solely on the "descriptive science" of Casanova, Jenkinson, and the Dutch authors, American archivists began their collective professional activity facing a mounting crisis of contemporary records, only a tiny fraction of which could be preserved as archives. When the National Archives in Washington was created in 1934, it inherited an awesome backlog of about one million metres of federal records, with a growth rate of more than sixty thousand metres annually. By 1943, under the expansion of the state to cope with the Great Depression and World War II, that growth rate had reached six hundred thousand metres annually.19 This had two principal results: the first was the emergence of the North American records management profession to help agencies cope with this paper avalanche; and the second was a fundamental reorientation of the archi val profession in North America, and wherever its influential ideas were read and translated. Margaret Cross Norton, a pioneering American archival writer and State Archivist of Illinois, asserted in 1944 that, in light of these incredible volumes of modern records, "it is obviously no longer possible for any agency to preserve all records which result from its activities. The emphasis of archives work," she noted in conscious contrast to Jenkinson, "has shifted from preservation of records to selection of records for preservation." Philip C. Brooks, a key thinker at the U.S. National Archives, was explicit in his criticism of Jenkinson's view that archivists could safely remain "aloof from responsibility for how public agencies managed their records," which would simply mean that "too many records would be badly handled and even lost before archivists took custody of them."20 From these concerns came the American "life cycle" concept, where records were first organized and actively used by their creators, then stored for an additional period of infrequent use in off-site record centres, and then, when their operational use ended entirely, "selected" as archivally valuable and transferred to an archives, or declared non-archival and destroyed. Like Norton, Brooks argued for a close relationship throughout this whole "life cycle" between archivists doing such selection of records for long-term preser[27]vation and records managers organizing and caring for active records in departments: the appraisal function, he argued, "can best be performed with a complete under standing of the records of an agency in their relationships to each other as they are created rather than after they have lain forgotten and deteriorating for twenty years." Specifying how that selection work was actually to be done was left for Theodore R. Schellenberg to summarize from his colleagues' work and then articulate in his landmark books and reports. In developing these selection or appraisal criteria, Schellenberg became "the father of appraisal theory in the United States."21 Schellenberg asserted that records had primary and secondary values. Primary value reflected the importance of records to their original creator; secondary value their use to subsequent researchers. Primary value related to the degree to which records served their creators on-going operational needs—not unlike Jenkinson allowing the determination of long-term value to rest with the "Administrator." Secondary values, which Schellenberg sub-divided into eviden tial and informational values, were quite different, for they reflected the impor tance of records for secondary research by subsequent users, not primary use by their original creator. On this point, Schellenberg explicitly denied that his "evidential value" was linked to Jenkinson's sense of archives as "evidence." For Schellenberg, evidential values reflected the importance of records for researchers, not for administrators, in documenting the functions, programmes, policies, and procedures of the creator. These values were to be determined, after appropriate research and analysis, by Schellenberg's archivist, not by Jenkinson's administrator. Informational value, the other half of secondary value, concerned the content of records relating to "persons, corporate bodies, things, problems, conditions, and the like" incidental to "the action of the Government itself." Deciding which informational content was important, and which was not-deciding, that is, who gets invited into the archival "houses of memory" and who does not—was again to be determined by the archivist, drawing on his or her training as an historian and consulting with "subject-matter specialists," in order to reflect as many research interests as possible.22 This search for informa tional value was most important to Schellenberg, given its "usefulnessfor the larger documentation of American life."23 Certainly consistent with his focus on secondary research, Schellenberg to his credit attempted much more than the Dutch trio or Jenkinson to build bridges between archivists and librarians, and between archivists caring for institutional records and those responsible for private manuscripts.24 Another major change in archival thinking was introduced by Schellenberg and his American colleagues. The Dutch and Jenkinson believed that all material created and received by an administration was "archives." For Schellenberg, ARCHIEFWETENSCHAP 19 The figures are taken from James Gregory Bradsher, "An Administrative History of the Disposal of Federal Records, 1789-1949," Provenance 3 (Fall 1985), pp. 1-21. I have made the rounded conversions from imperial to metric measurements. 20 Margaret Cross Norton, "Records Disposal," in Thornton W. Mitchell, ed., Norton on Archives: The Writings of Margaret Cross Norton on Archives and Records Management (Chicago, 1975), p. 232, and "The Archivist and Records Management" in the same volume; Philip C. Brooks, "The Selection of Records for Preservation," American Archivist 3 (October 1940), p. 226; on the contrast with Jenkinson, see Donald R. McCoy, The National Archives: America's Ministry of Documents, 1934-1968 (Chapel Hill, 1978), p. 178. Brooks' interventionist notion was re-articulated and explored further by Jay Atherton, "From Life Cycle to Continuum: Some Thoughts on the Records Management-Archives Relationship," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86), pp. 43-51, and the idea of front-end work by archivists on this records continuum underpins much current thinking about electronic records. Atherton's continuum formulation was itself anticipated by Ian Maclean of Australia: see his "An Analysis of Jenkinson's 'Manual of Archive Administration' in the Light of Australian Experience," pp. 128-52; and Ian Maclean, "Australian Experience in Record and Archives Management, American Archivist 22 (October 1959), pp. 387-418. The continuum concept has recently been reactivated, with much broader implications for archival theory that are welcomingly inclusi ve of all dimensions and sectors of archival work and ideas: social/cultural and legal/administrative 40 TERRY COOK WHAT IS PAST IS PROLOGUE accountabilities, public and private sectors, individual and corporate creators, document-focused rules of evidence and functional/contextual linkages. See Frank Upward, "Australia and the Records Continuum," paper presented to the Society of American Archivists, San Diego, August 1996, publication forthcoming in Archives and Manuscripts. 21 Ham, Selecting and Appraising Archives, p. 7. Schellenberg's fullest statement of his oft-cited principles is "The Appraisal of Modern Public Records," National Archives Bulletin 8 (Washington, 1956), pp. 1-46. An extract is available in Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch, eds., A Modern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory and Practice (Washington, 1984), pp. 57-70. 22 Quotations from ibid., pp. 58-63, 69. 23 Ham, Selecting and Appraising Archives, p. 8. Schellenberg's influence remains strong; a recent textbook chapter asserted that his secondary values relating to "research uses" are still "the principal concern of archivists." See Maygene F. Daniels, "Records Appraisal and Disposition," in Bradsher, Managing Archives, p. 60. 24 For an analysis of Schellenberg's personal evolution, especially regarding private archives and archival rela tions with librarians, see Richard C. Berner, Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Analysis (Seattle and London, 1983), pp. 47-64, and passim. 41

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 1999 | | pagina 22