![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Meaning is lost when records are moved from the sites in which they were made and kept to archives. This paper weighs the significance of that loss by identifying different kinds of context that may be found in sites of creation. Should archivists emulate archaeologists and document sites before they disturb them? What difficulties arise? This paper finds that, even though physical contexts cannot be perfectly captured or wholly preserved, there is still value in documenting sites where there is a strong connection between environment, records and creator. Furthermore, that documentation can then be used as a powerful tool to enhance access.
Notes
1. This traditional view of ‘original order’ is challenged in contemporary archival theory. See, for example, H MacNeil, ‘Archivalterity: Rethinking Original Order’, Archivaria, vol. 66, Fall 2008, pp. 1–24.
2. B Brothman, ‘Orders of Value: Probing the Theoretical Terms of Archival Practice’, Archivaria, vol. 32, Summer 1991, p. 85.
3. H Jenkinson, ‘The English Archivist: A New Profession’, Selected Writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, Alan Sutton Publishing, Gloucester, 1980, p. 239.
4. Jenkinson, p. 239.
5. E Ketelaar, ‘Tacit Narratives: The Meanings of Archives’, Archival Science, vol. 1, no. 2, June 2001, p. 140.
6. P Horsman, ‘Dirty Hands: A New Perspective on the Original Order’, Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 27, no. 1, May 1999, pp. 48–9.
7. A Rekrut, ‘Material Literacy: Reading Records as Material Culture’, Archivaria, vol. 60, Fall 2005, p. 25.
8. T Malone, ‘How do People Organise their Desks? Implications for the Design of Office Information Systems’, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, January 1983, p. 106.
9. Malone, p. 104.
10. Richard R Nelson and Sidney G Webster, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 99–100.
11. ibid., p. 105.
12. ibid., pp. 101, 105.
13. E Yakel, ‘Archival Representation’, Archival Science, vol. 3, no. 1, March 2003, p. 16.
14. M Kirschenbaum, E Farr, K Kraus, N Nelson, C Peters, G Redwine and D Reside, ‘Digital Materiality: Preserving Access to Computers as Complete Environments’, iPRES 2009: the Sixth International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects, UC Office of the President, p. 111, available at <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7d3465vg>, accessed 25 July 2012.
15. ibid., p. 112.
16. J O’Toole, ‘The Symbolic Significance of Archives’, American Archivist, vol. 56, no. 2, Spring 1993, pp. 238–40.
17. ibid., p. 250.
18. C Hobbs, ‘The Character of Personal Archives: Reflections on the Value of Records of Individuals’, Archivaria, vol. 52, Fall 2001, p. 131.
19. J Browne, ‘Writers’ Rooms: Charles Darwin’, The Guardian, 20 June 2008, available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jun/20/writers.rooms.charles.darwin>, accessed 24 September 2012.
20. Brothman, p. 82.
21. E Ketelaar, ‘Archival Temples, Archival Prisons: Modes of Power and Protection’, Archival Science, vol. 2, nos 3–4, September 2002, p. 234; J Schwartz, ‘“Having New Eyes”: Spaces of Archives, Landscapes of Power’, Archivaria, vol. 61, Spring 2006, p. 18.
22. The Griffith Institute, ‘Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation’, available at <http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/tutankhamundiscovery.html>, accessed 25 July 2012.
23. L Millar, ‘The Death of the Fonds and the Resurrection of Provenance: Archival Context in Space and Time’, Archivaria, vol. 53, Spring 2002, pp. 12–13.
24. It should be made clear here that documenting sites of creation is not, on its own, enough for the type of rich description as envisaged by Millar. For a full picture, you would also need to document the recordkeeping processes that occurred at those sites over time.
25. New South Wales Heritage Office, How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items, 3rd edn, NSW Heritage Office, Sydney, 1998, pp. 3, 5.
26. C Renfrew and P Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, 3rd edn, Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, p. 44.
27. MacNeil, p. 20.
28. O’Toole, p. 255.
29. F Boles, ‘Disrespecting Original Order’, American Archivist, vol. 45, no. 1, Winter 1982, p. 29.
30. J Schwartz, ‘“Records of Simple Truth and Precision”: Photography, Archives, and the Illusion of Control’, Archivaria, vol. 50, Fall 2000, p. 19.
31. M Hedstrom, ‘Archives, Memory, and Interfaces with the Past’, Archival Science, vol. 1, nos 1–2, p. 33.
32. M Shanks, ‘Photography and Archaeology’, in Brian Leigh Molyneaux (ed.), The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology, Routledge, London, 1997, p. 102.
33. Brothman, p. 84.
34. J Schwartz, ‘“Having New Eyes”: Spaces of Archives, Landscapes of Power’, Archivaria, vol. 61, Spring 2006, p. 12.
35. D Bearman, ‘Documenting Documentation’, Archivaria, vol. 34, Summer 1992, p. 45.
36. Horsman, p. 51.
37. ibid.
38. Eternal Egypt, available at <http://www.eternalegypt.org>, accessed 25 July 2012.
39. John Tolva, ‘Recontextualizing the Collection: Virtual Reconstruction, Replacement, and Repatriation’, in J Trant and D Bearman (eds), Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, Archives and Museum Informatics, Toronto, 2005.