Archival principles and the treatment of private papers

KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, 2019

The principle of provenance is one of the most important milestones in archival practice and theory from the time its establishment grounded the scientific dimension of archival discipline in the nineteenth century. Since then, provenance and document context have supported the organization of archival knowledge (especially through classification and description procedures). Such relationships were gradually refined over the years and from different experiences between European archives and their classification and ordering systems. Historically, the principle of provenance is a pivotal moment in the development of archival theory, crucial to understanding the nature of records and archives. However, in archival theory, the principle of provenance still does not correspond to a single term or a single definition and scarce normalization terminology remains one of the problems of archival science, which leads to a lack of consensus about the division between the two principles of pro...

Revista Intervención, 2021

The present essay seeks to support the definition of hegemonic principle of provenance as a useful concept to research, manage and conserve documentary heritage of different types. Its definition is based on an array of bibliography which could be considered a part of the archival turn. This principle involves a structuring inertia in terms of interpretation derived from the context of the records' production, which implies the potential replication of forms of symbolic violence by means of the archive. The hegemonic principle of provenance of archives translates into omissions, exclusions and, indeed, the reproduction of representations foreign to the assumed identities by the people registered in the records.

2016

This paper focuses on large currents of thought about archival profession that caused the International Council on Archives (ICA) to move towards an improvement of the four descriptive standards. The author reviews the avatars of provenance, original order and fonds based approaches, indicating extensively various positions from professional literature. The second part offers some insights to the new proposed ICA conceptual model for archival description, called Records in Contexts.

Creative and compelling theoretical formulations of the archive have emerged from a host of disciplines in the last decade. Derrida and Foucault, as well as many other humanists and social scientists, have initiated a broadly interdisciplinary conversation about the nature of the archive. This literature suggests a confluence of interests among scholars, archivists, and librarians that is fueled by a shared preoccupation with the function and fate of the historical and scholarly record. The following essay provides an exploration and overview of this archival discourse.

The principle of provenance is occupying a nuclear position in Archival Science during the last two centuries but it assumes diVerent configurations in diVerent geographic areas what brings significant problems to its translation, especially in multilingual instruments. Thus, a problem of terminological nature is revealed, as this principle is suitable to the area in several diVerent ways, evoking diVerent concepts, often unfolding or reconfiguring. Therefore, we analyze the " archival principles " presented in International Council on Archives (ica) Multilingual Archival Terminology in English, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, in order to identify their terminological configuration as well as their equivalents. The results show that provenance is a complex principle, which includes other sub-principles (such as respect for the original order), an aspect that varies depending on the cultural environment of each of the languages involved.

Performing Digital: Multiple Perspectives on a Living Archive, 2014

1999

1985

Archivaria, 1996

Theodore Van Riemsdijk, Archiviste gtntral d '~t a t de la Hollande entre 1887 et 1912, des fondements de la thtorie archivistique, par I'observation et I'analyse minutieuse des phtnomhes d'organisation en utilisant son expertise en diplomatique afin de comprendre le processus de crtation des documents avant de se tourner vers la mtthodologie archivistique. Cependant, Muller et Fruin favoriskrent une approche normative de la mtthodologie archivistique, laquelle ttait codifite dans le manuel. Cette codification et cette standardisation, ttapes du processus de professionnalisation des archivistes hollandais ont bloqut le dtveloppement de la thtorie archivistique pour un long moment. La science archivistique moderne tente, comme I'avait dtj2 compris Van Riemsdijk, une interprttation fonctionnelle du contexte entourant la crtation des documents dans le but de comprendre I'inttgritC du fonds et les fonctions des archives.

The University of Manitoba is home to a number of early printed books, so it is also home to a number of medieval manuscript fragments that have been transformed from the books they themselves used to be into binding material for the printed books. While the printed books are catalogued, the fragments are not. This paper argues that the process of archival description is the best way to catalogue these fragments and make them available to the public. Treating manuscript fragments as archival objects means that we can treat them both as unique items, which they are, and as part of a larger whole, regardless of how much of that whole remains. My paper will attempt to draw archival and editorial theories and practices together and to demonstrate the archival-ness of manuscript fragments, as well as the abilities of the archival concepts of provenance and description to mediate fragments, looking particularly at those held at the University of Manitoba. Tom Nesmith’s work on the theory of societal provenance suggests that an archival object is not merely the product of a creator, but is rather the product of a society. This approach is similar to that of book historians and textual critics, who often consider the contexts of books along with their physical forms. By focussing on the common strengths of archivists and book scholars, and by learning about each other’s methods, we can develop ways to care for and make accessible these unique and neglected texts.

2019

Archivaria, 1999

Jonathan Culler's valuable little book Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 1997) contains a cartoon which depicts three people in conversation, no doubt about literary theory. One turns to another and says, "You're a terrorist? Thank God. I understood Meg to say you were a theorist." The cartoon says much about the oftentimes unsettling, even disturbing, impact of theory on people. And while neither Trevor Livelton nor I intend to threaten anyone, it may be the fate of the authors as well as reviewers of theoretical publications to be seen as worse than terrorists. As the cartoon implies, a slightly perverse and self-deprecating sense of humour may well be essential to those seriously interested in theory. It is certainly welcome. Humour, however, should be just one ingredient in what Culler (terror aside) aptly calls "the pleasures of thought" available to those who explore the theoretical side of things. 1 Livelton is an archivist at the City of Victoria Archives in British Columbia. He has written one of the few book-length treatments of archival theory. Archival Theory, Records, and the Public is based on his 1991 thesis, which was written for the University of British Columbia's Master of Archival Studies programme. The book is a considerable credit to the UBC program, a prime example of the best scholarship fostered there. Its welcome overarching aim is to refute the still hardy notion that archival work has little or no theoretical dimension. To demonstrate this general point, Livelton pursues three particular aims: he discusses the character and role of archival theory; applies his conception of archival theory to some of the key terms of archives (the definitions of archives, records, and public records); and then concludes by testing his theoretical view and definitions with some hypothetical case examples. Livelton gives us much to think about. A book of this sophistication well

Archival Science, 2019

This article explores epistemological bases for debates over the nature of archival research and practice, and argues that the lens of historical epistemology helps us best understand the critiques of the so-called "archival turn" as well as continued interest in archives among the public. Close reading of the rise of "scientific" history in the nineteenth century and modern archival practice, as articulated in early twentieth-century archival manuals, offers a new theorization of principles like provenance, respect des fonds, and custody, as well as historians' "archive stories," as part of an overarching though usually unspoken epistemology of archives rooted in intellectual project of the German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey to create an epistemological foundation of the human sciences. Following this line of inquiry, it suggests that we can reconceptualize the rise of archival research, the development of the modern archival profession, and the critiques of these trends through the so-called "archival turn" and the post-custodial era of archival practice as shifts that were not just methodological in character but also epistemological. Ultimately, approaching the history of archives through the framework of epistemology helps us make sense of new critiques and continued interest in archives. Despite a growing chorus of acknowledgement of archives' constructed nature, the instinct that documents provide access to the past with some kind of evidentiary value leads toward the value imbued into archives by professionals and the public alike and their continual contestation.