With the danger of overfeeding, it might be useful to bring in another concept,
which is 'joint heritage'. Developed by the International Council on Archives as
one of the guiding principles for solving conflicting archival claims, this concept
was accepted by the UNESCO in 1978. It is relevant when archives form part of
the national heritage of more than one country and cannot be divided in parts
without seriously damaging its legal, administrative and historical value. The
concept of joint heritage suggests that in such situations the archives as a whole
are kept in one country, which is acting as owner and custodian. However, the
countries sharing this heritage have equal rights concerning access, appraisal
and conservation. Moreover, as suggested by the Dutch Archivist Eric Ketelaar,
'mutual rights correspond to mutual obligations, which entails that the
owner and custodian is not free to exercise his part if that would obstruct the
effectuation of the other party's rights'.25 Ketelaar also points out that heritage
can serve as a 'boundary object' between two or more communities, but this is
not enough. To become part of the social memory of the community, it should be
actively promoted as an object of identification.26
Although this interpretation of the concept of joint heritage only refers to
archives, we can certainly discern elements of it in the CCHP. It implies
the following construction in which mutual rights could lead to mutual
obligations. A particular type of Dutch heritage is identified as common. This
can be motivated by a number of reasons in line with the goals of the CCHP.
Subsequently, the priority countries are not only asked to acknowledge this claim,
but also to share the responsibility for this specific heritage. After all, accepting
the claim is interpreted as allowing the Netherlands to become involved (for
yours is also ours, therefore I have a say in it). To be fair: this works both ways.
The claim on common heritage with its ensuing mutual rights and obligations
can also be proposed by the priority country. However, to be eligible for funding,
the criteria of the CCHP should be answered. In the policy, sharing responsibility
is explained as preserving the common heritage for future generations. Moreover,
preservation strategies should not limit themselves to the heritage object, but
they should also be directed to the community. Finally, going Dutch, in this
case, does not mean that each party pays one's own expenses, but that the bill
is split 60-40. That the Netherlands picks up the biggest part of the bill seems
reasonable: if you want something done your way, you should pay for it. The
question is, how do these assumptions hold up when brought into practice?
Sharing archival heritage: practice
Simple Past
The Nationaal Archief carries out the CCHP through its Mutual Cultural
Heritage (MCH) Program. Obviously, for the Nationaal Archief, working with
institutions outside the Netherlands is not something new. In the period 1966
until 2000, collaboration, mainly with Indonesia and the Netherlands Antilles,
focused on training in archival management and improving accessibility by
exchanging microfilms and describing records.27 During the project Towards a
JINNA SMIT TO CLAIM OR NOT TO CLAIM - SHARING ARCHIVES: POLICY AND PRACTICE
25 Ketelaar, 'Sharing', 54.
26 Ketelaar, 'Sharing', 55.
27 Laar, 'De relatie op archiefgebied', 172-179. With regard to the cooperation with Indonesia in the early
years, see also: Karabinos, 'Returning to the Metropole', paper presented at the Social History Society
Annual Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, April 14, 2011.
179