legal and administrative context, but recreated nonetheless. This is why the South African archivist Verne Harris argued that the archival record can only be seen as 'a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a window'13. A window, moreover, that reflects, placing images from this side on top of what can be seen through it.14 Since the arrival of the electronic document, the influence exercised by archivists has even made a leap forwards. Instead of waiting for the records to be handed over, archivists now wish to be involved from the very start. In a digital environment, in which documents are constantly being deconstructed, reused and migrated, ensuring the integrity and reliability of records and reconfiguring their functions in their original context is not something that can be arranged afterwards. Archivists, now actively taking part in the creation of documents, seem to have evolved from merely custodians preserving and opening up 'houses of memory'15, to their (co-)designers. This does not only mean that archivists should be highly critical of their own politics of memory, but that researchers should question these as well. When carefully examined in its context, the archive, constructed as it may be, retains its informational value, but what about its heritage value? If the archive is shaped by authorities - political, archival and other - can it still provide a sense of identification for those not in power? According to the American archivist Jeanette Bastian this is not impossible as documents do actually not only speak for their creators, but also for their subjects. To explain this, she introduced the idea of a 'community of records', referring to 'how records are (re)created or reused within a community as well as its contextualization of records (through memory and narrative construction).'16 Thus, those not in power might not have created records themselves, but they are part of the wider society that is intrinsically connected to those documents. Archives should therefore be perceived as products of the whole community forming their subject matter. From this point of view, archives do also represent the voiceless and can therefore be appropriated by them as heritage. Sharing heritage: policy Framework If heritage can be used to define a community, embedding it in an imagined beyond, it may be clear what sort of community and what kind of past the Netherlands government envisioned with the Common Cultural Heritage Policy (CCHP) 2009-2012. This policy provides a framework for cultural cooperation in relation to common cultural heritage in the so-called priority countries: Brazil, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Surinam. While looking for a critical reflection on Dutch history and to gain, with these 176 COLONIAL LEGACY IN SOUTH EAST ASIA - THE DUTCH ARCHIVES 13 Harris, 'The Archival Sliver', 84. 14 Harris, 'The Archival Sliver', 65. 15 Cook, 'What is Past is Prologue, 64. See also: Blouin, 'Archivists, Mediation, and the Constructs of Social Memory', 101-112. 16 Bastian, Owning Memory, 3-6. 17 Common Cultural Heritage Policy Framework 2009-2012, 1. To be more precise, this policy is initiated by the Netherlands ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Education, Culture and Science. 18 Common Cultural Heritage Policy Framework, 2.

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2012 | | pagina 178