In his 2005 overview entitled Reopening archives: bringing new
contextualities into archival theory and practice, Nesmith (2005, p. 274) concludes that the considered study of the history of records and archives carried out by archivists in their efforts to glean as much information as they possibly can on the archives in their custody, can allow them to “ explore the shape of theoretical positions and professional practices in order to bring the wider contextualities into archival theory and practice”. Understanding the how and why, or lack thereof, of the existence of the archival records in their custody will enable archivists to write an essay on the administrative history of the archives in their care, and to be able to evaluate critically any essay written by the custodian before them.
Nesmith is referring not only to the context of the records themselves, but also to the context of archival practices, and professional practices and ideas of the time the records were arranged and the administrative history was written, as reflected in the previous work on the records. Nesmith (2005, p. 259) discusses the growing interest in the history of records and archives, making the observation, “ the intellectual history of the archival profession is the history of the thinking about the nature of contextual knowledge about records” . The importance of the contextual knowledge about records had been previously emphasized by Hedstrom (1998, p. 18) when she wrote,
“ What sets archives apart from other types of information is the centrality of context and provenance” . She further observed, “ to my mind, solutions will not come from trying to re-establish a romantic ideal of archival absolutes, impartiality, naturalness or objectivity … [as] … archivists attempt to translate ideals into affordable and
achievable plans of action” . Authors have been discussing what archivists could or should have done, and while archival absolutes are useful as targets to be achieved, it is also useful to have the literature discuss what archivists have done in the past, and what practices have and have not endured. The use of the phrase, “ what practices have and have not endured” does not necessarily mean that enduring archival practices were successful, or those not enduring were not successful. Archival practices such as appraisal and description leave an imprint on the records, however,
“ archivists are not the only force determining what [archival value] survives, and, in many cases they may be minor players among much larger social, technological, cultural, political and budgetary forces that shape the holdings of archives”
(Hedstrom, 1998, p. 33). The manner in which the arrangement and descriptive practices utilized on the VOC and EIC archives in the late nineteenth century reflected the professional practices and ideas of that time, this is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, and, the arrangement and descriptive practices used on the HBC and RAC archives in the early to mid twentieth century are discussed in Chapter 6.
During the investigative archival analysis process, the archivist can establish contextual information about a collection of archival records by identifying:
“ 1) relevant information on the person or organization responsible for creating, accumulating, maintaining, or using the records;
2) the function or roles [the] records were created to support;
3) record-keeping practices that may be evidenced in the records; and 4) significant events or developments to which the records relate.”
(Roe, 2005, p. 46)
In addition to Roe’ s four aspects identified above, another aspect of establishing contextual information during the research conducted by archivists on an
accumulation of archival records in their care is awareness that the custodial history of archives can be more important, intricate and elusive than previously acknowledged (Nesmith, 2005, p. 267). It is possible that individual archival collections within an archival repository have different custodial histories and these differences need to be
understood to allow for a full understanding of why these archives have endured. For example, the previous custodian may have arranged, or rearranged an archival
collection by subject rather than provenance, which may have been a general practice in that era. Whereas, the next custodian can review the work of the previous
custodian and restore the arrangement to reflect the way their creator raised the records. An example of rearrangement and restoration activity such as that carried out on the VOC Archives is discussed in Chapter 4.
Interestingly, Nesmith (2005, p. 4) observes that archives are “ stable and
comprehensive” and “ acted upon ... but not acting upon (or influencing) anything much” . In contrast to Nesmith’ s opinion, this research explores the possibility that archivists can become influenced by the content and context of the archives in their care. Nesmith also notes that protection of the relationship between the record and its creator forms the basis for the conventional notion of authenticity20. In this chain of custody, records pass from the creator to the custodian, relationships between the records and its custodians over time becomes embedded in the history of the records.
The question arises, "how can archivists document the custodial history of the archives in their care?” Light & Hyry (2002, p. 222) advocate the enhancement of finding aids with colophons and annotations so that archivists can “ document themselves” as part of the custodial history. By describing their interpretation of the archival collection on which they have arranged and described, archivists can record the decisions they made during the investigative phase of their work. This allows both future custodians and researchers to garner an insight into what the archivist found, and the year in which they executed their research. Archivists can only document their interpretation of the findings made at the time of their investigations, and though how they interpreted (processed) the information may not be considered standard practice by future archivists, what they documented (produced) in their era becomes embedded in the custodial history of the records on which they worked.
The second step noted by Roe (2005, p. 46) during the archivists’ work in
establishing contextual information about a collection of archival records is that of identifying the function or roles the records were created to support. Challenges arise when the role the records were created to support, continues over many decades
during which time, the office, whose function it was to create the records, changes.
Eastwood (2000, p. 114) has recorded, “ A predecessor office should not be deprived of records it created; a successor office should not have records ascribed to it that it did not create” . However, the records may show the archivists, when writing up the record-keeping history of the organisation, that the office whose function it was to create the records was changed. But, as the form of the record stayed the same because the role for which the record was needed did not change, the explanation becomes part of the custodial history of the records. Jenkinson (1955, p. 326) wrote that he preferred the description of the continuity of the role of the records by the successive holders of the chief executive control in England, rather than to describe these officers by their successive duties in The Chancery, the Privy Seal Office, the Secretaries of State and the Modern Departments. While the role of chief executive control for England has endured since 1086 when official records were held at the Royal Treasury in Winchester (Hall, 1908, p. 118), the title of the office held has changed at various times over the last 800 years. The challenge for archivists is to identify the relationship between the archival records and the form and function of their creation to explain fully the context surrounding the records (Cook, 1997b, p.
23; Eastwood, 2000, p. 93; Jenkinson, 1947, p. 250). Documenting both the continuity of the role, the form of the records, and, where instructive, the administrative changes in the office whose function it was to create the records, allows for a more complete understanding of the context of the records. In this regard custodial history of the records may need to be complemented with the administrative history of the organisation.
Documentation or finding aids such as inventories, calendars, list and indexes are the products of the arrangement and description activities that document the archival scheme of arrangement used at a specific point in time. It is useful to define what the term inventory, calendar, list or index meant to the archivists in the era in which they performed their duties as those definitions are fixed, like the product of the actual inventory, calendar, list or index, at the specific point in time when they were produced. For example, Horsman (2003, p. 7) notes that the Calendar was the main form of finding aid produced in The Netherlands in the nineteenth century, and the
20 See the entry for authenticity in the Glossary section of this thesis.
Inventory in The Netherlands in the pre-Manual period was a simple list which the custodian used as a tool for administrative control only. This contrasts with the post-Manual period when the Inventory was expanded to include intellectual control to ensure that the context, structure and contents of the archive were fully represented.
Therefore, the definition of the term Inventory must be qualified by the period in which it was produced, such as the pre-Manual or post-Manual period. The term Inventory as defined was expanded in The Netherlands between the pre-Manual period and the post-Manual period.
Calendaring was used in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, though by the 1950s the practice was out of style with most archival practitioners (Radoff, 1948a, p.
123). The main aim of calendaring was to précis the contents of a document that could be located through a subject index at the end of the calendar. Calendaring provides characteristics later to be used in abstracting and indexing services. The product of calendaring, the calendar, had entries arranged in chronological sequence, however the calendar did not reflect the product outlining the arrangement of the documents on the shelf (Radoff, 1948b, p. 203). Calendars allowed only limited intellectual access to a collection of documents in a role of finding aid rather than as a product of description. Calendaring is discussed further in chapter 5 on the EIC Archives.
While archivists in the early twenty-first century are able to communicate their definitions of archival methods, principles and terminology with the presence of an online glossary of archival terms to be accessed by anyone in the world with internet access (Pearce-Moses, 2005), late nineteenth century definitions of key archival terms such as fonds, archives, provenance and custody had different connotations depending on the country of the archivist. For example, as discussed in Chapter 6, Jenkinson (1912, p. 186, footnote 2) when working on the RAC archives in the first decade of the twentieth century, described “ fonds” as “ collections as they have come down to us from their collectors” . Whereas, by 1922 when writing his Manual of Archive
Administration, he defined “ fonds” as “ the chief Archive unit in the Continental system and the basis of all rules as to arrangement” . He rendered the French term
“ fonds” in English as “ archive group” , with the caution that he had chosen the term
‘archive group’ “ for lack of better translation” (Jenkinson, 1922, p. 84). Therefore,
as ideas about the archival craft were being developed in various countries the terminology necessarily allowed for several definitions which catered for the developing ideas. This is an important point to keep in mind when carrying out
“ archaeological archivology” or investigative analysis of archives.