Documenting and providing contextual information about the content of archives is the fundamental role of archivists. Through this contextual information, archivists link the work of the people who created the records with the work of the people who want to use the records. The challenge for archivists lies not only in explaining how they derive their understanding of how, when and why the records were created, but also the manner in which they document the details encountered so
that succeeding generations of archivists and future users of archives can read and understand those details. Hurley (2005, p. 135) encourages archivists to "... identify context that always existed but has not hitherto been documented". The past maintenance of a body of records will affect how the records can be used in the future.
In order to document the details they encounter, archivists use the device of archival description to record the arrangement of the collection. Archival description9 is a term relevant to the process of describing an archival collection as well as the product (the documentation) resulting from the process. Part of the archival description process can also entail analysing how a body of records has been arranged prior to their arrival at the archives. Arrangement10 is the term adopted for the process of arranging as well as the term for the resultant product of arrangement (order and sequence of items) from the process of arranging. When archivists carry out the process of arranging, it is necessary for them to protect the context of the materials by recording the provenance11 and original order12 of the records. Maclean (1962, p.
130) noted that when archivists arrange and present an archival collection they should ensure preservation of the essential quality of the records: “ of what actually happened in the course of the affairs which gave rise to them”. Archivists can use
documentation as well as physical arrangement to provide intellectual control over records. This topic will be further discussed in Section 2.4 of this literature review, paying particular regard to Maclean’ s work with the Australian Commonwealth Government records in the 1950s and 1960s.
In the case where an accumulation of records has not retained an arrangement from the time of its creation, and the archivist carries out an arrangement process, the principle of provenance13 and the principle of original order14, are observed by attempting to re-establish the provenance and order through archaeological archivology. Provenance and original order are two fundamental principles of archival science. The terms of archival description, arrangement, principle of
9 See the entry for archival description in the Glossary section of this thesis.
10 See the entry for arrangement in the Glossary section of this thesis.
11 See the entry for provenance in the Glossary section of this thesis.
12 See the entry for original order in the Glossary of this thesis.
13 See the entry for principle of provenance in the Glossary section of this thesis.
14 See the entry for principle of original order in the Glossary section of this thesis.
provenance and principle of original order are important, being defined for each generation of archivists so that the result of their work, their product, can be
understood in the context of their era. While the process of arranging and describing archives is an archival activity carried out in all archives, how each generation of archivists carries out these archival activities will depend on the definition of the terms used by the archivist during their lifetime. However, the product of their arrangement and description activities will become fixed to the specific year they undertook them, that product then becoming embedded in the documentation of a collection of records. Both the process and product of arrangement and description become part of the custodial history of an archival collection.
MacNeil’ s (2005, p. 269, 278) exploration of the relationship between archival description and maintaining the authenticity of the records places the “ archivist’ s efforts to identify and represent the original order of a body of records through arrangement” . In other words arrangement, as a product fixed at a point in time through archival description, is a representation of the archivist’ s interpretation of how the principles of arrangement and description should be applied to that specific body of records. This topic is discussed in chapter 7, and together with
rearrangement, is also further discussed in chapter 4 on the VOC archives.
The arrangement of a collection of records has significance at the point where they enter archival custody, a pivotal event in the custodial history of a collection of records. When the records cross this archival threshold they enter an intellectual framework that aims to “ stabilize and perpetuate the relationships between and among the records” (MacNeil, 2005, p. 272). MacNeil notes the device archivists use to stabilize and perpetuate the relationships is archival description, the purpose being, to document the original order of the records and the history of the records by their creator over time, when they are underpinned by the principles of archival arrangement. That is, archivists’ archival activities can provide a framework to stabilize and perpetuate the relationships of the records while they are held in archival custody.
The discussion of arrangement and description in the archival literature in English in recent years has been dominated by a) record control systems; b) international and national descriptive standards; and c) the needs of researchers when using finding aids
(MacNeil, 2005, p. 266-267). The development of arrangement and description practices and the principles on which these practices have drawn has received less attention in the archival literature, MacNeil suggesting that more research is needed on how the relationship between archival description and authenticity is represented in the documentation, particularly documentation such as finding aids. The case studies presented in this thesis will contribute to filling the gap in the current archival
literature by discussing the process of arrangement and description as an archival device used by archivists during the second and third custodial phases of
accumulations of ‘old company records’ .
2.1.1 Archival custody
When records enter archival custody they enter an intellectual framework providing a stable environment so that the relationship between and among records in a collection can be analysed and documented. Bastian (2004, p. 93) notes that
together with archival description and arrangement, custody should be recognised as a fundamental principle of archival management. One of the central functions of the archival profession is the work done to capture the reasons why and when the records were created. The details about who has kept (had custody of) the records since their creation influences how the records can be used in the future.
An important issue is how arrangement and description processes and products can identify the structure of the record-keeping system in which the records were kept before the records crossed the archival threshold. Implicit in this issue are:
1) the effect that the phases of custody have had on the arrangement of the records that have survived to cross the archival threshold;
2) the influence each record-keeping custodian have had on the arrangement of the records by their manner of interpretation of the recommended archival practices of their era; and
3) the effect of the length of time between the era of the record-keeping practices and the era of the archival practices when the records finally cross the archival threshold.
That a long period of time has elapsed between when the records were created and when the records crossed into archival custody is an important aspect of this discussion. Strategies that archivists use to arrange and describe a collection of records if the archivist knows the organisation that created the records are likely to be different to the strategies used if the organisation that created the records was
completely unknown. With no prior knowledge of the organisation the archivist would have to use the analysis of the collection itself as the starting point of reference in building up a picture of the organisation creating the record. This investigative analysis of archives has been described as “ archaeological archivology” (Horsman, 1999, p. 47) and as advanced “ reconstructive” work (Maclean, 1962, p. 145). Clues about how the records have been kept over time are sought from visual investigation of them, and attributes that were added after the item was created. These may include punched holes and folio numbers, as these can be analysed for indications as to the prior arrangement the records had in earlier custodial phases. Maclean also noted that analysis of the custodial history of a collection of records might first yield the place where the collection was found; and then further analysis might yield the place where the records were raised. In this instance, Maclean suggested that the term
provenience15, borrowing a definition from archaeologists to describe the place where the collection was found. This definition could be used to differentiate from
provenance, the place of origin of the records (Maclean, 1962, p. 140, footnote 7).
The subtlety of this difference, which Maclean identifies, can be seen in the case study of the RAC Archives where the records originated with the company in the
seventeenth century; whereas by the early twentieth century, Jenkinson documented the records of the RAC as being located in the Treasury’ s accumulation of records.
That is, the provenance of the RAC Archives was as records created in the
seventeenth century by the Royal African Company; whereas their provenience was a part of the accumulation of the Treasury’ s records. This topic will be further
discussed in Chapter 6 on the RAC Archives.
15 See the entry for provenience in the Glossary section of this thesis.