"archives" were only that much smaller portion that had been chosen by the
archivist for preservation from the larger, original whole, which he termed
"records." Records were the concern of records managers and [28] creating
institutions; archives were the concern of archivists and archival institutions.
Despite good cooperation between the two professions, and the "continuum"-
like cooperation envisioned by Philip Brooks, the Schellenbergian distinction
between "records" and "archives" has tended to emphasize the differences
between records managers and archivists, and between records and archives,
rather than their similarities and interconnections. That legacy creates strategic
problems for archivists in a computerized world, because electronic records
especially require "up front" intervention by archivists if records are to be
preserved as archival evidence.25
In arrangement and description, Schellenberg invented the record group
concept as a tool to cope with the huge volumes of records generated by "a highly
complex government" where, in his words, "no governmental unit completely
meets Jenkinson's requirements [for the archive group] of completeness and
independence...." Schellenberg rightly noted that in modern administrations
"all units are interrelated and few are completely independent in their dealing
with the business that is their main concern." Because of this complexity of
administration and large volumes of records, the American record group
considered quantity, as well as provenance," as a criterion for its creation. Such
an approach necessarily proceeded "somewhat arbitrarily," as such practical
factors would differ across time and place in terms of assessing "the desirability
of making the unit of convenient size and character for the work of arrangement
and description and for the publication of inventories."26 Where the record
group concept has been adopted, so too have been many of these arbitrary and
practical compromises, to the point where some critics have asserted that the
concept obscures more than protects provenance.27
Schellenberg was pointed in his criticism of Jenkinson: "I'm tired of having
an old fossil cited to me as an authority in archival matters."28 Rather than allow
Jenkinson's "Administrator" to decide what should be in archives, Schellenberg
insisted that archivists should make this crucial decision themselves and work
with records managers and subject specialists to influence the future shape of
the archival record. Rather than shy away from records destruction, Schellenberg
spearheaded the process that eventually destroyed millions of metres of records.
Rather than insist on the alleged purity of either the European fonds d'archives or
Jenkinson's archive group, Schellenberg popularized the record group as an
exercise in compromise seemingly suitable for the arrangement and description
of records from complex government agencies.
In all this, Schellenberg reflected the contemporary American political
culture of "New Deal statism, with its emphasis on the benefits of a manage
ment technocracy and of efficiency," where the archivist became "a contributing
partner to the corporate management team...."29 Reflecting as well
contemporary social engineering initiatives in the new fields of sociology, social
work, and urban planning, and the major interventionist activities of gover
nment [29] reformers in Depression reconstruction projects, archivists could
themselves likewise become efficient "engineers" intervening in and managing
the world of contemporary records. Since Schellenberg's generation also
coincided in its upbringing with the widespread professionalization of academic
history in the universities, it is also not surprising to find in his work the close
identification of archivists with historians, and archival "informational value"
with historical themes and interpretations.
Much praise is due to Schellenberg. Unlike Jenkinson, he anticipated the
future rather than defended the past, and he joined management techniques to
historical scholarship in archives. Despite working with federal government
records and within a huge national bureaucracy, he also saw the need for
archivists to be linked with broader cultural issues and allied information profes
sions. Yet some of the compromises he encouraged, especially when amplified by
his successors, now trouble some archivists.
One such issue is the concept of use-defined archives. Most American archi
vists after Schellenberg have until very recently emphasized -more than he did—
that discerning real or anticipated use by scholars, and particularly by academic
historians, should be the central methodology for determining which records
have archival value. "Recent trends in historiography are of prime importance to
us" was the appraisal advice offered by Meyer H. Fishbein, a leading appraisal
thinker of the National Archives and Records Service in the 1960s and 1970s.30
Maynard Brichford, in the Manual on appraisal approved by the Society of
American Archivists in 1977, asserted that "successful appraisal is directly
related to the archivist's primary role as a representative of the research commu
nity. The appraiser should approach records[by] evaluating demand as reflec-
ARCHIEFWETENSCHAP
25 The Australians have been most articulate in objecting to the Schellenbergian distinction between
"records" and "archives" as one that distracts from their common, unifying purpose as "archival docu
ments" at any point in their life along the records continuum. See, for example, McKemmish and Upward,
Archival Documents, pp. 1, 22, and passim; or Glenda Acland, "Managing the Record Rather Than the
Relic," Archives and Manuscripts (20 (May 1992), pp. 57-63. For the Australian interpretation and imple
mentation of the records continuum instead of the life cycle approach, see several of the authors (but
especially Frank Upward) in McKemmish and Piggott, Records Continuum.
26 Schellenberg, Management of Archives, pp. 162ff. For a parallel American statement at the time, and an inf
luential source of thinking on this topic, see Oliver W. Holmes, "Archival Arrangement Five Different
Operations at Five Different Levels," American Archivist 27 (January 1964), pp. 21-41, and especially
pp. 25-27.
27 A growing number of critics strongly advocate the end of the record group and a return to a more strict
adherence to provenance rather than to Schellenberg's practical compromise. The first objections were
raised by Australian Peter Scott in "The Record Group Concept: A Case for Abandonment," American
Archivist 29 (October 1966), p. 502, and passim; and more recently David A. Bearman and Richard H.
Lytle, "The Power of the Principle of Provenance," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86), p. 20; and Terry Cook,
"The Concept of the Archival Fonds: Theory, Description, and Provenance in the Postcustodial Era," in
42
TERRY COOK WHAT IS PAST IS PROLOGUE
Terry Eastwood, ed., The Archival Fonds: From Theory to Practice (Ottawa, 1992), especially pp. 47-52.
The decade-long Canadian effort to design and implement a national system of bilingual descriptive stan
dards, through Rules for Archival Description (RAD), is also intended to address the worst failings of the
Schellenbergian record group. While RAD does so by establishing a more contextual framework for records
description than existed before in Canada, it also includes its own compromises (and thus blurring of
provenance) by adhering to traditional European definitions of the archival fonds that originated from
physical arrangement rather than creation activity, and by overlooking the major implications of Scott's
work and that of later electronic records theorists (Bearman, Cook, Hedstrom, Brothman) concerning
multiple creators and virtual series. Despite good intentions to the contrary, perhaps the Canadian archi
val fonds is really just another name for the record group?
28 Cited in McCoy, National Archives, p. 180. The biographical details for Schellenberg may be found in
"In Memoriam: T.R. Schellenberg," American Archivist 33 (April 1970), pp. 190-202.
29 Barbara Craig, "What are the Clients? Who are the Products? The Future of Archival Public Services in
Perspective," Archivaria 31 (Winter 1990-91), pp. 139-40, where she speculates on the impact of contem
porary social mores on the development of archival ideas.
30 Meyer H. Fishbein, "A Viewpoint on Appraisal of National Records," American Archivist 33 (April 1970),
p. 175.
43
