Monk, knight or artist? the archivist as a straddler of a paradigm

Archival Science 3: 131-155, 2003. 131 �9 2004 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Monk, Knight or Artist? The Archivist as a Straddler of a Paradigm

H/~KAN L()VBLAD National Archives, Postbox 125 41, SE 102 29 Stockholm, Sweden (E-mail: hakan.lovblad@ riksarkivet, ra.se)

Abstract. The contextual approach gives the impression that we are moving into the 21st century with three competing scientific traditions of interpretation. Another understanding is the systemic view, which indicates a paradigm with complementing traditions of interpretation, depending on ontological level. The paradigm of archival science is, like that of many other sciences, influenced by positivism, systems theory and hermeneutics. The relevance of the paradigm depends on personal beliefs. The hermeneutic understanding of archival science emphasizes the context and deconstructs central concepts. Hermeneutics emphasizes the influence of conceptual changes and technological advances on perception. Hermeneutics stresses the need for a socio-cultural and historical orientation of archival science. The positivistic tradition is Coloured by the myths about an ideal science. This is reflected firstly in the analogy comparing archives with nature, and secondly in the deductive method. Positivism is instrumental in its demands for distinct definitions of concepts and its insistence on the record as the basis of archival science. The flexibility of systems theory highlights the complex relations between context and record. Systems theory can, at its best, serve as a meeting- place for researchers, archivists and users and accordingly form the basis for new knowledge and theory formation. Systems theory enables a materialistic/dialectic epistemology based in reality and inspired by other relevant sciences. The result may be the foundation of a systemic-functionalist archival science with activities, records creation and evidential values in focus.

Keywords: archival science, epistemology, functionalism, hermeneutics, ontology, paradigm, positivism, systems theory

1. Introduction

Science can be tackled in many ways. One starting point, which is also used in archival discussions, is the concept of the paradigm. This article deals with the theoretical foundations of archival science, in an attempt to show that they are hardly objective. Rather, they are expressions of a way of thinking based on different approaches, values and notions of the world.

Stig Lindholm, professor of Education, tries to answer the question "What is scientific?". He notes that a large number of myths prevail in science. There are, among others myths about the absolute truth, the scientific method and an ideal science. Lindholm states that science should be explicit, relevant

132 H/~KAN LOVBLAD

and expansive, If we have answered the questions of ontology, epistemology, logic and methodology we have reached a high level of explicitness. Expressed in another way, he considers that the answers not only clarify one's own paradigm - its ontological, epistemological and value foundations - but also its application. He then refers to extra-scientific values to explain what he means by relevant. And finally he defines expansive as a constant further search for answers.

HLkan T6rneb0hm, professor of Theory of Science, recommends a contextual approach. By this he means that it is often productive to put any phenomenon under study into at least one context. He sees all the sciences as interdisciplinary, and as part of what he calls the universal field of research, which connects the sciences with each other through ideas, knowledge and methods. T6rnebohm characterizes the different sciences as professions. The meaning of an occupation is synonymous with having the paradigm that characterizes the profession in question. T6rnebohm compares a paradigm with an iceberg. The smaller, visible part corresponds to the articulated part of the paradigm which is conscious for its bearer. The larger part of the paradigm is inarticulate and consequently subconscious. He also states that a paradigm is normally impaired by imperfections, owing to the assimilations and syntheses that are the basis of the paradigm and through which it develops. Assimilations can be based on misleading judgements and inter- pretations. Syntheses can be founded in relation to elements which have been assimilated at different moments. 2

I use the concept of the paradigm as outlined by Lindholm and T6rne- bohm. In an attempt to apply a contextual view to archival science, I use a systemic figure reproduced after G6ran Wall6n, senior lecturer in Theory of Science. It is one of many possible points of departure.

The different scientific traditions can be seen as complementary. The relations are illustrated in figure l. Positivism emphasizes objects. Objective measurements and explanations are directed downwards in the figure (reduc- tionism). Hermeneutics and phenomenology are interested in experiences, communication, symbols and meanings. Explanations are seen in cultural patterns and the individual conception of the world. Explanations are directed upwards in the figure. Systems are objects and phenomena which interact.

l Lindholm, S., Vetenskap, verklighet ochparadigm (Uppsala: AWE/GEBERS, 1981), pp. 207-214.

2 T6rnebohm, H., "Funderingar Over utvecklingen av nya flervetenskapliga praxis- orienterade forskningsf~ilt", in S. Selander (ed.), Kunskapens villkor, En antologi om vetenskapsteori och samhiillsutveckling (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1986), pp. 117-120, 125- 126.

MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 133

Scientific explanation Levels of reality Example of subjects & tradition

Hermeneutlcs (subject)

Systems theory {system)

Positivism (object)

rhe arrows show the direction of the explanations.)

Figure 1. A systemic scheme.

Different levels of reality have different kinds of explanations. Many prob- lems can be tackled on different levels depending on the purpose, etc. 3

I now use the figure to incorporate the levels of reality I can find in my material and build a systemic framework for archival science. I base my study on articles in the journals American Archivist, Archivaria and Der Archivar, volumes 1990-1998. This limitation implies that the articles referred to must be seen as examples representing the views in analysis.

First, however, a comment on the various scientific traditions. Positivism and hermeneufics are probably better known than systems theory. Systems theory can be said to be a pragmatic response to the limitations of both positivism and hermeneutics. My understanding of the systemic scheme and its parts is mainly based on the interpretation of Wall6n.

The main profile of contemporary positivism is confidence in scientific rationality and the objectivity of the scientist. Knowledge is supposed to be empirically tested and expressed in conformity to law. The demand placed on explanations is that they should be possible to express in terms of cause and effect. The main criticism of positivism is its reductionistic principle of explanation. This expresses itself mainly in the focus on objects, which implies a risk of losing context and entirety. Another criticism is that research about meanings in relation, for example, to cultural phenomena, which are not objectively measurable, are excluded. Wall6n points out, however, that the interpretation of texts and symbols demands that human actions, speech and texts are correctly perceived. 4

Hermeneutics deals with interpretation of meanings in texts, symbols, actions, experiences, etc. The interpretation emanates from an understanding of a linguistic and cultural community and is always done in relation to a context. Methodologically, the interpretation proceeds through the change of

3 Wall6n, G., Vetenskapsteori och forskningsmetodik (Lund: Studenflitteratur, 1996), pp. 37-38.

4 Ibid., pp. 27-28.

134 HAKANLOVBLAD

perspective from part to whole and with attention paid to contradictions, for progressive readings. The purpose of the interpretation is to find underlying meanings or contexts which do not appear directly in a text, a conversation or an action. To find meanings, hermeneutics often uses disciplines including social psychology, structuralism, semiotics, and phenomenology. According to Wallrn, hermeneutics and phenomenology are also reductionistic, since research in these disciplines is dependent on a linguistic community. 5

The basic premise in systems thinking is that information about a phenomenon gradually creates a context and finally reveals a pattern. A systemic point of departure for an investigation focuses on the pattern that keeps the phenomena together and forms a contextual unit. The method of systems thinking is a merging of analysis and synthesis. An analysis runs the risk of splitting the phenomena and falling into the reductionist trap. A synthesis risks falling in a holistic trap and expanding the synthesis beyond the contextual unit. A systemic anasynthesis integrates both procedures of analysis and synthesis. 6

A system is a group of objects and phenomena which interacts. The assumption underpinning systems thinking is that the system as a whole has qualities other than those found in its different parts. The construction, interaction and demarcation of an administrative system are determined by the maintenance of certain functions. The main points in a systemic analysis are therefore the investigation of these functions and the demarcation of the system boundaries. Furthermore, the construction of the system, i.e. which parts are included and how they are arranged, and information flows in the system and between systems and surroundings are also studied. An important issue is the investigation of the interaction of the parts and the regulating functions of the system. The scientific ideal of systemic thinking differs prin- cipally from positivism through its focus on the whole and in that cause and effect connections are replaced by interaction, regulation and control. In other respects they have a great deal in common. 7

2. Archival science

David Bearman has deconstructed archival methodology into concepts and strategic principles. He sees four basic activities involved in the management of the physical record: selection and appraisal, retention and preservation,

5 Ibid., pp. 28, 33-35. 6 Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B., "Systemic thinking as the philosophical

foundation for knowledge management and organizational learning", Kybernetes 1 (1999): 27-28.

7 Walltn, pp. 28-30.


arrangement and description and access and use. Bearman's four pair of concepts are explicit and descriptive of archival activity. He gives priority to one of them, selection and appraisal, as the most important. He has also made a demarcation in his formulation. 8 What Bearman has done is mainly to give a few methodological concepts a more concrete content. The concepts in themselves are known both historically and in our time. They are, for instance, used in Germany: "Sammeln, Bewerten, Ordnen, Zuganglichmachen und Vermitteln", 9 and France: "la collecte, le tri, l 'elimination, le classement, la description, le traitement", 1~ although the meaning of the concepts can differ. Terry Cook emphasizes two pillars of archival activity, appraisal and selection and arrangement and description.ll Luciana Duranti only sees two archival activities: "preservation (physical, moral and intellectual) and communication of archival documents, that is, of the residue and evidence of societal actions and transactions". 12 The definition of preservation as moral, physical and intellectual is, from my point of view, another way of formulating Bearman's first three activities and is no contradiction.

Historical support regarding archival activities as formulated by Bearman can be found in the dramatic development of medieval archives where one can read about:

archival management systems and records centers; the development of sophisticated methodologies such as simultaneous registration and formalized document production; indexing, tagging, heading, and classi- fication techniques; rudimentary records management and conservation programs; and experimentation in codification, supraregional standardization, format control, multimedia, and improved communications through courier service, adressing, notarization, posting, and proclama- tion. 13

Hugh Taylor has observed that the work of the archivist has not been particularly subject to job splitting and specialization. The archivist acquires a holistic way of working which comprises participation in appraisal and selec-

8 Bearman, D., "Archival Methods", Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report 9 (1991).

9 Rumschrttel, H., "Die Archive an der Schwelle zu den 90er Jahren. Ein Lagebericht", DerArchivar 1 (1990): 29.

10 Stein, W.H., "Die Verschiedenheit des Gleichen, Bewertung und Bestandsbildung im archivischen Diskurs in Frankreich und Deutschland", Der Archivar 4 (1995): 599.

11 Cook, T., "What is Past is Prologue", Archivaria 43 (1997): 20. 12 Duranti, L., "Origin and Development of the Concept of Archival Description", Archiv-

aria 35 (1993): 52. 13 McCrank, L.J., "Documenting Reconquest and Reform: The Growth of Archives in the

Medieval Crown of Aragon", American Archivist 2 (1993): 256.

136 HAKANLOVBLAD

tion, arrangement and description and access and use. t4 Taylor is hopeful about the fact that it is not easy to label the archivist since the work stimulates generalists instead of specialists. He sees this as a paradoxical strength in the professional education of archivists. 15

According to Eric Ketelaar, the challenge in archival science is to care- fully describe every activity in suitable concepts before the formulation and separation of methodologies from archival theory) 6 Duranti considers that the basic concepts of archival science have their origin in concepts of Roman law) 7 Terry Eastwood describes his view of the relation between theory, methodology and practice:

Archival methodology acts as a bridge between theory and practice. It consists of ideas based on theory about how to treat archival material, and rules of procedure for their treatment. So ideas about what the material is are theoretical; ideas about how to treat the material are methodological. The results o f the application of methodology in the treatment of archival material constitute pract ice) s

Other understandings exist: "Duranti 's dictum that theory must drive methodology is a recipe for disaster. ''19 This judgement probably includes Eastwood as well.

Duranti and Eastwood can be said to represent an absolute approach to a theoretical foundation. Others a re of the view that thinking !n archival theory has adapted to fundamental changes in the nature of records, of the records creators, of recordkeeping systems, in the use of archival records and in broader cultural, legal, technological, social and philosophical trends in society. Cook points out that the foremost archival theoreticians are the ones

14 Taylor, H., "Chip Monks at the Gate: The Impact of Technology on Archives, Libraries and the User", Archivaria 33 (1991-1992): 175.

15 Taylor, "Recycling the Past: The Archivist in the Age of Ecology", Archivaria 35 (1993): 206.

16 Ketelaar, E., "The Difference Best Postponed? Cultures and Comparative Archival Science", Archivaria 44 (1997): 147.

17 Duranti, "The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory", American Archivist 2 (1994): 331.

18 Eastwood, T., "Nailing a Little Jelly to the Wall of Archival Studies", Archivaria 35 (1993): 233. Heather Macneil states a similar point of view in "Archival Theory and Prac- tice", Archivaria 37 (1994): 7, as well as Duranti, "The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory", 330, Their common source is: Livelton, T., Public Records: A Study in Archival Theory (University of British Columbia, 1991).

19 Boles, E and Greene, M.A., "Et tu Schellenberg? Thoughts on the Dagger of American Appraisal Theory", American Archivist 3 (1996): 309.

+ MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 137

Figure 2. Different views of knowledge formation.

who have articulated the influence of these changes on archival theory and its practical application. 2~

There are some who completely reject scientific claims in relation to archival activity: "The problem lies in trying to mechanize processes that cannot be mechanized and in trying to put activities on a scientific basis that are not scientific. ''21

There may be reason to reflect over the relation between theory and practice. The scientistic or idealistic model of thought regards theory as superior to practice and sees practice as a simple application of theory. An alternative approach to knowledge, materialistic and dialectic, presumes that knowledge is something that is created through practice. In accordance with this view, knowledge that has been learnt, i.e. scientific theories and concepts, can serve as tools in the transformation of experience into knowledge but doesn't replace methodology. Figure 2 reproduced from sociologist Rosmari Eliasson illustrates the difference between these views. 22

G6ran Brulin, researcher at the National Institute for Working Life in Sweden, asserts that the linear model has been widely criticized. He indicates an increasing practical relevance in higher education and research, symbol- ized by the concept "multiversity" instead of "university". Brulin pictures the innovative and experimental attitude of the medieval age, which among other things arose from the interaction between the monasteries and the surrounding world, and was conditioned by a geographical and authoritarian split. The rise of the nation states ended this culture, with its variety of expres-

20 Cook, "What is Past is Prologue", 20. Brown, R., "Death of a Renaissance Record- Keeper: The Murder of Tomasso da Tortona in Ferrara, 1385", Archivaria 44 (1997): 24-25. Stielow, EJ., "Archival Theory Redux and Redeemed: Definition and Context Toward a General Theory", American Archivist 1 (1991): 14. Wallot, J.-P., "Archival Oneness in the Midst of Diversity: A Personal Perspective", American Archivist 1 (1996): 28.

21 Roberts, J.W., "Archival Theory: Myth or Banality", American Archivist 1 (1990): 115. 22 Eliass0n, R., "Ore synen pft kunskap och f6rhhllandet teori och praktik", in R. Eliasson

(ed.), Egenheter och allmiinheter, En antologi om omsorg och omsorgens villkor (Lund: Arkiv f6rlag, 1992), pp. 26--27.

138 HAKANLOVBLAD

sions, and replaced it with State authority and a striving for uniformity. In our times this striving has met with post-modernist criticism of what constitutes knowledge, science and truth. According to Brulin, however, even if the post-modern problematizing of language, reality and understanding has been increasingly accepted, it still remains that knowledge formation must gain acceptance through practice. He sees a future in which researchers and practitioners, influenced by the real situation, work jointly with knowledge formation and theoretical development. 23

The denial of scientific claims relating to archival activities is not unique. One fairly frequent idea is that archival work is primarily practical. With the idealistic or scientistic view of knowledge it is probably difficult for the sceptics to accept theoretical claims about archival activity. With the materialistic and dialectical view of knowledge formation the situation is different. This view of knowledge is more appreciative of practice, and sees practice as a possible driving force for the development of a methodology, with the help of theoretical concept formation. Practice, theory and methodology form parts of a mutual interaction. This model is also more dynamic than the one presented by Duranti and Eastwood which, with their deductive projection, must be considered as scientistic. The alternative is to view archival science as a part of the universal field of research, the "multiversity", and as influenced by it.

Above, I have pointed out some methodological concepts of archival science and also touched on its theory. I will henceforth concentrate on archival theory and leave the methodology behind. More precisely, I will try to elucidate the ontology and epistemology of archival science and the logic prevailing between them. I do this because I think that a greater awareness concerning the often unspoken theoretical assumptions underpinning methodology and practice is fruitful for the application of the archival paradigm.

3. Ontology of archives

We cannot apply the methodology formulated by Bearman until we know what to direct our energies towards. As he expresses it himself: "the 'methods as justification' approach fails to answer the underlying ontological question? '24

23 Brulin, G., Den tredje uppgiflen, HOgskola och omgivning i samverkan (Stockholm: SNS Ftrlag, 1998), pp. 31, 95, 109-110.

24 Bearrnan, D., "Archival Strategies", American Archivist 4 (1995): 389.


3.1. Positivistic archival science

According to Duranti, the answer to the question of the nature of archives has been treated without variation in the European archival tradition. She chooses, as a framework for her discussion, to reproduce the definition of archives of Jenkinson.

Jenkinson wrote that a "document which may be said to belong to the class of Archives is one which was drawn up or used in the course of an administrative or executive transaction . . . of which itself formed a part; and subsequently preserved in their own custody for their own information by the person or persons responsible for that transaction and their legitimate successor." Because they are created as a means for, and a by-product of, action, not "in the interest or for the information of Posterity", and because they are "free from suspicion of prejudice in regard to the interests in which we now use them", archival documents are impartial and "cannot tell . . . anything but the truth". 25

The characteristic feature of impartiality makes archives the most reliable sources, according to Duranti. She makes it clear that impartiality is a characteristic of the archival records, not the records creators who, of course, are partial. The safeguarding of archival impartiality is the protection of the ability of archival records to reveal prejudices and peculiarities of the records creators. This is the reason for the difficulty in directing the records creation, since the records creators become conscious of the capacity of the records and are tempted to distort or change them for posterity. In such cases, the archival records are a conscious reflection of the activity. Duranti reproduces then by means of Jenkinson five characteristic features of the archives; archival records can constitute evidence, are authentic, have naturalness, exist in a reciprocal relationship with each other, and are unique. 26

Eastwood thinks that every archival record has a unique capacity to appear as a source of knowledge of the past. Archival records represent the only evidence we have of activities in the past, due to the fact that they originate from our acting in relation to others and to occurrences in the world around us. No literary or scientific work can provide testimony of such events in the same way as archival records. Archival records therefore form firstly evidence and secondly information. 27

25 Duranti, "The Concept of Appraisal and Archival Theory", 334. 26 Ibid., pp. 334-335. 27 Eastwood, T., "How Goes It with Appraisal", Archivaria 36 (1993): 112.

140 HAKANLOVBLAD

James O'Toole asks for a more thorough analysis for the judgement of the uniqueness of archival records. In his view the archivist should treat the question of uniqueness as separate from the records themselves, the information in them, the processes that created the records or the aggregation of records, i.e. in series and archives. The simple and often unspoken assumption that archival records are unique and that unique records are archival is too simplistic to be used in an analysis. 28

An archive is composed of records and relations between them. An archive originates from activity by a records creator. More precisely, what constitute archives are not records but archival records. The process is given a geolo- gical metaphor. An archives grows naturally and continuously by itself and simultaneously gives rise to a unique, authentic and structured context of the parts, the archival records.

Criticism has been put forward regarding the analogy of the structure in archives and in nature. The critics propose that the biological view of the organic growth of archives should be replaced with an understanding of the growth of archives as historically determined, i.e. that human activity determines the structure of an archive. There are also objections to Jenkinson's view of archival records as impartial, regarding it as naive. Furthermore, although authenticity is an ideal, in practice a retrieved record is treated as authentic in spite of its having existed out of context. The American view is that the interrelationship of records can improve through appraisal and selection. The critics claim that Jenkinson's point of view may be attributable to the fact that he was a medieval historian. 29

3.2. Func t iona l i s t i c arch iva l sc i ence

At the end of the last century, functionalistic archival science, which had been dormant for a hundred years, was rediscovered. Van Riemsdijk is a forerunner of functionalistic archival science today. It has replaced the analysis of the characteristic features of the individual records with an understanding of the activities, workflows and transactions that are the foundation for the creation of records. Van Riemsdijk concentrated not on the records, but on records creation. He tried to understand why and how records were created and used by the records creators, rather than the anticipated future use of them. Van Riemsdijk realized that it is only a functionalistic interpretation of the context of the records creation which makes it possible to understand the integrity

28 O'Toole, J., "On the Idea of Uniqueness", American Archivist 4 (1994): 657-658. 29 Boles and Greene, 303-306. Menne-Haritz, A., "Appraisal or Documentation: Can We

Appraise Archives by Selecting Content?", American Archivist 3 (1994): 532.


of the archives and the functions of the archival records in their original contexts. 30

Contemporary advocates of a functionalistic interpretation stress that a record can only be understood in its procedural and functional context. A procedure is completed when a transaction has been carried out. The functional context consists mainly of the purpose for the creation of a record, i.e. the carrying out of a business process. For the understanding of electronic documents there is a need to investigate the system and its parts, metadata, data flows, organizational and functional relations, etc. 31

Records creation in itself has often been neglected as a critical and defin- able activity. Instead, it has functioned unnoticed and suppressed inside the workflow it supported. Records creation has accordingly been necessary but at the same time invisible. 32 However, there are traditions where records creation is at the centre. In Australia there is a focus on the series level as fundamental in records creation. By focusing on the series level continuity in the records creation can be handled, and it has been possible to construct systems which give a view of relations between functions, activities, records creators, fonds and series, The Australian contribution is particularly convincing in the electronic era in which the question of the nature, origin and functions of records is so complex and where: "the record is always in a process of becoming, ''33

Bearman considers records management systems rather than fonds, subfonds or series ought to constitute the foundation of provenance. He states that such a clarification of the concept makes it a tool for the archivist in the information society and has the advantage that provenance emanates from an activity, becomes concrete and possible to delimit. The principal function of a records management system is to provide the organisation with evidence of business transactions. The characteristics of such a system are the same as the definition of a record as evidence: content, structure and context. Further- more he sees a records management system not as a physical reality alone. A conceptual view must be applied which comprises the whole of users, rules, hardware and software and routines for creation, and the uses of information in an organisation. Bearman advocates functionalistic archival science

30 Ketelaar, "Archival Theory and the Dutch Manual", Archivaria 41 (1996): 33-34. One important advocate of the functionalistic view who is excluded due to my limitation, but should be mentioned, is Helen W. Samuels.

31 Belton, T., "By Whose Warrant? Analyzing Documentary Form and Procedure", Archiv- aria 41 (1996): 206. Cook, "Documentation Strategy", Archivaria 34 (1992): 183.

32 Pederson, A., "Empowering Archival Effectiveness: Archival Strategies as Innovation", American Archivist 4 (1995): 451.

33 Bartlett, N., "The Records Continuum: Ian McLean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years", American Archivist 4 (1997): 457.

142 HAKANLOVBLAD

and has a systemic view of archival activity. In his generic systems view he has defined the relations between record, transaction, form, activity, series, records creator and records management system. 34

3.3. H e r m e n e u t i c archival s c i ences

Hermeneutic individualistic archival science is based in the thinking of Freud, and one of its advocates is Derrida, according to whom the prerequisite of archives is the writing, i.e. a faithful stratification of phonetic symbols. The occidental philosophical tradition has contemplated writing as a repetition and preservation of thought and speech. Derrida thinks that this is a falsifica- tion of a true identity and is of the opinion that archives, to be accountable, need a theoretical concept of writing. He sees two identities, one internal, natural, psychic memory and one external, artificial, technological repository, or archives. The question is how these internal and external identities correspond with each other. Derrida sees the internal identity as authentic, while the external identity is composed of superficial traces of texts that exist as registered and preserved in memory, in the subconscious. Derrida is of the opinion that the dichotomy between these identities makes it impossible to talk about the existence of original records or of inscriptive integrity. It is only a question of traces leaving traces. Archival records capture the writing, i.e. represent the play of language. 35

The collective hermeneutic archival science has it roots in the thinking of Michelet. In our times the National Archives of Canada has identified as its mission to preserve the collective memory of the nation and the government and has thus adopted a social and cultural task. A metaphor is to see the collective memory as continuity and reinsurance for the nation. The archival inheritance is seen as an arranged repository for archival records which have been deemed of national signification. The consequences of this aim are that the archivist has to influence the creation of records, stimulate oral history, become a writer of chronicles, in short, actively seek documentation to fill the gaps. 36

In her article on collective memory and its relation to archives, Judith Panitch refers to Nora, who defines collective memory as a sort of living

34 Bearman, D., "Record-Keeping Systems", Archivaria 36 (1993): 17-22. 35 Brothman, B., "Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression", Archivaria 43 (1997): 189-

192. Most of the articles in Archivaria 51 (2001) treat the postmodem archive from different perspectives. Cook has in "Archival Science and Postmodernism: New Formulations for Old Concepts", Archival Science 1 (2001): 3-24, outlined a lot of sources concerning post-modern impact on archival science.

36 Rowat, T., "The Record and Repository as a Cultural Form of Expression", Archivaria 36 (1993): 201-203.


inheritance, an unselfconscious repeating of the tradition which unites a society with its past. In contradiction to memory, there is history, which portrays the past and tries to give it a meaning. Nora thinks that it is the destiny of memory in a historically oriented age to distil to "lieux de memoire", places, objects and rituals which the society determines are clues to the past and symbolize its present identity. He considers our present memory at first as archival and relying on the material nature of the traces, the naturalness of registration and the visibility of the representa- tion. Nora considers the importance attached to these "lieux de memoire", including archives, to be socially determined, and claims that they at first are symbols possessing all the changeability of signs. This importance can increase or totally vanish if the society that gives them meaning changes. He thinks that the importance of archives exceeds the information they contain. Nora declares that the symbolic significance of archives, to give the nation meaning, confirm its legitimacy and maintain its myths, is what gives archives the right to exist. Archives give nations meaning, but ultimately it is national consensus that gives archives meaning and mystique. 37

Joan M. Schwartz writes:

The role and nature of collective memory has undergone profound trans- formations from oral to written memory, from written to visual memory, and most recently from physical support to electronic memory. Archives as memory institutions have evolved in response to these changes and to the evolution of ideas about the role of the past, of memory, of collecting, and of the communication of information. 3s

Taylor is of the view that archives abound with signs in the semiotic meaning of the word, and adds that: "Our records are more than a source for research, a means of ensuring accountability or as evidence in contradistinction to information without context. They are an extension of ourselves. ''39

3.4. Summarizing ontological comparison

The essential understanding which has been achieved through this ontological comparison is the agreement that there is a difference between the starting point of the records creation and its result, the archives. This common understanding indicates the procedural nature of archival science and the

37 Panitch, J.M., "Liberty, Equality, Posterity?: Some Archival Lessons from the Case of the French Revolution", American Archivist 1 (1996): 46-47.

38 Schwartz, J.M., " 'We make our tools and our tools make us' Lesson from Photograps for the Practice, Politics and Poetics of Diplomatics', Archivaria 40 (1995): 63.

39 Taylor, "'Heritage' Revisited: Documents as Artifacts in the Context of Museums and Material Culture", Archivaria 40 (1995): 10.

144 HAKANLOVBLAD

Scientific explanation & tradition

Hermeneutics (subject)

Systems theory (system)

Positivism (object)

Levels of reality Example of subjects

Collective memory Hermeneutic collective Individual memory archival science Symbols, signs Hermeneutic individual Inscriptions, traces archival science

Activity Functionalistic archival Procedures science Transactions Records Creation

Records and relations Positivistic archival science between them

The arrows show the diractlon of the explanations.)

Figure 3. Ontology of archives.

prerequisite for the ability of the archival record to represent evidences of the activities that created it. When it comes to the ability of the archival record to constitute evidence, the functionalists propose that we turn our eyes from the physical imprint of activities to the activities themselves. Post-modernist criticism pushes the horizon even farther from the records and problematizes the processes of both writing and remembering. Archives and archival records are seen as texts which are charged with traces, signs and symbols. This contextual attempt clearly demonstrate how much Duranti oversimplified in her answer to the question about the nature of archives.

4. Epistemology of archives

I now continue to deal with the epistemological question, how to derive knowledge out of archives. Wallrn is of the view that ontology, what really exists, and epistemology are not easy to separate. 4~ Expressing this in another way, I will deal with the question of how to acquire knowledge about the connection between an occurrence in reality and an archive or its parts, whether they are archival records, signs or traces. Duranti briefly introduces the problem when she writes: "a record is reliable when it can be treated as the fact of which it is evidence. By contrast, a record is authentic when it is the document that it claims to be. ''41

Duranti's definitions bring us close to the critical examination of sources, which is a methodology of historical research. Rolf Torstendahl, professor of History, makes it clear that, to a historian, form and use of the material are different. He gives as an example a statement about his school leaving certificate as opposed to the certificate itself through which an act, the marking,

40 Wallrn, 12. 41 Dtlranti, L., "Reliability and Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implication", Archiv-

aria 39 (1995): 7.


performs. The former has a descriptive function and the latter a performative function. The critical examination of sources has two objects. The first is to judge whether a record is authentic or has been falsified or is misleading. The second is to evaluate the information in the record as true or false. Torstendahl mentions that for the estimation of the authenticity of a record, systematized methods of styles, paper, seals and forms have been established over time, which can reveal deviating details. Also the history of the storing of the record as well as the historical course of events can give valuable indications about authenticity. According to Torstendahl, however, the essential thing for the historian is not to pursue investigations of authenticity of a material, but to value the historical statements in the records. Information in a falsified record can be either true or false too, and it is to determine this that the actual criteria of critical examination of sources are used by historians. 42

Diplomatics is the term for a science which assesses the authenticity primarily of medieval records. The study can concern both the external form of the record such as material, script and seal, and the content of the record such as style, composition, signature and dating. For these purposes diplomatics is assisted by some other specialized sciences. Diplomatics as a science can be traced to Mabillon (De re diplomatica libri VI, 1681) when the Latin paleography was incorporated. During the eighteenth century the semiotic tradition in diplomatics reached its height with Gatterer (Semiotica diplomatica, 1765). In the nineteenth century diplomatics developed particularly in France and Germany. Ficker's distinction of terms between the text of the record as it was preserved and the act which precedes it and relates to it was of great importance (Beitrag zur Urkundslehre, 1877-1878). 43

Diplomatics has in the twentieth century developed in one qualitative and one quantitative direction. The point of departure for both directions is the view of the record as a source and not just a carrier of information. The record is seen as a monument, a preserver of memory. The qualitative direction views the record as a reflection of power and society, sees forms as supplying type of information, and regards false records as more truthful evidence than reality in our world of illusion. This direction has been inspired by cultural history, historical anthropology, socio-linguistics and semiotics. The post-war period, with its intensified research into symbols and an increasing significance of visual communication, has led to the rebirth of semiotics. Signs, written char- acters, symbols and the function of graphic symbols in the context of texts can

42 Torstendahl, R., Introduktion till historieforskningen Historia som vetenskap (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, 1978), pp. 73-74, 89-93.

43 Svensk uppslagsbok (Maim/5, F6rlagshuset Norden AB, 1950) band 7, 483-484. Graph- ische Symbole in mitteralterlichen Urkunden, Bericht tiber das 3. Internationale Marburger Kol!oqium fiir Historische Hilfswissenschaften vom 25.-26 September 1989, Der Archivar 1 (1990): 144.

146 HAKANLOVBLAD

gain greater clarity with the help of linguistics and paleography. The weak- ness of the qualitative direction is that the object of its interest, the record, has undergone a qualitative degeneration and a quantitative growth, with the result that the document has lost its symbolic significance. The quantitative direction has been inspired by developments in economic and social history, and implies that the analysis of diplomatics is universal and can be applied to aggregated information in archives such as registers, accounts, lists, etc. Olivier Guyotjeannin is of the opinion that in spite of these developments, diplomatics risks remaining rigid. In his view, historians have made greater advance in their studies of administrative and political history. A possible area of success for dip!omatics would be the study of language and stylistics. 44

4.1. Positivistic diplomatics

Duranti introduces diplomatics in the light of information and communication technology, cl~ming that what she calls "special diplomatics" can be valuable to the archivist. Duranti states that diplomatics studies archival records and is based on the view that the documents constitute a system that has to be deconstructed. The purpose of the system is determined from the outside. This delimits it and provides security and continuity. To view the records as a system implies defining and demarcating its parts, their relations and the interior structure. The consequence of this view was that diplomatics had to construct a meta-system to understand and explain the system. The meta- system of diplomatics is composed of five parts:

1. The legal or social system which is a necessary condition for records creation.

2. The act which is the determining cause for the production of a record. 3. The persons who are the agents and factors. 4. The procedures which direct the documentation. 5. The form of the record through which its production achieves its

purpose. 45 The revolutionary insight in diplomatics in the seventeenth century was that if the archival record has a relation to reality, then to understand reality one has to follow the same procedure that directed its production. Diplomatics deconstructed the record into three parts: facts, form and documentation. These three parts are related to two different phases: activity to facts and documentation to form and content. The records can be of two kinds, dispositive and probative. In addition, the world of diplomatics has supporting documents

44 Guyotjeannin, O., "The Expansion of Diplomatics as a Discipline", American Archivist 4 (1996): 417--420. Graphische Syrnbole in mittelalterlichen Urkunden, 145.

45 Duranti, L., "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part IV)", Archivaria 31 (1990- 1991): 10.


and narrative documents. The different types of documents are determined by the will and purpose of the activity that produces them. The consequence is that an understanding of the activity is fundamental to the understanding of the resulting documents. 46

I refer back to the critical examination of sources. Duranti states that there is a fundamental difference between what Richard Brown refers to as archival diplomatics and historical diplomatics. The difference originates in the phases of activity and documentation. These arise not of themselves but can be related to at least one will, since nothing occurs without persons being involved and no document is created without an author. For that reason diplomatics defines the different parts which form the condition for and surround the production of a record as:

1. The person who created the record (provenance).

2. The content of the record (pertinence).

31 The forms of records.

The hypothesis is that the form of a record is conditioned by the author and that the form is the starting point for the analysis. Diplomatics doesn't occupy itself with the content of the record (as does the historian), but establishes provenance through the form of the record. Duranti claims, however, that it is possible to extend the analysis of form to define the provenance of an aggregation of records. For an individual record, it is necessary for the confirmation of provenance to relate it to its author. 47

The origin of a document is surrounded by thoroughly elaborated procedures. A procedure is a formal sequence of activities through which a transaction is carded out. A procedure tends to have a structure. Diplomatics sees this ideal structure as independent of context, author and purpose. On the other hand, the activity in every phase as well as the records that remain from these activities can vary. To identify activities and the documents they cause, diplomatics has divided all processes into four categories based on their purposes. Duranti allows that this method of analysis and these hypotheses are well known to the archivist, who understands and structures the records creation from the specific activities which cause them. Duranti considers that the same method can be used to exemplify and generalize processes or functions in the information systems of today. 48

Diplomatics distinguishes between physical, external and intellectual, internal form. The external elements are the medium, the script, the language,

46 Duranti, L., "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part II)", Archivaria 29 (1989- 1990): 4-10. 47 Duranti, L., "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part HI)", Archivaria 30 (1990):

4-18. Brown, "Death of a Renaissance Record-Keeper", 25-26. 48 Duranti, "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part IV)", 11-23.

148 H,~KAN LOVBLAD

the special signs, the seals and the annotations. The elements of the internal form are made up of the way in which the content is presented. The ideal structure consists of three parts which are in turn subdivided. Duranti states that the analysis of diplomatics is rigid and reflects a way of working from the specific to the general, but that this is the only way to go when the context of a record is unknown. The purpose of diplomatics is to establish the function of a record from its form, to acquire knowledge of the activities of a records creator and thus get the necessary knowledge to verify the authenticity of a record. For this reason, diplomatics takes it starting point from the form of the record to the occurrence that initiated it or is referred to in the document. Thus an understanding of the legal, social and administrative context and the procedures that created the record is achieved. 49

Duranti summarizes the contribution of diplomatics to the archivist by saying that the way of defining concepts is important. Furthermore the relations between the archival record and the records creator, and to other archival records, are central to the work of the archivist, above all in an increasingly multidimensional reality. The main significance of diplomatics is its capacity to elucidate the procedural character of the archival record and the fact that its form can mediate and reveal the content and reconcile the gap between provenance and pertinence. Bearman makes the meaning of the latter evident when he writes:

The form of documents in any society reflects the meeting of a particular technology of recording and the generic cultural need to differen- tiate documents semiotically for rapid decoding . . . . These distinctions among forms of recorded information based on their content are useful in complex societies and play a substantial role in archival theory and practice, especially in Europe. 5~

Janet Turner considers that diplomatics should also be part of the toolkit of the archivist as it "provides a rigorous and precise means of examining the elemental archival unit, and thereby serves to sharpen both our individual perceptions and the other tools in the kit of the compleat Canadian archivist. ''51 Cook, on the other hand, doubts this, and is of the opinion that diplomatics as a method may be convenient for records from a time when documentation is scarce or where the surrounding context of activities is more

49 Duranti, L., "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part V)", Archivaria 32 (1991): 6-16.

50 Duranti, L., "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (Part VI)", Archivaria 33 (1991- 1992): 7-15. Bearman, D., "Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy, and the Management of Electronic Records in Europe and America", American Archivist 1 (1992): 171.

51 Turner, J., "Experimenting with New Tools: Special Diplomatics and the Study of Authority in the United Church of Canada", Archivaria 30 (1990): 101.


or less unknown. In such a case there is no other choice than to proceed from the record. Nowadays, however, the situation is different. Information about context is easily accessible and the amount of documentation in society is overwhelming. He adds, with reference to Barbara Craig, that: "the records themselves must be allowed to speak; . . . they contain evidence of transactions and realities that may modify, even contradict, the functional and structural paradigms 'above' them." But he nevertheless concludes that a holistic, top-down perspective is necessary to distinguish: "the sweet music from the meaningless noise'. 52

How does the method of diplomatics function in reality? One conclusion is that it is difficult to find a determining relation between the activity and the archival record, but that the analysis of diplomatics can reveal aspects of the historical situation which are not reflected through a study of content, s3 An investigation shows that the procedures which could be identified did not in any conclusive way differ from how they are described in manuals or other administrative sources. The understanding of procedures was not the result of an analysis of form, but rather the analysis of details such as date, author and the content of the document. These elements of the production of documents rather than an identification of external and internal form lead to the mapping of the production of the document. The investigation concluded, as did Cook, that the original purpose of diplomatics, to judge the authenticity of individual documents in an environment where their provenance was not known, differs from the situation today. Certain concepts from diplomatics and some basic elements of form are pointed out as useful for the identification of provenance. The conclusion is, however, that the method of special diplomatics, applying these concepts to individual documents, demands a great deal of work and is a doubtful way forward. 54

4.2. Functionalistic diplomatics

Bruno Delmas has developed a functionalistic view in which he treats the prospects of diplomatics in our time. Classical diplomatics focused on the data carrier, but today diplomatics has to change its focus from the carrier to the organic information in files and archives. The problem no longer concerns the authenticity of the record, but the value of the information it contains. Therefore diplomatics ought to focus on organic, structured and valid information. As regards the purposes for the use of archival records, Delmas sees

52 Cook, "Documentation Strategy,', 185. 53 Elliot, C.A., "Science at Harward University, 1846-1847: A Case Study of the Character

and Functions of Written Documents", American Archivist 3 (1994): 460. 54 Storch, S.E., "Diplomatics: Modem Archival Method or Medieval Artifact", American

Archivist 2 (1998): 381-383.

150 HAKANLOVBLAD

three groups of users of contemporary diplomatics. The first group consist of users of archival records who need correct, identified and controllable information. The second group is users who are creating records and organic information and need methods and knowledge to do so, for example to create structured electronic documents. The third group is composed of archivists who need knowledge to appraise and preserve the information so that it becomes a source of memory for others. 55

Contemporary diplomatics with a research and a general orientation is, according to Delmas, indispensable to the archivist. The empirical direction which diplomatics has had up to now must, however, be abandoned, owing to the great changes in production, dissemination and administration of information. Concerning the form of a document, diplomatics has to occupy itself with metadata and structured electronic documents in order to describe the functions, content and identity of the data elements. It is important to achieve more knowledge about the medium and data carder for the preservation of information and for the critical examination of sources. In order to understand the origin of the information, it is more important to study the procedures of decision-making and the development of organizations than to concentrate on the record. Viewed in such a context it is the file or dossier which is the tool of activity. The categorization of records has to be based on function- ality and scientificness to achieve precision and renewal in the description of external and internal elements, content and the value of the organic information. Delmas concludes by touching on oral sources after his statement that many texts cannot be understood without a commentary from those who were part of the activity. He concludes that the preservation of memories, which is the duty of the archivist, includes oral evidence as well. To gather such evidence there is a need for methods to authenticate them and Delmas states that the archivist can get assistance from diplomatics in this respect. 56

Angelika Menne-Hafitz and Michael Wettengel both call attention to the fact that information and communication technology risks reducing the record to mere information without traces of processing and origin, which makes it boundless and no longer comprehensible. Menne-Haritz sees an opportunity in that the technique is forcing us towards stronger centralization and standardization. Wettengel finds the solution in the systems themselves, through established protocols and their documentation. 57

55 Delmas, B., "Manifesto for a Contemporary Diplomatics: From Institutional Documents to Organic Information", American Archivist 4 (1996): 439-445.

56 Ibid., pp. 446-451. 57 Menne-Haritz, A., "Optische und elektronische Speichermedien in der Verwaltung.

Konsequenzen ftir Theorie und Praxis der Archive", DerArchivar 1 (1993): 69-72. Wettengel, M., "0berlieferungssicherung in Verwaltungen ohne Papier?", Der A rchivar 1 (1995): 34.


4.3. Hermeneutic diplomatics

In North America Brien Brothman and Richard Brown, inspired by post- modern theories of literature, are sceptical about solely considering the text and the language as giving meaning. With deconstruction as their method, they emphasize the importance of the context. The record is viewed as a bearer of context rather than a source of information. And through the reading of the record in this way the knowledge of the organization and structure which created it increases.

Brothman criticises diplomatics in terms of provenance. He takes support from Baudrillard, who characterizes the urge to document a fatal strategy in the modern world. This indicates that the increased importance of signs, communication and information can be traced to a temptation to seek causes and origins, which leads to the obliteration of conclusiveness. This documentation mentality implies that for every document there is always another which undermines or absorbs the previous one. A record always needs, points the way to or explains other records. 58 Brothman notices that what unites archival science and diplomatics is the emphasis on records creator and author. Diplomatics has used knowledge of the context - the signature - to establish the fiction of the scientific status of a record. Brothman doubts the analogy of signature and provenance, and concludes that: "The ontological sign/guarantee of the signature is as illusory as it is necessary. ''59

Eastwood criticizes Brothman's point of departure, which he finds difficult to understand, and non-theoretical. Jenkinson realized, according to East- wood, that the authenticity of the record depends upon an understanding of the procedures and the records creation of the administration. The epistemological dynamics lies in the association of the record with the administrative context and the acting that created it. Eastwood claims, however, that the archivist, when describing archives, can never be completely objective in the explanation of administrative context. Not because any certain meaning or purpose of the records or of their cultural meaning is attached to them, but because the task of the archivist is to explain the nature and structure of the archive and to preserve it as the basis for the interpretation of the activities that created it. 6~

Brown uses diplomatics from a different point of view than Brothman. He tries to identify the context of the records in which the meaning of a society is constituted. His starting point is that the meaning of a document derives from the activities which form, structure and produce it rather than in its content.

58 Brothman, B., "Orders of Value: Probing the Theoretical Terms of Archival Practice", Archivaria 32 (1991): 88.

59 Brothman, B., "Brothman on Authorship", Archivaria 34 (1992): 5-7. 60 Eastwood, "Nailing a Little Jelly to the Wall of Archival Studies", 232-239.

152 H,~KAN LOVBLAD

By seeking an inner context encoded in the narrative of the record, a greater understanding of activities, procedures and records creation is achieved than through the seeking of comprehension via the external context. The seeking of this inner discourse or structure discloses the provenance, the matter, the responsibility, the context and the procedure. Such a deconstruction of records or archives, which seeks the context in the text, makes it possible, according to Brown, to reach an understanding of the activities which created the record or the archive. Brown uses the term "narrativity of discourse" to describe an ontological gathering of texts, for example an archive comprised of archival records, in which an implicit understanding of specific activities or stnactural formation is represented. 61 Brown's method can be summarized by saying that the archivist learns to read records as sources containing discourse (context) rather than as sources containing value (information), to achieve a greater knowledge of organization and structure. 62

Brown criticizes Duranti and her arguments from the point of view of the history of the storing of archival records:

during the creation of documents and during the different phases of elaboration and disposal to which they were (and continue today to be) subjected, records underwent modifications of great importance in form, substance, and status to the extent that there was (is) significant separation between the relationship of the actual action and "the shape of a manifestation of the will of the issuing authority." In other words, understanding the process of making and destroying records is equally as important - if not more - as understanding the legal status/constitution of the records themselves. 63

The difference between Duranti and Brown, according to Carolyn Heald, is their perspectives. The perspective of Duranti is bottom-up since she concentrates on the record and the activity which caused it. The perspective of Brown is top-down as he concentrates on the creating context. The important thing, according to Heald, is that they both meet in relation to records creation and archiving. She sees the method of seeking other signs in a record than the content as integrated in the unique archival perspective and expressed through an examination of the language, the medium, the form, and the historical circumstances and context which is the origin of the record. 64

61 Brown, R., "Records Acquisition Strategy and its Theoretical Foundation: The Case for a Concept of Archival Hermeneutics", Archivaria 33 (1991-1992): 48-50.

62 Heald, C., "Is There Room for Archives in the Postmodern World?", American Archivist 1 (1996): 93.

63 Brown, "Death of a Renaissance Record-Keeper", 27. 64 Heald, 92-95.


Heald sees a danger in stressing the record as a cultural artefact as it emphasizes information without context. She states that it is important to remember that the record doesn't change, but the interpretation of it does. In our time of information overload and post-modern relativism it is important to understand that records are more needed than ever. Not because they are objective and unchangeable, but because society has determined that they are valuable. Heald demands principles in archival science, placed in a wider socio-cultural and historical context. The task of understanding the cultural products of a society, irrespective of form, demands deconstruction/reading, not through objective lenses, but through subjective interpretation. The contribution of diplomatics is the insight that the record is in focus and is the unique feature that demarcates the archivist from scholars of historical science and informatics. 65

The archivist needs to be aware of the changes in the society and the changing formation of concepts and their influence, according to Bernadine Dodge. The Marxist inspired criticism of Dodge indicates that the market commercializes everything and as the state leaves the cultural responsibility to the market, we can expect that information will be one product among others. In an epistemological respect the concepts of utility and exchange value correspond to evidential and informational value, which dialectically comprise the record. With the introduction of an additional Marxist term one could possibly extend the criticism of Dodge so that feudalism was occupied in an almost fetishist way with the evidential value of the record whereas late capitalism can be expected to devote itself to informational fetishism. Dodge stresses that the role of the archivist in the information society is to adhere to archival principles such as context, provenance and record and to defend his/her place apart, where at least there are fragments from a time when something had permanence. Otherwise she sees a risk in: "the blurring of both process and substance which constitutes archival epistemology". The role of the archivist as a defender of the culture, when the state no longer takes its responsibility, and the potential of the archives is to be associated with nostalgia and storytelling, which give people a sense of solidarity and understanding. 66

Taylor share the fears Dodge comments on, and widens the role of the archivist:

We archivists must nevertheless follow our own path, where the veri- fiable record remains central to our concerns. We should be wary of hypertext's siren song luring us onto the reefs of lost provenance. At

65 Ibid., pp. 95-101. 66 Dodge, B., "Places Apart: Archives in Dissolving Space and Time", Archivaria 44

(1997): 118-128.

154 H]~KAN LOVBLAD

the same time, we shall join with other heritage professionals in order to make leaps of the imagination from documents to the artefacts of "material culture," to art and (why not?) to literature and theatre, always beating in mind that the origin and context of human heritage lies in life-forms which antedate and still surround US. 67

Other cultural institutions such as galleries and museums have, according to Theresa Rowat, devoted themselves more to publication, interpretation and research than the archives which instead of individuality, have aimed at professional homogeneity. Archives have, owing to their legal role, been associated with truth, facts and reality. The concepts of record and archives connote them as facts although in themselves they not are facts. The alternative use sees archives as part of a cultural heritage and entails giving the dead files of the archives new life associated with concepts like nostalgia and imagination. Rowat claims that the understanding of the archival record can be liberated from its potential to perform the functions of either facts or fantasy through instead being regarded as a cultural construction. She cites Barthes:

The roots of historical truth are therefore the documents as voices, not as witnesses. Michelet considers in them, exclusively, that quality of having been an attribute of life, the privileged object to which clings a kind of residual memory of past bodies. Thus the closer the document comes to a voice, the less it departs from the warmth which has produced it, and the more it is the true foundation of historical credibility. This is why the oral document is ultimately superior to the written document, the Legend to the texts . . . . 68

O'Toole emphasizes that the archivist needs a greater understanding of the roles records have played, and sees that the circumstances that created them are insufficient to understanding them. In addition, one has to consider the symbolic context and meanings, John Fleckner states that the archivist cannot be satisfied with the archival record, but also always has to ask which documentation best constitutes evidence of the culturally constructed systems of signs, symbols and meanings. 69

67 Taylor, "Recycling the Past", 210. 68 Rowat, 200-203. 69 O'Toole, J., "The Symbolic Significance of Archives", American Archivist 2 (1993): 255;

Fleckner, J.A., "Introduction", American Archivist 1 (1994): 85.


Scientific explanation Levels of reality Example of subjects & tradition

r HermeneuUcs ~_~ (subject) Systems theory (system)

Positivism (object) ~1'

Context Structuralism Inner discourse, structure Deconstruction Metacodes, signs, symbols Semiotics

Qualitative diplomatics

Organization Quantitative diplomatlcs Procedures of decision Archives, series, dossiers, files

The external elemecte of form of the record Special dlplomstics The internal elements of form of the record

~ Structured documents and metsdata

rhe arrows show the direction of the explanations.)

Figure 4. Epistemology of archives.

4.4. Summarizing epistemological comparison

The comparison illustrates that the questions of the ontology of archives (Figure 3) and how to get knowledge out of them (Figure 4) have mutual relationships and that logical connections exist between the levels of reality in the figures. The passage shows an agreement that the context of archives is the evidential prerequisite for knowledge. The epistemological scheme gives a more distinct hint as to extract evidences out of archives, on which levels of reality, and with which methods.

The comparison also shows that archival diplomafics (origin) is not self- evident. Delmas represents historical diplomatics (content) which, in my view, is the foremost scientific connection between archival and historical science. Post-modern criticism does not question archival diplomatics, but problematizes the approach and interpretation of the context.

There are also those who believe that the epistemological context has to be widened outside the archives, and the comparison points indirectly to the fact that archives are not always sufficient to describe human activity, but that they do describe an archival reality.

The understanding of the evidential value as the foremost ontological and epistemological category in archival science was achieved under influence of diplomatics. Diplomatics is an early example of a systemic approach, of using deconstruction as a method, and of displaying an interest in interpretation by the incorporation of semiotics. The functionalisfic interpretation of archival science was abandoned at the end of the nineteenth century owing to scientific myths and a one-sided empirical focus on the objects: the records creator and the record. Technological advances have exposed the positivistic comprehension of archival science to too many anomalies and have re-established a functionalisfic interpretation. This has also been influenced by hermeneutics and systems theory. The latter could possibly be seen as a reconciling contribution.