documents arelinked among themselves by a relationshipthat arises at the moment in which they arecreated, is determined by the reason forwhich they are created, and is necessary totheir very existence, to their ability to ac-complish their purpose, to their meaningfor the activity in which they participate,and to their capacity of being evidence.26

Therefore, in a very real sense, an archivesis a whole of relationships as well as awhole of documents.27

A corollary of the characteristic of inter-relationship is the characteristic of unique-ness, which derives to each archival doc-ument by the fact of its having a uniqueplace in the structure of the group in whichit belongs and in the documentary universe.Even when a document is an identical copyof another, the complex of its relationshipswith the other documents within and out-side the group of which it is part is alwaysunique.28

"Public Record Office, Guide, 2."Giorgio Cencetti defined this originary, necessary,

and determined relationship as "the archival bond,"in "II fondamento teorico della dottrina archivistica,"Archivi II, VI (1939): 8, reprinted in Giorgio Cencetti,Scritti archivistici (Rome: II Centro di Ricerca edi-tore, 1970), 39.

27Elio Lodolini writes: "l'archivio, a nostro awiso,e costituito da due elementi: il complesso dei docu-menti ed il complesso delle relazioni che intercorronofra i documenti." Elio Lodolini, Archivistica. Principie problemi, 6a edizione ampliata (Milan: Franco An-geli editore, 1992), 143.

28The characteristic of uniqueness is not amongthose explicitly identified by Jenkinson, but it isclearly implied in Jenkinson's discussion and is oftenmentioned in archival literature. See, for example, Vi-centa Cortes Alonso, Manual de archivos municipales(Madrid: Asociacion espanola de archiveros, bibliote-carios, museologos y documentalistas, 1982): 44,where archives are attributed four characteristics:"unicidad" (uniqueness), "integridad" (integrity),

Dow





Examined in relation to the characteris-tics of archives, the idea of attributingvalue to archival documents is in clear con-flict with each and all of them. In fact, onthe one hand, the characteristics of natu-ralness and interrelationship point to thefact that all archival documents in an ar-chives are equally functional to the exis-tence of the whole and, therefore, equallyimportant. On the other hand, the charac-teristics of impartiality and authenticitypoint to the evidentiary quality of form andprocedure, and therefore to their primacyfor the conveyance of truth. Moreover, thecharacteristic of uniqueness-in-context ofeach document makes its meaning uniqueand its existence necessary to the meaningof the archives in which it belongs.

To attribute different values to archivaldocuments and to destroy those of lessvalue would not change the relationship ofinterdependence among them, the bondthat determines the intellectual structure ofthe archival body, because the preserveddocuments would remain in the same re-ciprocal relationship that they acquiredwhen they were first consigned to the filesand entered into the recordkeeping system.However, such attribution of value wouldarbitrarily affect the integrity of the archi-val body and would influence the meaningof the whole and of its parts. In fact, se-lection per se does not alter that meaning.If selection is one of the mechanisms em-bedded in the routines and procedures ac-companying the creation, maintenance, anduse of the documents, and/or it is based onthe functionality of the documents andtheir aggregations (volumes, files, series)with respect to one another, the meaning ofthe whole is not reduced or changed but isconcentrated and enhanced by its reductionin size, because such reduction would be

"autenticidad" (authenticity), and "ingenuidad"(un-self-consciousness). For a North American exe-gesis of the characteristics of archival documents andof the concept of uniqueness, see Terry Eastwood,"Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal," in Craig,Archival Imagination, 12—1 A.

based on contextual factors. Any attribu-tion of value instead is inescapably di-rected to content, even when it is carriedout on the basis of provenance (be it crea-torship, function, or procedure) because theassumption on which it is based is thatgood provenance equals good content.Therefore, the attribution of value uses asthe primary basis of judgment an element,content, that is in contrast with the proce-dural and formal neutrality of the archivalwhole, and in so doing it undermines the im-partiality and authenticity of its meaning.29

Throughout the centuries, the primaryduty of the professionals entrusted with thecare of archives has been to preserve themuncorrupted, that is, endowed with the in-tegrity they had when their creators or le-gitimate successors set them aside forcontinuing preservation. The protection ofthe integrity of archives entails the protec-tion of their natural characteristics so thatthey will remain reliable evidence of actionand decision. Therefore, although it has al-ways been considered perfectly appropriatethat archival documents be selected in theprocedural course of affairs, archival the-orists have found it very difficult to acceptselection after the conclusion of those af-fairs, other than on the part of the docu-ments' creator or legitimate successor.Jenkinson believed that

for the Archivist to destroy a doc-ument because he thinks it useless isto import into the collection underhis charge what we have beenthroughout most anxious to keep out

29Paola Carucci, "Lo scarto come elemento quali-ficante delle fonti for la storiografia," Rassegna degliArchivi di Stato a. XXXV, nos. 1-3 (1975): 254-55.Carucci writes that selection is an expression of theeternal law of economy, according to which we onlyprotect and maintain that which is necessary to ourcontinuing existence and development. About thisconcept, see also Luciana Duranti, "So? What ElseIs New?: The Ideology of Appraisal Yesterday andToday," in Archival Appraisal: Theory and Practice,edited by Christopher Hives (Vancouver, British Co-lumbia: Archives Association of British Columbia,1990), 1-14.

Dow





of it, an element of his personaljudgement; . . . but for an Adminis-trative body to destroy what it nolonger needs is a matter entirelywithin its competence and an actionwhich future ages . . . cannot possi-bly criticize as illegitimate or as af-fecting the status of the remainingarchives; provided always that theAdministration proceeds only uponthose grounds upon which alone it iscompetent to make a decision—theneeds of its own practical business;provided, that is, that it can refrainfrom thinking of itself as a body pro-ducing historical evidence.30

Quite important provisos, those empha-sized by Jenkinson. Nonetheless, his solu-tion to the need for an objective selectioncould ensure the protection of archival doc-uments as impartial evidence of the biasesand idiosyncracies of their creators ratherthan those of their custodians.

Almost thirty years after declaring it,Jenkinson had not changed his position. Atthe first International Congress of Archivesmeeting, in Paris, he said that the archivist"must impartially preserve all documentswithout taking into account their presumedinterest. In fact, the task of the archivist isto be the servant of truth, of the simpletruth, not of that truth which can pleasecertain persons or serve the views of theone or the other school of thought."31 Thispoint of high principle, that selectionshould be impartial, constituted the foun-dation of the entire system set up by theGrigg Committee and ultimately by theEnglish public records acts. The Englishappraisal methodology, in perfect harmonywith archival theory, relied on the assump-

30Jenkinson, Manual of Archives Administration,128-29.

"Hilary Jenkinson, speech given at the first Inter-national Congress of Archives, Paris, 23 August 1950,published in Archivum I (1951): 47. Translated fromFrench by this author.

tion that there is a close relationship be-tween continuing administrative relevanceand continuing research significance, andtherefore there is affinity between the pur-poses of creators (or their legitimate suc-cessors) and of archivists. The entire issueis one of degree of responsibility in the se-lection process: To what extent does thearchivist influence procedure and action?32

Jenkinson's position was shared by thedominant school of archival thought for atleast another twenty years. In fact, whatwas called the "nonevaluational" nature ofarchival work was deeply rooted in thecharacteristics of the archival material andwas impossible to overturn using purelyempirical arguments.33 The primary duty ofthe archivist was to the evidentiary natureof archival material, and the activities sup-porting this duty, which came to be knownas the "moral defense of archives," wereseen as central to the professional ethic ofarchivists.34 After all, as Ernst Posnerpointed out, the two fundamental method-ological principles of archival sciencestress the primacy of origin, structure, andfunction over content, use, or importance,and those principles were widely acceptedin the entire Western hemisphere and be-yond.35

32Grigg Report."The expression nonevaluational nature of archi-

val work (avalutativitd archivistica) was coined byLeopoldo Cassese in 1959. See Leopoldo Cassese,Teorica e metodologia. Scritti editi e inediti di paleo-grqfia, diplomatica, archivistica e biblioteconomia,edited by Attilio Mauro Caproni (Salerno: Pietro Lav-eglia, 1980), 54. In 1967, Leopoldo Sandri wrote thatthe nonevaluational nature of archival work is a prin-ciple universally valid, in Leopoldo Sandri, "L'Ar-chivistica," Rassegna degli Archivi di Stato a. XXVII(1967): 416.

"Jenkinson, Manual of Archive Administration,66ff.

33Ernst Posner, "Some Aspects of Archival Devel-opment from the French Revolution," in Archivesand the Public Interest, edited by Ken Munden(Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1967), 32.

Dow





Moral Defense of Archives and theUnited States

In the United States, the centrality of themoral defense of archives was explicitlyupheld by Margaret Cross Norton. Shewrote that archivists are bound "to protectthe integrity of . . . records," and even if"historical" archives may appear to haveno value for current affairs, this "does notrelease the custodian from his legal andmoral responsibilities."36 Norton's ideaswere readily taken up by archivists withinthe National Archives, who dominatedAmerican archival thinking until the1960s.37 They were certainly encouragedtoward that direction by the general polit-ical atmosphere of the times, as demon-strated by the interplay of administrationand archival theory in archivalpublications: "A complete record is themost objective reporter, and hence the mosteffective means of exacting responsibility.. . . To put it differently, one of the essen-tials of responsible administration is trans-parency of the administrative process interms of both what is going on today andwhat has gone on before."38 But the notionthat archives serve public accountabilitybecame a typical aspect of archival think-ing at the National Archives. This can eas-ily be recognized in the writings of Solon

l6Norton on Archives, 26."This is particularly evident from the annual re-

ports of those years. See for example National Ar-chives of the United States, Annual Report 3 (1936):5; Annual Report 7 (1940): 1; Annual Report 11(1944): 6. See also Donald McCoy, The NationalArchives: America's Ministry of Documents, 1934—1968 (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1978).

38Morstein Marx, "The Role of Records in Admin-istration," American Archivist 10 (April 1947): 241.According to Stillman, Marx introduced "broaderEuropean attitudes and perspectives into Americanpolitical science": Richard J. Stillman, "ChangingPatterns of Public Administration Theory in Amer-ica," in Public Administration: History and Theoryin Contemporary Perspective, edited by Joseph A.Uveges, Jr. (New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 1982),25.

J. Buck, Phillip Brooks, Wayne C. Grover,in addition to those of Schellenberg.39

However, the role of the concept of ac-countability in archival theory, as adoptedin the United States, was undermined bySchellenberg's desire to promote the cul-tural identity of archival repositories andthe role of archivists as appraisers of re-cords. He denned records in a way evenmore limited than that in which Jenkinsonhad defined archives, and he redefined ar-chives as a species of records, the main dif-ference being in the fact that archives"must be preserved for reasons other thanthose for which they were created or ac-cumulated."40 Then he presented the con-cept of evidential value as an exclusiveconcern of secondary users. By so doing,he prepared the path for the complete di-vergence of American archival practicefrom that of the rest of the Western world.

Jenkinson defended the traditional the-ory of archives, which treats records as aspecies of archival documents, and there-fore of archives, by insisting that the theoryof archives must be based on the analysisof the nature of the documents: "Value forResearch is no doubt the reason why wecontinue to spend time and money on pre-serving Archives and making them availa-ble: but the fact that a thing may be usedfor purposes for which it was not in-tended—a hat, for instance, for the produc-tion of a rabbit—is not part of its natureand should not, I submit, be made an ele-ment of its definition, though it may rea-

39See, for example, Solon J. Buck, "The Archivists'One World,'" American Archivist 10 (January1947): 10; Phillip Brooks, Public Records Manage-ment (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1949),1; Wayne C. Grover, "The National Archives and theScholar," Military Affairs 15 (1951): 10; TheodoreR. Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles andTechniques (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1956), 9, 17, 38, 140-41, 187-88, 206-07, 246-47,etc.; and Theodore R. Schellenberg, The Appraisal ofModern Public Records, National Archives Bulletin 8(Washington, D.C.: National Archives and RecordsService, 1956), 249ff.

40Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 13-16.

Dow





sonably affect its treatment."41 Certainly,Schellenberg's definition of archives wastheoretically flawed, not because he builtinto it the elements of value and use forresearch purposes, but because he arrivedat it on purely pragmatic grounds. Hewrote, "It is quite obvious that modern ar-chives are kept for the use of others thanthose that created them, and that consciousdecisions must be made as to their valuefor such use . . . obviously for researchuse."42 Schellenberg failed to explore theproperties of archival documents, andwished only "to devise methods of treat-ment which work for particular recordswhich one is aiming to turn into archivesin order to be used for research purposes."He was "quite willing to accept that ar-chivists need rules of procedure," but not"to base those rules on ideas about the uni-versal properties of archives or to examinehis own basic ideas about archives, whichhe presents as self-evident truths."43

It is quite clear that, if what qualifiesdocuments as archival is their nature—asJenkinson believed—the idea of attributingvalues to them is in profound conflict witharchival theory; while it is in complete har-mony with it if the qualifying element isuse—as Schellenberg pragmatically claimed.However, there is no doubt that all thosewho wish to use archives, be they primaryor secondary users, have the same need foraccurate and authentic evidence, one that,as Felix Hull puts it, shows the "wholepicture." "The whole picture, not a partialor biased one, is the ideal and the archiv-ist's motto should be 'always objective' so

•"Hilary Jenkinson, "Modem Archives: Some Re-flections on T. R. Schellenberg," Journal of the So-ciety of Archivists 1 (April 1957): 148-^9. Ananalytical theoretical discussion of the positions ofSchellenberg and Jenkinson on this issue can be foundin Livelton, "Public Records," 39-59.

42Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 14.43Terry Eastwood, "Nailing a Little Jelly to the

Wall of Archival Studies," Archivaria 35 (Spring1993): 246, endnote 4. Eastwood concludes that thisis why Jenkinson is a theorist and Schellenberg amethodologist.

that he endeavours to achieve the ideal."But he also notes, "We are, in a sense, toonear the record itself in time to be as ob-jective as we ought to be." And, by using' 'perfectly correct methods we may so eas-ily . . . in the interests of proper objectivityemasculate the record."44 One might addthat by preserving random samples, wemay only provide random evidence andrandom accountability.

This users' need for accurate and com-plete evidence has been exacerbated in thelast two decades by the freedom of infor-mation movement. "Preoccupied as theywere with their role as servants of historyand with a view of archives as recordswhich no longer had value to those whohad created them," American archivistswere caught by surprise by this movement,which not only "had access and ownershipimplications, but raised expectations thatthe records would not be destroyed."45 Themost sensitive archival writers felt the pres-sure and began questioning the distinctionbetween records and archives created bySchellenberg. For instance, Andrew Ray-mond and James O'Toole reexamined thedifferences between Jenkinson and Schel-lenberg and argued for the middle groundestablished by Norton.46 It appeared clear

"Felix Hull, "The Appraisal of Documents- Prob-lems and Pitfalls," Journal of the Society of Archi-vists 6 (April 1980): 289, 291. Hull also points outthe conundrum in which modern archivists operate:"You and I by our involvement are either destroyingor agreeing to the destruction of that very evidencewhich, in an almost Hippocratic oath sense, we areprofessionally bound to defend and preserve. That,without any question, is our first pitfall—a schizo-phrenic dilemma which we feel would not face us inan ideal world" (p. 287).

45Jane Parkinson, "Accountability in Archival The-ory," unpublished Master of Archival Studies thesis,University of British Columbia, 1993, pp. 70, 74.

"'Andrew Raymond and James O'Toole, "Up fromthe Basement: Archives, History, and Public Admin-istration," Georgia Archive 6 (Fall 1978): 26-27. Seealso David Gracy, "Is There a Future in the Use ofArchives?" Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987): 8; How-ard P. Lowell, "Thoughts on a State Records Pro-gram," American Archivist 50 (Summer 1987): 398;Bruce W. Dearstyne, "Principles for Local Govern-

Dow





to most archivists that they could not con-sider themselves creators of archival valueand collectors of historical information,and at the same time view themselves asprotectors of evidence who "ensure thatrecords . . . are faithfully preserved and dis-posed of according to due process . . . me-diating the interests of the personsassociated with their creation and use."The two functions are in conceptual con-flict. The former presupposes that recordsand archives are different entities, whilethe latter posits that they are one entity.They also are in practical conflict, becauseit is impossible to be at the same time the"engineer of the documentary record ofthe past," and "the agent of continuity"who ensures "the continuing legitimacy ofarchives as faithful witnesses to the socialsystem in which they were created." Ar-chivists had "to decide on which side ofthe fence to sit," and the users were notleaving them much choice.47

American literature of the last decadeshows that archivists responsible for organ-izational archives (public or private) havemade their choice, pragmatically as everbut nonetheless clearly. The codification ofsuch choice is in the definitions containedin the most recent Society of American Ar-chivists' glossary.48 The consequence of

ment Records: A Statement of the National Associa-tion of State Archives and Records Administration,"American Archivist 46 (Fall 1983): 454; Roy Tum-baugh, "Plowing the Sea: Appraising Public Recordsin an Ahistorical Culture," American Archivist 53(Fall 1990): 563 ("we exist to make sure that therecords of the significant actions of government arepreserved. . . . The resulting holdings comprise a sortof giant ledger, in which the accounts of the publictrust are entered.").

47All the expressions in quotation marks are ex-tracted from Eastwood, "Nailing a Little Jelly to theWall," 251, endnote 16, and 252, endnote 19.

•"Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, AGlossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, andRecords Managers (Chicago: Society of AmericanArchivists, 1992). The term archives is defined as"the documents created or received and accumulatedby a person or organization in the course of the con-duct of affairs, and preserved because of their contin-uing value. Historically, the term referred morenarrowly to the noncurrent records of an organization

this development for appraisal has been adiffuse, slow, but secure and steady de-tachment of the idea of attributing valuefrom the selection activity. Public recordsarchivists, in particular, have been crudelyreminded by their clientele that, if Ameri-can governments are accountable throughrecords, American archivists are accounta-ble for those records. These expectationsinclude the idea that records' integrity andprobatory nature have to be protected sothat the people can exercise their funda-mental rights to obtain and provide reliableand complete information, to research andstudy, and to participate creatively in thesocial and cultural development of theircountry.49

However, the most serious consequenceof these developments is that the reintegra-tion of records and archives has corre-sponded to the deepening of the historicaldichotomy between manuscripts and re-cords/archives, and between manuscriptcurators and archivists.50 As archivists be-

or institution preserved because of their continuingvalue." This definition closes the gap between re-cords and archives and between records and manu-scripts, and it embraces within the concept of archivesthe entire universe of documents generated as by-product of purposeful action. Unfortunately, whilemost organizational archivists stand behind the rein-tegration of the concepts of records and archives,most archivists responsible for the papers of individ-uals or voluntary groups—those identified in the glos-sary title as manuscript curators—are not yet ready toaccept the reintegration of the concepts of manu-scripts and archives, even less so that of manuscriptsand records—as will be discussed below.

•"See for example United Nations Advisory Com-mittee for the Co-ordination of Information Systems(ACCIS), Management of Electronic Records: Issuesand Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 1990).As to the controlling proactive stance of archival cli-entele see "Chronology of Recent NARA Events andSAA's Response," Archival Outlook (March 1993):3,5, which contains reference to a number of articlesresulting from the deluded expectations of archivalusers.

"The primary responsibility for the elevation totheory of such purely pragmatic dichotomy should begiven to Schellenberg's exclusion from the definitionof records, and consequently of archives ("archivesare those records," Modern Archives, 16) of the doc-uments created by individuals, families, and voluntaryand informal groups. For a history of the tradition of

Dow





gan to pay attention to the administrative-legal character of organizational archives,manuscript curators began feeling theywere the last trustees of the cultural valueof primary sources. After all, the materialthey are responsible for did not result fromthe exercise of delegated functions, nor hasit any enduring administrative or legal use.And they are not accountable for its pres-ervation, other than being accountable tothe archival institution for which theywork.

Of course the facts above are true, but acase might be made for "historical ac-countability," denned as "a need to pro-vide and receive explanation andunderstanding from one generation to an-other," which is "rooted in a belief in anobligation to account to the future mem-bers of the group, either by describing, ex-plaining or justifying what one has said ordone." Individuals and groups who holdthis belief and act upon it in their lives do-nate their papers to an archival repositoryout of a sense of responsibility for theiractions and a willingness "to explain theirintentions to the future, which they af-fect."51 This implies that archivists en-trusted with the care of those papers areaccountable for their preservation not onlyto their institution and, through it, to thedonors, but also to the future. They mustaccount for preservation of meaning aswell as of objects, and for a preservationthat maintains and protects the capacity ofthe documents to provide reliable evidenceof the activities of their creator.

Here is the main commonality—fromwhich all the others derive—-between man-uscripts and records/archives, and thereforebetween manuscript curators and archi-vists: Manuscripts are the natural, un-self-conscious, impartial, interrelated, and

separation, see Richard C. Berner, Archival Theoryand Practice in the United States: A Historical Anal-ysis (Seattle and London: University of WashingtonPress, 1983).

"Parkinson, "Accountability in Archival Theory,"85.

authentic residue of the performance ofpurposeful activity, and they have the sameevidentiary nature as records/archives, iftheir properties are maintained intact.52

Thus, selection among "manuscripts," justlike selection among "records," cannot bebased on an attribution of value. It can bebased only on the internal functionality ofthe documents, and the documents' aggre-gations, with respect to one another, so thatcompact, meaningful, economical, and im-partial societal evidence can be preservedfor the next generations.

If those who are responsible for "man-uscripts" are accountable for the materialthey have acquired, are they also account-able for what they have not acquired? Inother words, does their cultural mission associal memory keepers make them respon-sible for actively facilitating public mem-ory making, and therefore historicallyaccountable for their acquisition activity?In the view of this author, it certainly does,and on this accountability strongly im-pinges the accountability linked to the re-sponsibility of maintaining the integrityand impartiality of archives. But this timeit is the integrity and impartiality of soci-etal archives as a whole that we are talkingabout, rather than the archives of one spe-cific creator. It is very important to empha-size the coexistence of both archivists'accountabilities (as protectors of archivesand facilitators of archives making) in abalanced relationship, because the one re-sponsibility too easily outweighs the other,and the outcome of such imbalance is abiased societal archives.

Appraisal and the Archivist's Mission

There are two fundamental approachesto the accomplishment of archivists' (i.e.,

52For the capacity of private individuals' archivesto constitute reliable evidence, see note 16. If the na-ture of the material is determined by the purposes ofits creation, there is no difference between what iscalled "manuscripts" or "papers" and what is called"records."

Dow





manuscript curators and archivists) culturalmission. These approaches are rooted intwo different interpretations of culture. Theone views culture as the sum of the ideasand actions embedded in societal productsand considers the accumulation of thegreatest variety of those products as thebest way of documenting society and itsculture. The other views culture as the"contextual interaction of meaning withaction, . . . the integration of purpose withpractical circumstances"; it believes that"the products of a given endeavour maybe comprehensible only through their re-lationship to the products of other endeav-ours, may be significant by their absence,may have a meaning quite different fromthat which they were meant to convey, ormay exist among the products of other en-deavours."53

If we consider archival documents (man-uscripts and records) as societal products,the former approach "circumscribes apriori the total social and cultural context"and "encourages targeted institutions,groups and individuals to create and/or pre-serve the records of their activities." Thelatter approach lets the social and culturalcontext ' 'be revealed by the natural inter-relationship of its documentary residue"and "believes that the absence of recordsis an indication of absence of the culturalneed to translate thoughts and actions intoa material product, or to preserve that ma-terial product." Moreover, the former ap-proach "is founded on the belief that, ifinstitutions, organizations, and individualsare encouraged to create and/or maintainrecords, a total, adequate documentation ofour society will be preserved," and it con-siders the intervention of the archivist to"determine the existence, quality, extent

"Luciana Duranti, "ACA 1991 Conference Over-view," ACA Bulletin 15 (July 1991): 24. The firstinterpretation of culture is expressed by Franz Boasin Race, Language and Culture (New York: Mac-Millan, 1940), and Kwakiutl Ethnography (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1966).

and placement of the records as necessaryto the total documentation of society." Thelatter approach "is founded on the beliefthat such an encouragement will make thesocial and cultural context of the recordsdisappear together with their value as evi-dence, because the circumstances of theircreation would be governed by external in-formational demands rather than by inter-nal socio-cultural values." It considers thearchivist's intervention "as an action com-promising the integrity of the creator, andthe spontaneous, natural, impartial charac-ter of archives."54

Thus, according to the former approach,the cultural function of the archivist con-sists in engineering a comprehensive rec-ord of the past; while, according to thelatter approach, such function is best ac-complished by respecting the past ratherthan trying to control it, and by protectingthe properties of the archival bodies thatnaturally flow into archival repositories.55

As Terry Eastwood notices, the differencebetween the two is a little like the differ-ence between Ptolemaic and Copernicanastronomy, the one having research uses atits center, and the other the original pur-pose and structure of the societal ar-chives.56

It is the contention of this author thatboth approaches betray archival accounta-bility, be it the accountability descendingfrom the cultural purpose of archival en-deavors, or that linked to the protection ofthe integrity and impartiality of the archi-val record. By doing so, both approachesconflict with archival theory.

Archival theory posits that an archives isthe whole of the documents made or re-ceived in the course of purposeful activity,

"Duranti, "ACA 1991," 24."For a contrast between respecting and controlling

the past, see Barbara L. Craig, "The Acts of the Ap-praisers: The Context, the Plan and the Record," Ar-chivaria 34 (Summer 1992): 175-80.

"Eastwood, "Nailing a Little Jelly to the Wall,"251, endnote 16.

Dow





and of the relationships among those doc-uments. The circumstances of creation en-dow archives with certain innatecharacteristics, which must be maintainedintact for the archives to preserve their pro-batory capacity. Finally, archival theoryposits that it is the primary function of thearchivist to maintain unbroken, continuingcustody of societal archives, and to protecttheir integrity by keeping them physicallyand intellectually uncorrupted. The ulti-mate purpose of archival endeavors is tohand down to the next generations a reli-able, trustworthy, and complete testimonyof societal actions so that they can consti-tute sources of, and foundations for, futuredecision making.

Considering that all archival bodies areinterrelated, at the point that Russian ar-chivists can even talk of the "unitary ar-chival fonds of the state," we can view oursocietal archives as one large archives, andthe entire archival profession as its archi-vist. The definition of archives, its char-acteristics, the archival function, and itsultimate purpose all remaining the same asdescribed above, wouldn't the archival pro-fession betray its primary responsibility ifit did not attempt to preserve the societalarchives in its integrity, with its character-istics intact, and to do so impartially (i.e.,without favoring any users' group or cat-egory) and as objectively as humanly pos-sible (i.e., without being consciouslyguided by its own interests, biases, idio-syncracies, and culture)? This author be-lieves that it would, and that it is the dutyof the archival profession to act as a me-diator between those who produce archivesand those who use them, as a facilitator ofpublic memory making and keeping. Allthose who are active in society (be theyindividuals or groups, organizations or in-stitutions, public or private) should be ad-vised that to document their actions andtransactions in "perpetual memory" ofthem is the most appropriate way of car-rying them out. They should also be en-

couraged to maintain systematically andefficiently their documentary memory inorder to account to themselves and to so-ciety for their activities, and to entrust ar-chival repositories or programs with the"permanent," that is, continuing care ofthe compact, meaningful, and reliable res-idue of that memory.

However, the effort to ensure the pres-ervation of a societal archives that is inte-gral and complete as to meaning must beaccompanied by the effort to ensure its re-liability and trustworthiness, its proceduralauthenticity and formal genuineness. Theessential archival characteristics all derivefrom the circumstances of creation, andsuch circumstances must remain "trans-parent" and uncorrupted. This means thatdocuments purposely created to provideevidence of oral actions must not be in-cluded in the societal archives: They do notconstitute evidence but interpretation, andtheir inclusion among archival materialwould be an infringement of our historicalaccountability.

With all the above said, the question re-mains: if the archival profession has a re-sponsibility to preserve an integral andcomplete societal archives, how can it re-duce such archives to a manageable sizewithout wounding its integrity and com-pleteness of meaning? Of course, discuss-ing the how means moving from the realmof theory to that of methodology. Thus, itis sufficient to answer: not by attributingexternally imposed values, but by carefullydenning archival jurisdictions and acquisi-tion policies and plans, and by remember-ing that archivists are mediators andfacilitators, custodians and preservers ofsocietal evidence, not documenters and in-terpreters, or even judges, of societaldeeds. Why not?—one might ask. Becausethe archival profession has a vital respon-sibility to future generations, that of lettingthem understand and judge our society onthe basis of the documents it produced. Tobe documenters of society is in conflict

Dow





with such responsibility. All archivists,whatever the archives in their care, accom-plish the cultural function of protecting theexisting evidence of past cultures for futurecultures to interpret, absorb, and creativelyrenew.57 Attributing value to that evidencewould mean to renounce impartiality, en-dorse ideology, and consciously and arbi-trarily alter the societal record.

The question that spurred the writing ofthis piece was whether appraisal should bemade an integral and necessary componentof archival science. In so far as appraisalequals attribution of value, the answer isno, because the idea of value is in conflictwith the nature of archives. If instead ap-praisal is considered just a modern term forselection (either within an archives or

"All kinds of research rely on the reconstructionof the past for purposes of judgment and interpreta-tion. "Because past events cannot be repeatedly ex-perienced and observed, the past is essentiallyunverifiable and can be discovered only inferen-tially." Thus, researchers have developed means ofevaluating their sources and ensuring their reliability.Because the judiciary has a complex system of com-mon and positive law to guide this process, the stan-dards set by the legal profession are usually appliedto other types of enquiries as well. Turner, "A Studyof the Theory of Appraisal," 19.

among a number of archives) and acquisi-tion, then it has to be acknowledged thatappraisal has belonged to archival sciencesince its first formulations and applications.Archival methods need to be developedthat allow for selection and acquisition tomaintain intact the characteristics of archi-val documents, and this will require muchstudy and research. But no task is impos-sible if its purpose is known and clear andif a reunited profession recognizes it as itsoriginal, common, and primary responsi-bility. What must be done is to remove thatproverbial dust that has begun accumulat-ing on the appraisal question, and to startthe collective quest for a methodologydriven by archival theory rather than viceversa.58

"Most appraisal literature has resulted from prag-matic determination of the most convenient and/orpolitically correct practice, its systematization in amethodology, and the elevation of its assumptions totheory. This kind of process was at the origin of bothSchellenberg's dichotomy of records and archives andits revision by contemporary archival writers, leadingto the reintegration of the two concepts. The processneeds to be completely reversed: The theory must de-termine the methods, and the methods must guide thepractice.

Dow




The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory - Allen Press

Documents

Transcript of The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory - Allen Press