At the 1890 Conference of Dutch State Archivists, Van Riemsdijk advocated a Principle of respect for archival structure (Ketelaar, 1996a, p. 34). This principle is
instructive when an archivist is rearranging an archival collection to reflect the records management structure that had maintained the records in their first custodial phase.
As discussed in section 2.1 of the literature review, arrangement as a product fixed at a point in time through archival description is a representation of the archivist’ s interpretation of how arrangement and description principles should be applied to that specific body of records. Rearrangement occurs when record-keeping professionals have concluded the scheme of arrangement of the records as presented to them is not the arrangement in which, as a result of their research, they believe the records ought to follow. It is useful at this point to distinguish between collections that have survived intact in their original order, as they were in their first custodial phase in the organisation that created them; and collections having for some reason had that order obscured. Current archival thinking requires original order in the former must be preserved and not disturbed. This theoretical stance has developed over time, aided by thoughtful practising professionals like Van Riemsdijk, Heeres, Colenbrander, Danvers and Jenkinson. Yet the cases presented in this study on which they worked had all lost their original order, at least to some extent. In the VOC and HBC Archives, the original order had almost been completely lost, and in the EIC Archives much of the original order remained, but some records were in complete disarray, requiring reconstruction. Furthermore, a significant quantity of documents had been lost, inspiring Danvers’ mission to fill the information gaps by making an artificial collection from the copies of records from the VOC Archives. The RAC Archives also required extensive research by Jenkinson who was trying to reconstruct the original order of them, that is, the order prior to that in which they were kept at the Treasury. This loss of administrative context and order inspired the custodians of the collections to conduct their archaeological archivology so as to re-establish the context as far as possible, reflecting it in their descriptive products. Thus practice developed to deal with problematic collections contributed to the development of archival theory.
However, this approach has not always been the norm. De Jonge’ s work to rearrange a part of the VOC Archives was not to reflect an interpretation of original order of the records but rather as his remedy to finding no contents tables for those particular years. At this stage of archival thinking, reconstructing administrative context and
order was certainly not a priority. De Jonge’ s view was that the records of the VOC were the means to his end of finding information about a particular subject; and that he would later publish selected documents in a series on the Rise of Dutch
Sovereignty in the East Indies (De Jonge, 1862-1888). For De Jonge preserving the order of the archives was not important if that order did not assist researchers in finding information in the records. Yet his approach was a shortsighted and rather primitive one to the provision of access, since he catered only to his own research interests and needs, and possibly those of a few other current researchers. He did not seem to consider that by exploiting his own privileged position as archivist to pursue his own interests and facilitating access for this particular research topic, he may have been hindering access for future researchers, yet unknown, whose interests he could not imagine.
Heeres followed De Jonge, but for him preserving the evidential nature of the documents gave validity to the information contained within them. This archival development of the idea of evidentiality is entirely dependent upon the ability to demonstrate the records’ context and origin in the administrative structure that created them, thereby establishing their authenticity. In developing this theoretical stance, Heeres built on Van Riemsdijk’ s work, exploiting knowledge of authenticated context to demonstrate that the information in the records is authoritative and
accurate, that is, it can be presented as evidence.
Heeres’ work on the VOC Archives was to rearrange a part of them to reflect the scheme of arrangement in which the records had been originally held. His view was that the VOC records should reflect its organisation, he had a much more
sophisticated understanding of the nature of archival materials than De Jonge. He demonstrated an understanding of provenance, not only from the crude perspective of a total collection and the now accepted general principle of not mixing records from different sources, but also by taking into account internal administrative structure and change. Heeres was able to discern different administrative units because he wrote up his analysis of the documents by making an inventory of what he had found. He contributed to the development of archival theory by discerning that intellectual access was possible via the inventory thus making unnecessary physical re-arrangement redundant.
The sheer volume of work to be done determined that Heeres would not be able to finish, having to pass the task on to the next archivist. Nevertheless an observation by Cook (2001, p. 4) that the archivist’ s role is as an active shaper of societal memory, certainly qualifies Heeres as a contender for this title.
After leaving VOC Archives, Heeres became Professor at the Dutch Colonial Institute in Delft, publishing in 1899 The Part Borne by the Dutch in the Discovery of
Australia 1606-1795. He acknowledged the documents on which his work was based were housed in the General State Archives and thanked Van Riemsdijk and
Colenbrander for their assistance (Heeres, 1899, p. iii). Heeres’ intention in publishing this volume was to show that documentary evidence exists of the Netherlanders seventeenth and eighteenth centuries exploratory voyages along the coasts of Australia, and that “ the first authenticated discovery of any part of the great Southland was made in 160658 by a Dutch schip the Duifken” (Heeres, 1899, p. iii).
Heeres also presented the documents in Dutch and English for further evidentiary comparison, a demonstration of historical fact.
The fundamental change to be seen between De Jonge’ s view in the 1860s-1870s and Heeres’ view from the 1890s, was that archives could be maintained using physical control, through arrangement, to represent that the organisation creating the records and information in the archives could be accessed using intellectual control through documentation, such as published works.
Also of basic importance was that the VOC Archives had been in their third custodial phase having crossed the archival threshold to be in an environment where archivists could observe the archival structure of the records, including the arrangement presented, the chronicling of the organisation creating the records, and the custodial history of the records. These conditions facilitated observations that enabled Van Riemsdijk’ s development, by 1890, of his Principle of Respect for Archival Structure, which averred the structure of an archival collection as presented to have a history.
Thus, through observation and analysis, the archivist could demonstrate whether or not the structure represented the original arrangement of the records during its first custodial phase.
58 The 400-year anniversary of this discovery was celebrated in 2006 by Australia and The Netherlands. Source: [http://www.australian-embassy.nl/thag/wc2.html accessed 7 Feb 2008]
Obviously, archivists need time to carry out investigations in the third custodial phase, if the administrative structure of the organisation and the record’ s arrangement were not documented in the first custodial phase. Over the years experienced archivists have observed that, with planning, records in the first custodial phase could be embedded with the information to facilitate their smooth transition into the third custodial phase. By viewing the records as moving from a first custodial phase to a second custodial phase and then into a third custodial phase focuses attention on the context of the records themselves. This view of custodial phases is one of Jenkinson’ s contributions to the development of archival practice and theory. This thesis has used this particular view as the focus for a discussion on the product and process of arrangement and description.
The investigative activities used by Colenbrander on the VOC Archives and Jenkinson on the RAC Archives showed that the product of arrangement of the records, that is, the order of the records when each archivist came to work on them, was a result of the arrangement occurring in the relevant, previous custodial phase. And this could be established by analysing a collection of records using “ archaeological archivology”
(Horsman, 1999, p. 47), and advanced “ reconstructive” work (Maclean, 1962, p.
145). These applications involved an analysis of the custodial history of a collection of records to identify the place where the collection was found (provenience), and further analysis to identify where the records were raised (provenance) (Maclean, 1962, p. 140). This process takes time to identify what aspects of the arrangement and description, having survived, can be seen in the collection of records extant.
Colenbrander observed some of the early records of the VOC to contain ship’ s logs (see chapter 4), however, of the large numbers of ships existing in the early
seventeenth century, only a small number of the ship’ s logs had survived. Recording details of what ought to be held but was not found at the time the archivist carried out the analysis then becomes part of the custodial history. This is an important part of documenting custodial history because light is thrown on what was known at a particular time about what records ought to have been present but were not. And, in turn helps to clarify knowledge about the structure of the records in the context of the activities of the organisation creating them.
The purpose of conducting investigative analysis in archives is to support the reasons for rearranging all or part of the records if it is decided to rearrange; or to confirm that the arrangement in place reflects the structure of the records system creating the documents. An important element noted by Horsman is that the “ structure of the fonds is determined by the records managers rather than by the administration”
(Horsman, 1999, p. 47). The decisions made by the custodian of the records in the first custodial phase on how the records should be organised is reflected in the structure implemented in the first custodial phase. The records managers, working with the records creators, decide what records should be created and kept to provide the necessary evidence of business conducted and accountability.
Archivists, working with archival collections in their third custodial phase, build up a body of knowledge and experience which then comprises the context of the records;
they become familiar with the habits of the people creating the records through the process of arranging and describing them.
Ketelaar (1996a, p. 33) credits Van Riemsdijk with being “ a forerunner of the modern post-custodial paradigm, in which analysis of the characteristics of individual
documents is replaced by understanding the business functions, transactions, and workflows that cause documents to be created” . At the core of Van Riemsdijk’ s functional methodology was the extensive research he carried out into the structure of the records in the first custodial phases, as well as the organisation of the
administration creating them. Additionally, Colenbrander’ s work on the VOC archives shows he carefully investigated how the surviving documents were raised in their first custodial phase.
The micro-view of providing contextual information focuses on the arrangement, description and boundaries of archival custody, the macro-view widens that focus to include the influence by the archivist on the archives they select to enable them to produce such contextual information. The custodial history of the archives connects the two views to the custodial phases linking the record-keeping activities of past custodians with the archival activities of current custodians.
Comparing what archivists have done in the past when they have arranged and documented an archival collection with the ideal professional practices of their time shows not only how they arranged and documented, but also how their solutions
became part of the professional archival practice of the time. That archival practice then became embedded in the arrangement and description of archives. Archival practices are also indicative of how archivists think; therefore glimmers in
understanding of the development of archival thinking through their practices can be discerned.
The arrangement and descriptive practices used on the VOC and EIC archives in the late nineteenth century reflected the professional practices and ideas of that time.
While these processes and products where influenced by past practices, the ideas of functional methodology were in their formative stage, the context surrounding the creation of the records being interpreted according to the functions represented by the records when they where created. With that context in place, the integrity of the archival records can be demonstrated.