MANAGING THE ARCHIVES: A Basic Program

MANAGING THE ARCHIVES: A Basic ProgramAuthor(s): Michael CookSource: Fontes Artis Musicae, Vol. 43, No. 3 (July-September 1996), pp. 235-241Published by: International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres(IAML)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508210 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres (IAML) is collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fontes Artis Musicae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.107 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:32:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaml

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaml

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508210?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MANAGING THE ARCHIVES A Basic Program

Michael Cook (Liverpool, UK>*

Les archives sont des documents d'information émanant d'un système émetteur, non

publiés et inaccessibles par des circuits publics. Les règles fondamentales du traitement

des archives exigent le respect de leur provenance et de leur classement d'origine. Les

dépouillements contiendront des renseignements sur leur contexte comme sur leur

contenu. L'acquisition et la conservation des archives devront suivre un programme

systématique et des normes établies, incluant des dispositions pour la préservation, la

description et le triage.

Archivalien sind Informationsmaterialien, die ein eigenes System hervorgebracht haben,

unveröffentlicht und auch durch öffentliche Kanäle nicht zugänglich sind. Grundvoraus

setzung für die Archivierung ist der Erhalt der Provenienz und der originalen Ordnung.

Vielschichtige Beschreibungen sollten Informationen sowohl zum Kontext als auch zum

Inhalt enthalten. Erwerb und Unterhalt von Archivalien sowie Verfahrensweise für ihre

Konservierung, Beschreibung und Schätzung sollten sytematischen Plänen und festste

henden Richtlinien folgen.

Archives provide an essential source of information, in music as in other aspects of life. There is sometimes a tendency for archives to be seen as essentially ancient, dealing only with specialist aspects of the past. This is not the case:

archives can be contemporary, just as books and scientific documents can have

retrospective value only. The real difference between archives and these other

information materials is that the archives have been created inside an originating

system, not published, and have not been made available through public channels.

Archives are documents (and other materials) that have been or are part of the

events they carry information about. From this it is easy to see that in any given situation where information sources must be gathered, both internal and external

sources are likely to be needed.

Definitions of archives do not include either date or medium as determining criteria. Archives need not be old, and they need not be on paper. All that is

necessary is that they should have been created in the regular course of some

activity, and kept because they might be useful. In music, it is easy to imagine that

*Michael Cook has held many distinguished positions as archivist in the United Kingdom and

Africa; presently he is Senior Fellow in Archival Studies at the University of Liverpool.

235



236 FONTES ARTIS MUSICAE 43/3

many archives will consist of, or contain, sound recordings, or audio-visual materials. In fact this is true of all archives, even those produced by general administrations.

Archivists today are engaged in a debate about whether it is possible to manage private archives—for example, those of an individual composer—in the same way as public or institutional archives. There is a case for deciding that, despite similarities, these two categories should be treated differently in some ways. There is no dispute about the basic principles; these were laid down long ago, have been thoroughly tested, and seem to apply all over the world. These

principles are called respect for provenance, and for original order.1 Apply ing these principles means that the archives arising from one creating individual or organization should not be confused with those arising from other sources; and that within these groups the materials should be arranged, as far as possible, in a way that reflects the original system by which they were created or used. There is general agreement that archival materials cannot be arranged by the

subjects mentioned in them—in this respect they are essentially different from books.

Arising from these basic principles also, is the idea that archival materials can

usually only be understood if there is also an understanding of the context in which

they were created and used. Therefore arranging and describing archives—

sorting and listing—are two activities very closely linked. There are two conse

quences:

• Archival descriptions (catalogues) must always contain information about context as well as content (keeping these two clearly distinguished from each

other);

• Archives generally have to be described at different levels. This means that there should usually be a description of the whole archive as an entity, linked to descriptions of the component parts of the archive, down to individual items.

The first of these two consequences has been long recognized. Perhaps the most distinctive contribution that archivists can make toward adding to the value of their holdings is to provide an administrative or biographical history. This can then be put into the finding aid as part of the contextual information needed by users of the material. Archivists generally are the people who know most about these background stories. They get the information for them partly by research into published and other external sources, but also, and specially, by studying the archives they are working on. Extracting this contextual information and

making it usable, within the structure of the cataloguing systems, is often the

1. "Respect des fonds" is the term used by the classical authors on archivology, because the

principle seems first to have been stated in France, in the years following the 1789 Revolution. H.

Jenkinson, A Manual of Archival Administration (London: 1922; revised and reissued by Lund

Humphries, London, 1965).



MANAGING THE ARCHIVES 237

most satisfying job an archivist can do. In this way, an archives service preserves and presents the context and background of the archival documents, so that when users read them they can truly assess the significance of what the content information contains. This important work is termed the "moral defence" of archives.2

The second consequence has given rise to the "multi-level rule" in archival

description.3 This principle has not been recognized and observed in the archives world for very long, though an analysis containing it was published in the USA in

1964, and this no doubt codified what was already long-standing practice both there and in other parts of the world.4 The multi-level rule recognizes that there is a hierarchy of commonly observed levels of arrangement. The principal levels are:

• The fonds, or archive group: the total archive produced by a distinct orga nization or individual. A possible alternative term would be "archive," in the

singular.

• The series: the materials produced or used in a distinct recording system within the fonds; for example, a filing system.

• The item: the unit of handling; for example a file (dossier), or a volume whatever can be held in the hand as a physical unit, even though it may contain individual documents.5

This hierarchy can be extended both upwards and downwards, and at all levels is

significant as a guide for sorting archival materials into appropriate groupings, and for presenting descriptions of these groupings in finding aids.

An imaginary example illustrates very simply the need to observe these

principles and provide for the moral defence of archives. An individual letter from a famous composer might come up for sale. A prospective buyer examining it may find, in reading it, that it mentions several different subjects—perhaps it deals with the composition of a particular piece, but also gives personal news of friends, comments on the weather, politics, prospective journeys, etc. Thus, it is not

possible to allot the document to a subject area, except the broad subject represented by its provenance: the creator of the document. It becomes clear, on

reading it, that it once formed part of a regular correspondence that probably embraced not only the writer and recipient of this letter but also others. This

2. Jenkinson, 83-121.

3. Established by the International Council on Archives, Ad Hoc Commission on Archival De

scription, Standard General Archival Description ISAD(G), (Obtainable from the Commission's sec

retariat, National Archives of Canada, Ottawa, 1993.)

4. The background is given in Michael Cook and Margaret Procter, Manual of Archival Descrip

tion, 2nd ed. rev. (Aldershot: Gower Publishing, 1989).

5. Further discussion of the use of the hierarchy of levels is in Michael Cook, Information

Management and Archival Data (London: Library Association Publishing, 1993), 67-84. Terminology is explained in the Dictionary of Archival Terminology issued by the International Council on Archives.




sequence of letters did once form a file, and this file in turn was part of an overall

filing system. If only this series still existed as a whole, kept separate from other

materials, and arranged in its original working order, how much more valuable the

letter in the example would be as a source of information. Most valuable of all

would be the complete fonds, the total surviving archive of the composer. It would

probably include a number of series, including perhaps drafts of the compositions,

legal documents and correspondence about arrangements for publication or per formance, and expressions of intention.

In the last two paragraphs the term "archive" was used in a somewhat different

sense from the term "archives" used previously. It was meant to suggest the total

archival output of a single source—in the example, a composer. A complete archive like this is clearly most valuable if it is seen as a distinct provenance, and

treated as a unit, but containing component parts. It is on this point that the

debate about institutional archives turns. Is it possible to see the total archival

output of a complex organization as a total archive in the same way? In some

cases, one would answer yes: for example, the archive of a publishing house could

clearly be seen as a unit. But what about a government? It is perhaps a unit, but

so are its major ministries or departments, their main subdivisions, regional branches, or functional agencies. All agree, however, that the two basic principles still apply, but there is some argument about whether they can be applied within

the same specific set of standards or procedures. Archives have to be acquired, kept, and managed. Setting up a system for

doing these things is like setting up any form of organized activity. It is best done

systematically, according to a plan, and in observance of established standards. The first requirement might be to have an agreed plan of action, or mission

statement. This would set out the boundaries within which the archivists will work. What archives are to be sought, how are they to be preserved, and who will have access to them and for what? The formulation of a mission statement is

something that in the past has often been left out, the mission being assumed, the

objectives left fuzzy. It was in this spirit that many organizations, particularly libraries and museums, have in the past found themselves taking on the respon sibility for archives. In the world of today, with resources for cultural activities

becoming more and more scarce, it is really not acceptable to start up a new

enterprise without considering its coverage and objectives very carefully, and also

determining its place in the national (or even international) scene, and its rela

tionships with other similar programs. Acquiring archives, within the terms of a plan like this, will generally mean that

there is to be some sort of survey. Since archives are essentially internal to any creating entity, they have to be found. Tracking down people or the successors of organizations that are likely to have been the creators of relevant archives is not

always straightforward. It is often a piece of research in its own right. There are models that can be followed. For example, in Britain a long-standing project based at the University of Bath is the National Catalogue of the Archives of Contem

porary Science (NCACS). This project draws up lists of the scientists who fall within its purview, finds out where they are and what has happened to their

archives, and takes appropriate action. When they find an archive, they always




catalogue it. They then try to find the best way of maintaining it in good condition and making it available for use. This is normally done by identifying an archives service that is willing to take on the responsibility for the archive, and manage it for the future. Thus, it is not necessary that a survey or finding operation will

always itself take over the physical work of keeping or giving access to the materials it may find. This is an important principle to remember: finding out where archives are is not necessarily closely linked with storing them or providing reference facilities, both rather expensive services. Most countries have a system for keeping track of the whereabouts of archives that have been identified and listed. In Britain this is the National Register of Archives.6 In the USA, the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections (NUCMC) might be seen as

having the same role.

Nevertheless, if an archive is worth preserving, it is worth preserving to the

prevailing standard. And if it is worth preserving, it should also be made available for use. In all of these areas there are established standards and procedures.

Probably the best known to the public are the procedures necessary for the

physical preservation of the materials. Conservation is today a major concern in the information world generally, and is receiving increasingly concentrated atten tion from the leading institutions. In the United States, the Library of Congress is taking a leading role, and in Britain the British Library has established a National Preservation Office. These institutions will usually give advice on what are the

necessary conditions for keeping things safely. Paper, being a relatively stable

medium, generally only needs clean, dry conditions with a moderate range of

temperatures and humidity levels and good ventilation. Other materials are more

exacting: photographs need more careful environmental control and protection from acidic decay; audio-visual materials have their own requirements; electronic archives need specialist attention. Advice on the treatment of these media is available from the professional archival associations. It is worth remembering that the greatest danger to the preservation of archival materials is not physical decay or destruction, so much as misplacement or loss caused by carelessness, or lack

of concern. A prime characteristic of an archives service should be that it is

orderly. Making the archives available covers a whole range of activities, from sorting

and listing and the construction of finding aids, through the provision of suitable

reading rooms, to mounting outreach and publicity programs. Here too the

professional associations can provide guidance, and other articles in this issue deal with some of these matters. As with the cataloguing of materials held in various

hands, there is much scope for collaborative action in all of them. It is here that

there is the greatest possibility of sharing facilities between archives, libraries, and museums.

In considering this collaboration, it is important to understand that each of

these three branches of the information industry work in different ways. They should not be confused with each other, nor should one be subordinated to

6. The NRA is maintained by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Quality House,

Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London.




another. In the best of worlds, each would have a budget adequate to its needs, and be able to operate to the best standards of its appropriate professional area. Unfortunately, this ideal is seldom realized, but it is possible, all the same, to use common facilities and services. Libraries may be able to provide storage, reference facilities, and a controlled environment for use of the materials. Muse ums may have strong support for conservation and repair, and can be good at

presenting and explaining materials, or using them in educational services. Spe cialist archivists should have comparable strengths in all the processes necessary, especially in the preparation of finding aids.

There is always scope for new work in archives. Society generally does not

give a high value to this kind of work, nor to surviving archival materials unless

they are associated with a famous name or are otherwise newsworthy. There are many cases where individuals and organizations allow their archives to perish by a more or less conscious decision to make no provision for them. It has to be allowed, of course, that not all material records should be kept. One basic

principle of archival operation has not yet been mentioned in this article: this is, that nothing should be admitted to an archival program until it has been appraised. Among archivists, this term signifies the formal evaluation of archival materials with the object of determining whether or not they are worth preserving: an assessment of the research value of the information held in the archives, or of other values inherent in them.

Appraisal is probably the professional activity most special to archivists, and the one most important to the future of society. There is much professional literature on the topic, and there have been many attempts to reduce appraisal, if not to a science, then at least to a systematic series of operations. The main

writings on the subject have come from the USA, because it was here that people first came up against the problems posed by the enormous mass of modern

documentation. The classic exposition of the appraisal process assumes that archivists will examine surviving masses of record material and ask a series of

questions about it:

• whether it has a continuing use for current administrative reference (the primary value);

• if not, whether it has value for documenting the existence and functioning of the originating agency or individual (secondary values, evidential quality);

• if not again, whether it has value for documenting other things, affected by the work of the originating agency or person (secondary values, informational

quality).7

Appraisal along these lines assumes that the archivists are starting from an

existing body of material. Looking back to the surveying operation mentioned

7. The classic exposition is by Theodore R. Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles and

Techniques (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965).




earlier in this article, however, one might suggest an alternative approach. This has been developed more recently by American colleagues, and is sometimes called the documentation plan.8

In this approach to appraisal, the first step is to carry out a functional analysis of the organization or subject areas that are sought to be documented. An outcome of this analysis is a table of functions on which documentation should be

compiled. The functions that emerge from the analysis are not always quite what one would have expected. For example, if one were to look at the work of

university music departments, one might come to the conclusion that one of their main objectives was the socialization of students. This would, of course, be in addition to what might initially have seemed more likely as a central aim, the stimulation of new musical composition, or research into musical traditions. To document a theme such as student socialization would demand the discovery and

preservation of a large range of information materials, not all of them at all easy to recognize: for example, records of student societies, church or voluntary activities, relationships with parents, funding arrangements, and many other

things. This rapid survey of some of the basic techniques and principles in archivology

therefore returns to two mentioned at the outset, the formulation of a mission

statement and the survey of relevant sources. Before one sets out to preserve, catalogue, and use archival materials, one should be sure what are these to be the archives of? The whole plan of operation depends on the answer to this question.

8. In this discussion I am much indebted to Helen W. Samuels, particularly her book Varsity

Letters: Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities (Metuchen, NJ: Society of American Archivists

and Scarecrow Press, 1992).



Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-cook
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

MANAGING THE ARCHIVES: A Basic Program

Documents