Appraisal
in German archival history
Angelika Menne-Haritz
Zou het niet zo kunnen zijn dat de Nederlandse archivaris door het inter
nationale prestige van de Handleiding van Muller, Feith en Fruin een tikje
zelfgenoegzaam is geworden? Is Nederland niet de bakermat van de moder
ne archivistiek? En zou het ook niet zo kunnen zijn dat door die zelfgenoeg
zaamheid slechts weinig Nederlandse archivarissen kennis nemen van theo
retische ontwikkelingen in het buitenland? Gelukkig heeft de 'nationale'
PivoT-discussie duidelijk gemaakt dat de herbezinning op selectieprincipes
nieuwe theoretische impulsen kan geven. Duidelijk is evenwel dat de Neder
landse selectiediscussie in belangrijke mate wordt beïnvloed en gevoed door
ontwikkelingen in het buitenland, met name in de Verenigde Staten en Ca
nada. Belangrijke geluiden, weliswaar ook door Noordamerikaanse ideeën
geïnspireerd, komen sinds enkele jaren uit Duitsland. Een van de belangrijk
ste vertegenwoordigers van de Duitse archivistiek is dr Angelika Menne-Ha-
ritz, directeur van de Archivschule Marburg. In dit artikel schetst zij de ont
wikkelingsgang van de selectiediscussie in Duitsland. Essentieel voor de
Duitse situatie is het feit dat de handelingsgerichte benadering wordt gepre
senteerd in het kader van de professionalisering van de archivistiek, en niet,
zoals bij ons nog in belangrijke mate het geval is, als onderwerp van 'factie
strijd'.
Op verzoek van de schrijfster wordt het artikel in het Engels gepubli
ceerd.
Introduction
The history of archival appraisal in Germany is not
very old. It began after the First World War with
practical solutions and was resumed after 1945 in
the situation of the Cold War. Throughout this
time archival appraisal in Germany was marked by
an astonishing gap between the actual daily practice
in the archives on the one hand and a theoretical
debate, which occurred in waves, on the other.
In-between a level of administrative ordinances,
catalogues, archiving models could be distinguis
hed, formulating more general approaches to daily
problems.
On the first level the everyday appraisal is often
done folder by folder, with the aid of a records
disposition schedule, or in the localities of the
agency which created the records. Or it is done
when the records are described in the archives.
On a more general level archiving models are
formulated, especially for records produced by
juridical administrations such as courts. They
[28 1
usually refer to records with a parallel structure, the
so-called 'mass records' produced mainly in large,
strongly law-regulated organizations or at lower
administrative levels. They accept some theoretical
basis, but this is not made explicit, nor is it
discussed.
The theoretical debate can be seen as the third
level. When it started in the complicated situation
after the Second World War it did not take into
account what had happened and what had been the
practice before. All formal approaches were rejected
and philosophical solutions were sought. A theory
of generally accepted values should be established as
a guideline for the discussion about archival values.
It ought to help to decide about historically impor
tant events and persons and thus to yield criteria for
the retention of archives. On this basis archival work
should aim to document society. In former times
archives were seen as selecting institutions, the
principle of provenance seemed to be regarded as
outdated and the idea of defining criteria for
retention by analysing the archives themselves was
rejected and considered to be impossible.
This debate, which was articulated at the annual
meetings and written about in the professional
literature, had little influence on the daily practice
in the archives. Since the Second World War
appraisal had been regarded as a practical and
administrative task. Theoretical reflection on its
premises and aims were not felt to be necessary.
Only rarely did practical experiences and models
figure in publications. And if they did, the authors
did not want to generalise their solutions.1
The two German states had gone their separate
ways, coming from common roots which on all
three levels lay in the Prussian traditions. In spite
of all political differences they unconsciously
developed certain similarities in archival appraisal.
While the theoretical debate in the Federal Republic
sought to find ways of defining common values,
East-Germany had these values in the Marxist-
Leninist theories, and developed on this basis a set
of administrative rules and well-defined catalogues
which also had certain attractions for western
archivists with an inclination to administrative
solutions.
Only since the political developments of the last
years have new needs for professional strategies in
the field of appraisal made themselves felt. An
archival theory is required, a theory which can
explain the practice, prepare instruments for
analyzing concrete situations and formulate aims
for archival work. It should fit into the whole
complex of professional advice on the daily practice
and the estimation of the consequences of actual
decisions.
What is appraisal?
In archival history selecting done by the archives
played an important role. Throughout the
medieval ages, the period in which many archival
traditions find their roots, archives selected the
important items, either for legal or political reasons
or, in the 17th and 18th centuries, for historical
reasons. But is that still the mandate of today's
archives? Is there an alternative? What about
appraisal based on the principle of provenance;
what about the ranking of the agencies creating the
records, the functional analyses and the
Schellenbergian values?
The question as to whether we appraise archives or
document society is the question of content-
oriented or more formal approaches in building
and shaping archival fonds. It is the old question of
selection according to attributed values or appraisal
on the basis of the principle of provenance as a
judgement about intrinsic values.
Appraisal in the original sense means to analyze and
estimate a value which cannot be attributed
arbitrarily to a thing. The price of an article cannot
be settled just according to the seller's wishes - it
can only fluctuate between two limits: the
compensation the producer must get for his
investments en personal costs and the price level
the market allows. In very complex cases, like the
purchase of land or a house, the estimation of the
intrinsic value must be made by specialists qualified
for that job. The price does not depend primarily
on the value attributed to an object from the
outside, but also on an analysis of the object's
[29 1
