Twentieth-century archives

5

Twentieth-century archives Abstract: Contrary to information in libraries, archive holding consists of unique records. Every document has to be considered as a part of an organic evolution and as a result of an activity of an agency or an entity, and must be archived according to this overall ideology. The administrative routines in public and official organisations have been more and more complex and vast during the century, demanding high professionalism among staff. Appraisal of the never-ending growth of analogue and digital records is today one of the most important tasks for archivists to solve. Databases with personal records demand high levels of juridical competence among the archive staff and archive legislation is as a consequence getting more and more advanced. Key words: legal framework, appraisal, electronic records, standardisation.

Introduction There is no general agreement as to the nature of a modern archive. Thus it should not come as any surprise that professional archivists and the users of archives have difficulty agreeing upon a definition of archives. The one used by the ICA (International Council on Archives) is very broad and inclusive, thus easy to accept. Bradsher, without belying his North American background and making use of this general definition, states that:

69

Libraries and Archives

archives are the official or organised records of governments, public and private institution and organisations, groups of people and individuals, whatever their date, form and material appearance, preserved, either as evidence of origins, structure, function, and activities or because of the value of the information they contain, whether or not they have been transferred to an archival institution. (Bradsher, 1988) Less elegant in style and approach, the Swedish archivist Nils Nilsson had claimed that: the primary mission of archives is to preserve and provide access to archival collections and primary sources, regardless of their condition and their age. Recent documents are just as indispensable as historically significant sources. Additionally, archives should provide the necessary service for the scholarly community, administrative agencies and society at large. An archive is a collection of documents which furnishes evidence about and reflects the activity of its creator. (Nilsson, 1977) Dutch archival theory, as it was codified and standardised in the manual of 1898, claimed that: an archival collection is the whole of the written documents, drawings and printed materials, officially received or produced by an administrative body or one of its officials, in so far as these documents were intended to remain in the custody of that body of that official. (Muller et al., [1898] 1940)

70

Twentieth-century archives

Each of these definitions has a different point of reference, but they do share a common denominator. They all agree that archives are intentional in purpose and are construed around the principle that their content must be preserved, systematised, defined and described through their characteristic markers, and made available to potential users. The ICA definition has as its starting point the aims and missions of archives, which are then supplemented by a more practical description of archival structures. The definition is rather general and uncontroversial. The principle of provenance became the guiding principle of archival theory at the end of the late nineteenth century and radically transformed the organisational structure of archives in Western Europe. Its attractiveness lay in its tri-fold nature: it defined the origin of the material, traced its transfer of ownership and emphasised the sanctity of each collection as a unit. An integral part of this principle was an inherent critique of earlier archival theory and an indisputable emphasis on efficacy. Archives were now viewed as a whole. If previously attention was primarily directed at individual collections, now it underlined the place and role of these individual collections in a larger, often multifarious whole. Archival theory distinguished clearly between archives and collections. A collection could be created by an individual or an institution and have almost any form whatsoever. An archive could be defined by its function or organisation – the only prerequisite was that it had its source in some sort of activity. Nils Nilsson asserted that the adaptation of this principle led to conventions on the nature and essence of the materials and helped coin new meanings for the notion of the archive and its constituent elements – the materials stored. Archival materials were clearly distinguished from other sources, especially books and other printed materials. This, in turn, allowed one to define the ideas which lay at the

71

Libraries and Archives

foundation of archival theory and were implicit in the activity of archivists. From this a methodology could be derived, especially for systematising and documenting the materials. Finally, this theoretical foundation also provided guidelines for how to appraise collections, how to store materials and how to retrieve relevant information (Nilsson, 1977). I have already directed attention to the developments at the beginning of the twentieth century which transformed how libraries perceived themselves. Of interest for us is the dichotomy which arose between libraries and archives. This dichotomy has been reinforced by varying epistemological ideologies. National libraries were deeply engaged in the search for knowledge. But how was this search to be adapted to a new world in which the object of studies was being construed in new subject categories? Libraries were deeply engaged in finding practical solutions which would adapt the search for knowledge and truth to these new categories. At the same time, national libraries had to reaffirm and develop further the whole idea of legal deposit, thus becoming perhaps the most visible champions of open access. Archives, on the other hand, regarded materials as organic units which could not be dispersed or rearranged. A book or a periodical could be extracted from its original context and assigned to a new one, without losing its identity. This stratification could enhance the search for knowledge. It could even assume a completely new identity by being catalogued as a separate item. Archive materials, however, were to be viewed as belonging to a unit and thus also derived their identity from it. Perhaps oversimplifying a little, we could claim that the library had to guarantee free access to all information, even its most basic constituent element. If in the library world one looked at the collection from the outside in, the archive reveals what makes an item that which it is, by underscoring its place in a larger structure.

72

Twentieth-century archives

The archive must work in conjunction with those institutions providing material, be they public or private, and devise methods of compounding the material in a way which most accurately reflects the activity of the institution. This is an ongoing process due to the dynamic nature of human society, which is never stationary. A good example of this dynamic quality is the recent transition to electronic platforms, which have altered not only the form in which material is transferred and its organisational structure, but even its essence, attributes and modality. As a result, archives have become much more involved in the process of creating archives and determining how material will be stored, as well as with the legal aspects of documenting a society. The integrity of the individuals and institutions which make up this society must be protected without jeopardising the right of the individual to retain free access to this material. This has resulted in a rather peculiar set of circumstances. Safeguarding the rights of individuals, while documenting societal development, has proved to be an expensive proposition. Archives have had trouble processing, preserving and providing access to these vast materials. Simultaneously, not all materials can and should be preserved indefinitely. Some limits should be imposed. With the expansion of administrative structures, the sheer volume of materials is overwhelming. This was not as pressing a problem previously. But for modern societies with large administrative infrastructures, this problem can be alleviated only by appraisal. Appraisal requires its own policy and procedures. Archives are also unique since they are called upon to keep in store for future use even classified materials under strict confidence. These can be of a political nature or deal with security issues. But most sensitive is usually private confidentiality. Private confidentiality agreements guarantee that materials are stored, but not released for significant periods of time. Once they are released, there may be careful

73

Libraries and Archives

regulations about who is permitted to access them – for example, family members or serious scholars. Administering confidentiality has become an ever-increasing burden for archives since the number of electronic registers has increased to a manifold degree with the digital revolution. There does not appear to be any end to the collection of structured data in computer storage. Confidentiality is an issue with which archives must deal on a daily basis. It may be necessary to decide what is really confidential and what is not; it may be necessary to determine who should have access to what. Any transgression in this area can be financially and legally punitive. Libraries are seldom compelled to engage these issues. When it happens, it is often a result of sensitive private collections which cannot be opened for a set time or documents, periodicals, etc. which contain materials which are morally objectionable or politically ‘hot stuff’. The need for international standards and principles for library materials has been self-evident. Archival materials must be processed differently, due to their unique nature. For this reason, less attention has been paid to principles of standardisation. But even in this area, significant steps have been taken in conjunction with the ISO (International Organization for Standardization). The greatest effort has been expended in creating standards for digital materials – for electronically delivered materials from both governmental and private agencies as well as more general digital content. Due to the reasons mentioned above, archives have not made use of technical aids to the same degree as libraries.

Legal support Archives today are legally on solid ground. The cornerstones of their legal framework are the archive ordinance and the

74

Twentieth-century archives

Confidentiality Act. This type of established set of principles is in no way a modern phenomenon. The Greeks and Romans drafted such documents. During the Middle Ages, ecclesiastical authorities stipulated a legal foundation for how the archives of the Church were to be used. The perhaps oldest (at least, the most developed) such ordinance in Western Europe is the Swedish ordinance from 1618 – mentioned in Chapter 3 and supplemented with an illustration – which decreed that a: secretary shall take care of the old and present records of the ‘riksens archivum’ [the national archives]. He should also maintain and preserve the records in such a way that they will not be destroyed. The records should be kept in a decent room so that they will be accessible. He should also read them and correct them, if necessary. He is also obliged to set up a register where all the old and new records could be filled in. (Bergh, 1916) Though almost 400 years old, this decree has not lost its relevance and still can be executed. It was, however, in France during the last decade of the eighteenth century, as a response to the events of the French Revolution, that more comprehensive archival legislation was implemented. In the 1970s, the ICA surveyed the state of archival legislation and came to the conclusion that almost every country had some form of legislation. There were, however, rather significant differences in defining archives, in determining when a collection of materials could be deemed to be an archive, which documents should be included in archives and how this should be regulated. Michel Duchein of the French National Archives in Paris presented the problem in the following manner:

75

Libraries and Archives

For example, in the United Kingdom and other countries with Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, documents derive legal value from the fact that they are kept in a public archival repository, whereas this is not the case in countries of Latin culture; legislation thus varies on this point. Another difference in the scope of archival laws is whether they are concerned with archives only after they have been transferred from the agency where they originated or also deal with management of current records… For all these reasons, it would be unrealistic to propose an ‘ideal’ model for archival legislation. Many parts of a Russian or Chinese archival law would be meaningless in the U.S. or Japan, while many requirements useful in industrialised countries would be useless in developing ones. (Duchein, 1993) Duchein is correct in his claim that there are significant variations between different countries and archiving traditions. Nevertheless, despite different social conditions, there are some common denominators. Though one should not exaggerate the importance of time since the study (the figures are not up to date), the ordinances reveal some startling differences. Great Britain’s and France’s ordinances are 36 pages long, Spain’s 26, Sweden’s 26, Germany’s 22, the USA’s 19 and Denmark’s 8. Though this is by no means any reflection of the quality of the draft or its efficacy, it does, however, point to the complexity of the issues (ICA, Archivum, 1967). Despite Duchein’s reluctance to emphasise commonality, it is impossible to ignore it. It is hardly necessary to immerse oneself in documenting it. It suffices to observe how voluminous archival legislation is in comparison to library enactments. But it is, however, worthwhile to understand the intrinsic structure of archival legislation.

76

Twentieth-century archives

Archival acts are introduced most often by a survey of those agencies and organisations which are subject to the prescripts of the ordinance – federal and local agencies, as well as independent ones. These introductions are followed by mission statements which also explain why the course of action prescribed is of importance. These statements can be quite varied. But all seem to claim that archives are perhaps the most important heritage institution, which provide valuable and crucial insights into how a country is governed and how it functions towards its citizens. This, in turn, is followed by an outline of the responsibilities of those who create archives – how they should document, systematise, organise and institutionalise their archives in such a way that the material is preserved and is readily available not only for immediate use, but also for the long-term foreseeable future. Few of the countries that the ICA included in its study lack national archives. Almost all have archive ordinances which regulate their activity. Most often, they spell out the general principles of a legal deposit system, articulate the right (or even responsibility) of archives to care for governmental documents and even single out national archives as safeguards of other archives. National archives should maintain surveillance over governmental agencies and demonstrate that they abide by the laws and regulations outlined in the acts. In many countries, national archives take precedence. By means of public decree and regulations, they dictate in detail how archives should be run – from what kind of paper should be used to how metadata should be construed for digital documents. National archives often reserve the right to determine how archival collections should be appraised in a legally safe and secure manner, and even the criteria for such appraisal. Seldom, however, are these guidelines expounded in detail when it comes to what type of records should be appraised or how the

77

Libraries and Archives

appraisal should be carried out. This exercise of authority is most often established without referring to any ordinance. It is possible to extract several common denominators from almost all of the archival acts. There are very few which provide a different conceptual infrastructure. My task has not been that of presenting an analysis of archival acts today. In my conclusions I shall explore the particular features that reveal the goals and purposes of archival acts, and relate them to their corresponding documents for libraries.

Problems and possibilities with standardisation Even though archives have not standardised their procedural policies to the same degree as libraries, one should not overlook significant developments. The need for terminological standardisation has been recognised for a long time. As Margaret Pember has shown, standardisation usually begins not as a national endeavour, but as an institutional one. Professional record and information managers have long been interested in developing and using standards to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and accountability, reduce cost, and mitigate risk in the management of corporate records and information. In the past these standards may well have been developed largely in-house by the records manager and enunciated in the recordkeeping policies and procedures of the organisation. Such initiatives covered all aspects of recordkeeping from classification to retention and disposal. (Pember, 2006)

78

Twentieth-century archives

The aforementioned Dutch archive guide from 1898 reiterated and further explicated the need for archives to standardise terminology (Muller, [1898] 1940). But only after World War II did the ICA instigate development initiatives in this area. The state of the archive world was charted and a dictionary of terminology was compiled. This dictionary, which included translations of French archival terms into five other languages, was published in 1964. A revised version of this dictionary appeared in 1984 (Walne, 1984). But new models and concepts gained ground, and a new wave of discussion concerning standardisation of terminology was set in motion during the 1980s. The ICA General Assembly in 1992 advocated and recommended that the development of standardised archival terminology be regarded ‘as a prerequisite to any other steps toward standardisation of practices’ (ICA, Archivum, 1992). Jean Dryden has described the subsequent discussions and progress in this area as hesitating and wavering. The small committee appointed by the ICA under the leadership of the Swedish archivist Björn Lindh for the purpose of creating ISO standards for archival terminology encountered unexpected difficulties and could not submit a revised terminological dictionary for the 1996 General Assembly. Lindh elaborated on some of the difficulties at a conference in Stockholm in 1993, where he examined several groups of related terms and identified confusions and overlaps, concluding in the long run we will be better served by a terminology, accepted by everyone, established on both legal and archival bases and capable of being used in various situations, explaining national legal and other concepts, not merely translating them. (Dryden, 2005)

79

Libraries and Archives

There is not a need for a strict terminological conformity within the international archival community, concludes Dryden. This may seem an odd argument for a director of a terminology project, but it reflects a significant shift in the approach to international standardisation of archival terminology (Dryden, 2005). This rather sceptical assessment has been shared by most experts in the field even during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Application of an internationally standardised terminology proved to be difficult due to the profound differences between the various archival traditions. This was even true on a national level and matters were not simplified by the onset of digital challenges, which introduced completely new terms, most of them dynamic and liable to change. Due to these radical changes, the endeavour can now be regarded as shelved. During the last decade, standardisation aspirations have had a more practical approach – to simplify the processing of incoming digital documents. First and foremost, standardised tags for metadata have been conceived. Progress here has been rapid, in stark contrast to the attempts to compile an international dictionary of terminology. The catalyst has been to keep up with the ever-increasing flow of electronic records. The more standardisation there is, the easier it will be to adapt the record-keeping systems of individual agencies to the incoming documents. The ISO has played an important role here and the Committee for Information and Documentation has been assigned a central role. A number of official policy documents have been drafted which point how the new electronic environment will redefine archives. In one of these documents, we read that:

80

Twentieth-century archives

processing orders, accounts, payments or wages, stock control, managing assets, managing quality assurance systems and contract management are examples of business activities in which recordkeeping is normally integrated with the processing of transactions… Work process analysis from a recordkeeping perspective is essential for developing such an automated application. (ISO, 2001) The vast majority today are aware of how the profound changes in the culture of communication have even shifted the debate in questions of standardisation. There is awareness that procedural questions overshadow in importance those of standardisation. This has also led to a shift in the nature of the discussion – no longer is it the prerogative of archivists alone, but one that includes all who deal with archival materials at some stage in the process. Records management is something that has relevance for vast groups, not only the select few. Archiving is of fundamental importance for all who process or use electronic documents. Management of these documents is a prerequisite for successful archiving. Pember concludes: The range of standards available… offers a comprehensive toolkit for any practitioner or organisation endeavouring to establish, maintain, monitor and evaluate a high competent recordkeeping program or the knowledge and skills required by competent recordkeeping practitioners. Those already available… are evaluated as part of the ongoing standards process and updated as necessary. Many more standards are currently being developed where a need had been identified by the profession. (Pember, 2006)

81

Libraries and Archives

Appraisal – challenging, but necessary What should be preserved? Which solutions to the constraints imposed by lack of space, funding and human resources should be implemented in preserving that which one has decided to preserve? Archives must deal with these questions on a daily basis. They can be posed by the research community, taxpayers and even governmental officials. Recently, I claimed in an interview that the Swedish National Archive adds approximately 20 000 shelf metres of materials to its collections annually. Very few believed me! I added that this growth only composes approximately 10–15% of the total mass of materials produced by governmental agencies – and in reality there is just a small portion of records that comes under the jurisdiction of the archive. My claim did not solve any problems or set in motion new initiatives, but it added an astonishing angle to the discussions. There exist plenty of good explanations as to why such quantities of records are archived. Still, we have to ask ourselves why we continue to preserve so much. Is it really worth it? These questions do, however, challenge us to find a legally sound appraisal solution that also satisfies the demands of the research community and society as a whole. Appraisal is by no means a new phenomenon. I have already mentioned how during and in the aftermath of the French Revolution, archives were appraised to construct a new history. There are other examples where appraisal has had questionable ulterior motives. Up to the end of the nineteenth century, appraisal could be explained by practical administrative considerations: limited facilities, lack of documentation of the collections and physical transfer of collections from one location to another being required could all lead to appraisal. Seldom were the decisions carefully analysed, weighing the pros and cons of their consequences. Archives have also been reduced in size by

82

Twentieth-century archives

fire, theft and war. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this issue acquired new urgency. Not only did people realise how complicated these issues were, they also understood the need for careful policy. The principle of provenance not only drew attention to this issue, but also came to influence the practical consequences of future policy profoundly. This issue has been analysed in a number of writings and from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. This issue has been extremely controversial and volatile, and is probably the most discussed question in the archive world in recent years – at least if you study the wide debate which is still running. It has also garnered the attention of a broad and diverse audience. The Swedish Professor of Archival Studies, Berndt Fredriksson, went so far as to claim that appraisal is the most demanding question archivists will face, with far-reaching consequences. ‘Destroying unique evidence is an irreparable act’ (Fredriksson, 2003). There are others who have shared his view. A few years previously, the Canadian archivist Carol Couture had gone even one step further, claiming that appraisal not only is the most important task of archives, but even constitutes the core and essence of the entire enterprise. She wrote: We are all aware that in appraisal archivists exercise the power of life and death over records under their mandate. Numerous authors have emphasised the importance, the essential character, the nobleness, and the high degree of scholarly and professional proficiency required to appraise archives. (Couture, 2000) All have not granted this right to the archivist. The British archival authority Sir Hilary Jenkinson believed that the creator of archives should be exercising this prerogative, not

83

Libraries and Archives

the archivist, whose task is to provide service to the user. The creator of archives is responsible for bringing them into this world; they are the one even to decide what should be preserved (Jenkinson, 1937). The first to claim the opposite was the American archivist Theodore Schellenberg. The guiding principle when appraising should be not to destroy the evidential value of documents – this was, according to him, not only a legal question, but also one concerned with the value of the document as source material. The archivist was far more capable of deciding in these matters than anyone else. It is the archivist who can interpret the intentions of the creator of the archive; it is they who can evaluate its use and function. Questions of weeding material should be resolved by those with the best command of the material (Fredriksson, 2003; Couture, 2000). The approaches to appraisal can vary. Some direct their attention exclusively to that which is not necessarily required, presuming that in ideal circumstances, everything should be preserved. Others assume that almost everything can be weeded, and that one should preserve only that which is absolutely indispensable. Though the rationales of these two approaches may seem to be worlds apart, the results can be very similar. Use and application have become ever more important criteria. One must acquaint oneself with the way in which the creator of a particular archive has thought. This, in turn, allows one to understand better the content of the material assembled and its value. An understanding of the use and application of the materials simplifies weeding decisions. Berndt Fredriksson has underscored the importance of content for the appraisal process. Content should be analysed and this analysis must be used as a criterion for all decisions. One should not forget ethical considerations. Preservation is an expense like all others.

84

Twentieth-century archives

Therefore one must take into account societal good. The greater the potential use and benefit, the more important is it to preserve. Societal good is closely linked to use. Thus use must be factored in with every decision. That which provides answers to encompassing and crucial issues should be given preference to records that might be of just occasional or temporary interest. (Fredriksson, 2003) Not many basic tenets will disagree with Fredriksson’s, but transforming this theoretical stance into a practical course of action is by no means simple. It is not possible here to immerse ourselves in the intricacies of weeding, but an important Canadian study from 2005 gives us an indication of how individual archivists view these matters and how these considerations can be related to Fredriksson’s observations. Barbara Craig interviewed a large sample of archivists and asked them how they perceive these issues. The results were somewhat surprising for Craig, as she had not expected such a variety of views and approaches. There was no standard approach. The most effective tool in reaching decisions was experience. It appeared to be impossible to devise a theory which could be used for helping others to reach decisions. One’s own experience overrode all other considerations. The best advice was to observe how an experienced archivist handled different situations. At the same time, Craig’s subjects claimed that theory was indispensable – both on a general and a more concrete level, which could be regarded as a contradiction of sorts. More importantly, however, her subjects did not regard appraisal to be the most important task of archivists and they expressed their concern about the lack of impact studies based on an analysis of the content. They also expressed their conviction that special experience and expertise were needed for

85

Libraries and Archives

decisions regarding digital archiving (Craig, 2006). Surprising is the apparent widespread use of a hybrid unstructured methodology, based more on personal experience than a formal educational background or institutional policy. The results of this study should not be exaggerated. It is possible that the same questions could have produced completely different results if division heads had been interviewed. My own experience reveals that this question does indeed garner the attention it deserves. Archivists are professionals and reach their decisions carefully, often documenting their trains of thought copiously in every case.

Summary and conclusion What is, in the end, the fundamental difference between libraries and archives? As relevant as this question is, as we engage new technical challenges almost daily, this question has not received the attention it has deserved. One who has addressed these issues is the insightful James Bradsher in his Managing Archives and Archive Institutions from 1988. Much has happened since Bradsher published his article – we have at our disposal tools which we did not have then and we can access libraries and archives as never before. But Bradsher’s attempt to view libraries and archives together and to point up the differences between the two institutions still has great relevance today. He drew his conclusions from his experience at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington. I shall begin my own reflections with a review of Bradsher’s survey. He was of the firm conviction that: the quality that distinguishes an archive from a library is its uniqueness of its holding. Although libraries may

86

Twentieth-century archives

sometimes contain unique items, for example rare books, for the most part they contain collections of printed works produced for general use, whereas archives contain accumulation of unique documents, created in the course of specific transaction. (Bradsher, 1988) He adds that the quality uniqueness reflects a fundamental difference between libraries and archives. The difference lies in the fact that archival materials are normally created as a result of some regular functional activity of a government agency or other entity. Their significance depends on their organic relation to this body and to other archival materials in the same file, series or record group. Any cultural values they may have are incidental to their creation. Library materials, on the other hand, are produced mainly for cultural or educational purposes. They usually consist of discrete items, whose significance is independent of their relationship to other items. Archive institutions are established to preserve the archival materials produced by the body or bodies they serve; they are receiving institutions. Libraries, on the other hand, are collecting bodies, deriving their materials not from particular entities, but from anywhere or anyone. Librarians, in organising discrete units, use one of the proven, predetermined and logical schemes of classification for the arrangements and subject control of their materials. Archivists, in organising collective organic units, maintain them in their original arrangement, thereby providing evidence of what has gone before. Libraries describe or catalogue discrete items while archivists describe aggregates of items, such as record groups or series. ‘Archives provide information of series of records, while libraries do it for individual items’ (Bradsher, 1988).

87

Libraries and Archives

Bradsher’s final observation is a generalisation, true in many (but not all) cases. It would be erroneous to claim that libraries collect that which falls under the category of legal deposit. It is delivered much in the same way as materials are delivered from governmental agencies. These matters are regulated by legislation; they are neither selected nor purchased by the receiving institution. Let me leave the theoretical analysis to Bradsher. His description and analysis of how libraries and archives are founded and how they are organised is insightful and illuminating. I do not have much to add. But there are other questions which arise. I myself attempted to conceive a comparative study one year after I left my position as the Head of the National Library and assumed duties as Head of the National Archive. At that juncture in 2004, I had not yet had the opportunity to acquaint myself with archives in detail, but my observations were marked by a candid and frank perception of the needs and aspirations of both institution. Before I changed my position from the library to the archive, I anticipated that the change could not be very dramatic. But I was wrong. The organisations looked very different. The corporate culture was different, and so were the routines and priorities, and the competence among the staff differed immensely. But there were also similarities. There was a high amount of idealism in both activities, the staff members were devoted and showed solidarity and the concept of democracy was living. The idea that the users/researchers were the most important player was shared by both organisations and the efforts to fulfil their demands showed no limits. The services offered were highly appreciated. In some cases, such as private archives, the work processes were equal, and when the e-government was a reality, I continued, which I believed would happen soon, the archives would

88

Twentieth-century archives

meet the same type of information (and problems) as libraries experienced with electronic journals. My prediction was therefore that the similarities would increase in the coming years (Lidman, 2004). Let us, however, return to the matter at hand. The most obvious and fundamental difference can be deduced from their purpose and agenda, as these are formulated in legislation and in ordinances. Interestingly enough, terms such as ‘principle of provenance’ and ‘cataloguing rules’ are conspicuously absent. National archives have during the past hundred years become integral parts of governmental administration, just as they were during the seventeenth century. Records management is integrated into the administrative and operational structures of governmental agencies – which clearly outline how this should take place, which functions must be fulfilled by the respective parties and how memoranda of the process should be made. This also constrains archives to guarantee that materials are made readily available and that rules and regulations are followed meticulously. This type of relationship between governmental structures and archives never developed fully in the seventeenth century, as archives never fully assumed the role of registrars, but unquestionably a form of this type of relationship has been restored today due to technical advances and practical and fiscal considerations. Documents are most often digital. To process and store them is time-consuming and requires special skills. Archives provide these skills. Legal deposit legislation has, usually, completely different goals. It is mainly concerned with guaranteeing that published materials, regardless of their form, are made available at a number of institutions, including and especially at the national library. Legislation spells out more than just responsibilities. It also describes the way in which this should be done. For obvious reasons little guidance is

89

Libraries and Archives

provided as to how this should be done. Publishers and printers are private entrepreneurs whose interests do not always correspond to those of governmental agencies. As a result, national libraries do not possess the right to dictate how matters should be expedited, only that materials be delivered within a set time frame. This has resulted in great variation between various parts of the world. In some countries, materials must be delivered instantly, in others, only annually. Simplifying matters somewhat, one could claim that legal deposit legislation dictates how materials should be handled once they have reached the retailer; archival legislation is more precautionary and preparatory. Legal deposit legislation is in many countries often supplemented by library ordinances which govern libraries and the library profession. These ordinances mention national and research libraries only cursorily, without giving special attention to details. I shall not review them in detail, only mention that they usually address the role that libraries can play as educational institutions and cultural centres, which have as their task promoting reading and literacy. Despite their general nature, these ordinances can be rather detailed. There are, thus, profound differences between legal deposit legislation governing libraries and legislation governing archives. One should not, however, ignore the similarities. This is especially true for questions dealing with preservation. This is regarded as one of the most fundamental tasks of both institutions, even though little is set forth about how this should be done. Both are heritage institutions. Access is of central importance, as is freedom of information. These principles, though engaged in different fashions, constitute a fundamental regulatory mechanism. Cooperation in this area could be expanded. In the concluding chapter, I shall express ideas about how this cooperation could be expanded.

90

Twentieth-century archives

Materials kept in archives can be, at times, quite sensitive. They can reveal behaviour, feelings and motives, divulge medical histories, disclose the illegality of certain practices, and uncover sensitive security information about state and military secrets, governmental decision-making processes and disasters. Archives do indeed contain holdings which are not meant for public view, at least temporarily. For this reason, regulating and enforcing security clearances have become central tasks for archives. These decisions can make or break individual lives. For this reason, they must be entrusted to people who are trained to do this and who are well versed in the intricacies of the law. The proliferation of acts concerning secrecy poses a new challenge – not only are these acts becoming more legally complex, but they are also becoming harder to enforce as it has become easier to compile records of a legal or public nature. Disclosing personal information has proven to be extremely difficult to log and monitor. In addition, these issues must be expedited on short notice, frequently by persons who lack the necessary tools for doing so. For this reason, protecting and managing privacy has become a task of paramount importance for archivists. At national libraries, there should be no secrecy whatsoever. All delivered materials should be accessible to the general public; freedom of information is the overriding principle. Sensitive security issues are almost unknown to the librarian. Should such an issue arise, it is most frequently referred to legal services. During my tenure at the National Library of Sweden, this occurred once – in the case of material that had come to the library in an unorthodox fashion. By invoking security issues, it was possible, albeit clumsily, to guarantee that the library retained the materials in question. Libraries are, however, guardians of archives of creative talents who have donated their personal archives on the condition that these are not readily available to one and all – at

91

Libraries and Archives

least, not as long as the donor is alive. These arrangements cannot be compared with the ones described above and reflect not legal issues but rather the predilections of the donor and the library’s role as recipient of the materials. Both libraries and archives receive a constant flow of new content. For archives this can be in tens of thousands of shelf metres. The sheer quantity is more modest for libraries, but should by no means be ignored. For this reason, questions about appraisal are of primary importance for archives. In studying the history of these institutions, one must take into consideration how collections have been ‘appraised’ by natural disasters, war activity, fire – even by lack of insight by the keepers, which has played a more important role than we are wont to admit. Great efforts are being expended today in the search for methods and regulations which can manage this process. Once an item is discarded, it can seldom be reconstructed. My review has demonstrated how hard it is to find guiding principles for appraisal. Each country, each environment has different specifications. Theories about how to proceed are also derived from very different conceptions of the nature of the activity – one which has its theoretical foundation in the search for parameters for preserving something, the other in justifying being able to live without it. The former approach is most often advocated by those associated with historical research; the other by professional archivists. There are yet other factors. Large countries such as the United States and Great Britain, with an overabundance of archival materials, must (for obvious reasons) be more restrictive than smaller countries such as Iceland. As a result, large countries preserve only a fraction of materials produced, while small countries can preserve almost everything. It is worth exploring whether this will change once materials are delivered digitally. No one knows the answer. Estimates in

92

Twentieth-century archives

Denmark, which has a well-oiled digital administrative state apparatus, reveal that the volume of deliveries will not decrease until well into the 2020s. Research libraries approach the question of appraisal from a completely different perspective. Materials can be appraised, if they are available elsewhere, if they are in the holdings of other libraries. This renders the weeded materials risk-free. They can always be accessed either elsewhere or in some other format. National libraries have displayed little concern for these issues. One could claim that they lack expertise in this area. National collections cannot be legally interfered with. Only those holdings which fall outside of this category can be appraised. The onset of digital and web publication has altered the parameters of this discussion. Suddenly libraries are faced with many of the same challenges as archives. The experience of archives in this question will prove to be indispensable for libraries. Research libraries have begun to dispose of their collections in a way not experienced before. Storage space is expensive. If the materials are available elsewhere, it is possible to discard them. Research libraries reflect the research interests of the various departments. If a research area is abandoned or teaching in a subject area terminated, there can be reason to weed collections. The steady rise of electronic publishing and the digitisation of periodicals have also led to shifts in weeding policy. If publishers guarantee access to complete series of periodicals from the very first issues, even if a subscription is terminated, the temptation to save storage space may be irresistible. Research libraries never have to face the sword that archives have hanging over their heads – appraised material cannot be retrieved and is cast into oblivion. For more than one hundred years, issues of coordination and standardisation have been prominent issues for libraries.

93

Libraries and Archives

By standardising how a book’s appearance and content could be specified, it would be able to effectively cross borders. The book proved to be a suitable object for standardisation, as in most parts of the world it had a defined form and structure. By devising standards and by guaranteeing that information could be shared internationally, much time and energy could be spared. Once processed, this information could be recycled. If information is free, accessible to all, it is also very mobile. This conviction gave birth to various advanced systems of how material could be shipped and shared. The inter-library loan is one such system. It could be national as well as international. The first steps in devising such a system were taken at the end of the nineteenth century. These innovations paved the way for further advances after World War I, fuelled by brighter economic prospects and improvements in communication technology. The first modest gathering of the IFLA in 1927 reinforced these efforts. Standardisation and regulation were increasingly on everyone’s agenda. The next breakthrough came at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, with the introduction of automation and machine-readable routines. Libraries were quick to see the potential of these developments and adapt these routines. The steps taken to standardise analogue interfaces now came into use once again. By translating catalogue cards to a binary system, classification and cataloguing could quickly be digitised. An entire decade was devoted to effecting this change, driven by the conviction that automation was the only way to meet the increasing demands of the user. The general level of education rose, as more opted for higher education and as the number of colleges and universities increased. Archives went through a similar process as previously reluctant groups started to use archives more intensively. During this

94

Twentieth-century archives

decade, genealogical research and local history gathered increasing interest. Still today, the ratio of users at national archives and national libraries is something like one to five – that is, those at national libraries outnumber those at national archives fivefold (Lidman, 2004; Sahlin, 1993). Libraries went through a period of unceasing development and innovation. If automation was introduced first by cataloguing and classifying collections, soon it spread to the realm of the user – circulation systems simplified access. These systems could even be adapted to streamline administrative routines for a great variety of tasks – from procuring materials for the conservation department to stocktaking and setting up security systems. With standards in place, the commercially developed, integrated systems could be used worldwide. Most often, only minor adjustments were necessary to account for local idiosyncrasies. With the web, this development took another important step forward – library collections could be made accessible with few exceptions and restrictions in an almost unlimited fashion. Century-old dreams were fulfilled. We are at this juncture now – it remains to bring to fruition uniform reference and metadata systems and, finally, to digitise content in toto. I shall return to this endeavour in the last chapter. Archives face different challenges. As I have already explained, an archival document, which has come into being under completely different circumstances and can be varied in appearance, cannot be compared with a book. Furthermore, administrative routines vary from country to country. For this reason, standardisation has not been able to proceed as smoothly. These efforts commenced later than for libraries. The ICA was only founded in 1948. The organisation became a forum for fruitful discussions on archival theory. Committees oversaw inventory efforts, but paid less attention

95

Libraries and Archives

to technical solutions. Archives have, partly for this reason, engaged new technology less than libraries. Frequently, the challenge has been simply too great – variations in the material and in local archival traditions have proved to be insurmountable. Thus it has been difficult to find standardised solutions for how to structure and describe every component of the record, as has happened for the integrated systems developed by libraries. I have already alluded to these problems in my short account of how complex terminological standardisation has proven to be. Libraries were compelled to find common denominators and common solutions. Otherwise, one would not have been able to look up Shakespeare in various systems and various geographic regions, and reach similar results. Archives succumbed to the difficulty of the challenge – solutions were elusive and the users not as demanding. Libraries have succeeded in connecting with their users. It is relatively easy to find books, regardless of one’s location. The same is true for articles, reports or other documents. Free text searches, now a standard feature – when combined with search engines such as Google – enable one to find satisfactory results quickly. Archives are nowhere near this stage of development. Archival registers can be clumsy tools, and free searches seldom allow perusal of the material at the document level. Archives have, as a result, come to be regarded as more impenetrable and exclusive. This has had direct repercussions on how librarians and archivists work. The librarian should be a master of reference systems and well versed in query refinement. The archivist, in turn, should have keen insight into the form and content of documents, understand how these documents reach the archive, how this flow is regulated and ensured, and how the structures of agencies interact with those of the material. The archivist is expected to know their material

96

Twentieth-century archives

well. Unlike the librarian, the archivist must blaze the path alone without the help of efficient information retrieval systems. The rise of the cross-governmental digital records administration – the so-called e-government – has opened the archival world for new possibilities. Digital administration and storage make information more readily available, even the individual document. Budding archivists and librarians do not have any real chance to prepare for their task to work at national libraries and archives. There is hardly any such concentration at the preparatory level. Several developments are, however, worthy of note. The vast network of archives dealing with federal documents offers quite a few important employment possibilities. Therefore, the lack of adequate educational programmes is quite startling. An exception is France. In 1821, a special school for archivists and librarians was established at the École Nationale des Chartes with the explicit goal of providing instruction in the auxiliary sciences, such as codicology and palaeography. Today, the educational curricula have been adapted to contemporary needs. The French model was, however, an exception. Until the late 1960s, there were few formal opportunities for future librarians and archivists to enrol in formal programmes. One was trained on the job, at the library or the archive. Archival programmes were also established later than those for librarians. Now there are countless opportunities for both archivists and librarians to pursue formal degrees, but they are, as I mentioned, not always suited to the needs of the national institutions. Most often these programmes are coordinated for both professions, though these have completely different approaches and applications.

97

Libraries and Archives

The digital revolution has proved to be challenging for the staffs of libraries and archives. Once again, tailor-made programmes have been developed at the respective institution, thus hearkening back to the state of affairs some 50 years ago. The new challenges are truly daunting. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the National Library of the Netherlands) has described them in the following fashion: The new digital library requires a different type of librarian: one whose focus is on the outside world, who is an active Internet user, with an analytic, international perspective. It is important to start developing such librarians immediately. A first step is to take an inventory of your present staff and make an estimate of what your needs will be in two, five and ten years’ time, taking account of larger demographic development which suggest staff shortage in the future. Developing a trainee programme can be an excellent way of retaining young, talented staff members for the next decade. (Langbroek, 2010) The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is not alone in its concern about future development. The present educational options do not always correspond to the needs of a library facing new technical challenges. Often, libraries must recruit their staff in a creative fashion. I shall conclude my review of national archives and national libraries covered in Chapters 4 and 5 by looking forward. The libraries that were founded by royal administrations had as their goal to demonstrate their contribution to the world of learning and reflect their social cognition and milieu. During the seventeenth and eighteenth

98

Twentieth-century archives

centuries, they were transformed into national institutions, often with the right to procure legal deposits. If they previously were the domain of the learned few, they now became an integral part of the governmental infrastructure, which (of course) was controlled by the royal administration. In the nineteenth century, yet another change took place. The dependency on royal authority and patronage diminished, in part due to the reaction to the changes which the French Revolution had initiated. Suddenly, libraries and archives were safe-keepers of a national heritage and were primarily viewed as cultural institutions. It is only during the nineteenth century that the term ‘national library’ gains foothold; libraries founded earlier are still today named ‘royal’ as a reminiscence of their past: demonstrated in Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden (with Belgium as an exception). Due to improvements in the welfare of the general population and in its literacy, there arose new libraries and institutions which challenged the supremacy of national libraries. It is against the background of these developments that we must view the sudden preoccupation with cataloguing, classifying and coordinating library structures on a national level as a tool of reaffirming superiority. Archives have never had to justify their existence. They have always been regarded more or less as an indispensable part of governmental administration. This also explains why they have not been called upon to undergo technical metamorphoses in the same way as libraries. The penchant for development has come from within – the desire to develop collections and to find satisfactory solutions for storing them. Only during the past century has the situation changed. Just as library users, those using archives were more educated now, and archives could claim that more funding could trickle down to them, as state finances improved.

99

Libraries and Archives

From a historical perspective, there have been few reasons for libraries and archives to cooperate in finding solutions to their challenges. Though both institutions were often part of the royal or secular administration, they have always been regarded as separate agencies. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, they were divorced from the central administrative structures and retooled as separate agencies with their own quarters. The former natural contacts were loosened. The result of this shattering was also that libraries and archives in the end chose different systems for organising their documents. As we have seen, libraries gave priority to a developed system of well-defined categories – based on either subjects, order of access or numerically – under which the information could be sorted out in a practical way and also be retrieved quite simply. Archives were initially attracted by such a solution, but due to the circumstances I have discussed, they decided to use a different system based not on the individual originator but the agency, organisation or unit that the individual was a part of. With such a system, new information was just added to the old content as long as the organisation existed – and that was radically opposed to how libraries thought about these matters. What about the user, then? We have met historians in the nineteenth century who were in favour of a more userfriendly system and the provenance principle was an answer to their demands. If you were interested in decisions made by a particular agency, you found the records in one and the same place, not split up in many files. Even more satisfied were the bureaucrats and administrators who could easily find what they were looking for – all information about a certain agency could be found at the same place. Alphabetical order was abandoned. The methodical systems chose by libraries, on the other hand, made it easy for a student to

100

Twentieth-century archives

find the information they were looking for, either books, periodicals or reports. The name of the author or the title of the book was the only information you needed to get what you were looking for. Open shelves became gradually a natural next step to increase the accessibility of the stacks – a development impossible for archives. Books and archival records were seen as different objects with their own special definition and value. One hundred years later, representatives for both professions have realised that for the information they handle, though the content of the collections may differ, the systems devised to handle them are digital, consisting of the same binary codes of ones and zeroes that are machinereadable. For both institutions, the conversion of data to digital form has led to a hitherto unimaginable influx of materials. This challenge should strengthen the bonds between the institutions. This claim also points to that which will be the focus of the last chapter: the future.

101