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 interpreta-
tion, 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 influ-
ence 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/~KANLOVBLAD

and expansive, If we have answered the questions of ontology, epistemo-

logy, 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 assimila-
tions 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 rela-
tions 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, KNIGHTOR 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 systemicscheme.

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 posi-
tivism 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.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 135

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 them-
selves 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 communica-
tion of archival documents, that is, of the residue and evidence of societal
actions and transactions". 12 The definition of preservation as moral, phys-
ical 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 stand-
ardization, 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 partic-
ularly 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 o f specialists. H e sees this as a paradoxical strength in the
professional education o f 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 o f methodologies from archival theory) 6 Duranti considers that
the basic concepts of archival science have their origin in concepts of R o m a n
law) 7 Terry Eastwood describes his view o f the relation between theory,
methodology and practice:

Archival methodology acts as a bridge between theory and practice. It

consists o f ideas b a s e d 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 practice) s

Other understandings exist: "Duranti's dictum that theory must drive method-
ology 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 r e of the view that thinking !n archival
theory has adapted to fundamental changes in the nature o f records, o f 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 prac-
tice. 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 consti-
tutes 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 materi-
alistic 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 underpin-
ning 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., "ArchivalStrategies",American Archivist 4 (1995): 389.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 139

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 trans-
action 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 charac-
teristic 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 Conceptof Appraisal and ArchivalTheory",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 infor-
mation 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 deter-
mines 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. F u n c t i o n a l i s t i c a r c h i v a l s c i e n c e

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

28O'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.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 141

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 func-
tional 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 neces-
sary 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 informa-
tion in an organisation. Bearman advocates functionalistic archival science

30 Ketelaar,"ArchivalTheory and the Dutch Manual",Archivaria 41 (1996): 33-34. One

importantadvocateof the functionalisticviewwho is excludeddue to my limitation,but should
be mentioned,is Helen W. Samuels.
31 Belton,T., "By WhoseWarrant?AnalyzingDocumentaryForm and Procedure",Archiv-
aria 41 (1996): 206. Cook, "DocumentationStrategy",Archivaria 34 (1992): 183.
32 Pederson, A., "EmpoweringArchivalEffectiveness:ArchivalStrategies as Innovation",
American Archivist 4 (1995): 451.
33 Bartlett,N., "The Records Continuum:Ian McLean and AustralianArchives 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 a r c h i v a l s c i e n c e s

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 corres-
pond 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-KeepingSystems",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 archivefrom different
perspectives. Cook has in "ArchivalScience and Postmodernism:New Formulationsfor Old
Concepts",Archival Science 1 (2001): 3-24, outlineda lot of sources concerningpost-modern
impact on archival science.
36 Rowat, T., "The Record and Repository as a Cultural Form of Expression",Archivaria
36 (1993): 201-203.
 MONK, KNIGHTOR ARTIST? 143

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. Summarizingontological comparison

The essential understanding which has been achieved through this ontolo-
gical 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 Levels of reality Example of subjects

& tradition
Collective memory Hermeneutic collective
Hermeneutics
Individual memory archival science
(subject)
Symbols, signs Hermeneutic individual
Inscriptions, traces archival science
Systems theory Activity Functionalistic archival
(system) Procedures science
Transactions
Records Creation
Positivism
(object) 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 certi-
ficate as opposed to the certificate itself through which an act, the marking,
40 Wallrn, 12.
41 Dtlranti, L., "Reliabilityand Authenticity: The Concepts and Their Implication", Archiv-
aria 39 (1995): 7.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 145

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 particu-
larly 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 Hilfswissenschaftenvom 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 decon-
structed the record into three parts: facts, form and documentation. These
three parts are related to two different phases: activity to facts and documenta-
tion 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. GraphischeSyrnbolein mittelalterlichenUrkunden, 145.
45 Duranti,L., "Diplomatics:New Uses for an Old Science(PartIV)", Archivaria 31 (1990-
1991): 10.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 147

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 diplo-
matics 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 aggre-
gation 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 proce-
dures. 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 RenaissanceRecord-Keeper",25-26.
48 Duranti,"Diplomatics:New Uses for an Old Science (Part IV)", 11-23.
148 H,~KANLOVBLAD

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 rela-
tions 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 arch-
ivist.''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
Authorityin the United Church of Canada",Archivaria 30 (1990): 101.
 MONK, KNIGHTOR ARTIST? 149

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 trans-
actions 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 t h e
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 proven-
ance. 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 infor-
mation. 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 infor-
mation. 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 infor-
mation. 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.
 MONK, KNIGHTOR ARTIST? 151

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 docu-
mentation 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 epistemo-
logical 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,~KANLOVBLAD

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 concen-
trates 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.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 153

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 contri-
bution 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]~KANLOVBLAD

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 alter-
native 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 docu-
mentation best constitutes evidence of the culturally constructed systems of
signs, symbols and meanings. 69

67 Taylor, "Recyclingthe Past", 210.

68 Rowat, 200-203.
69 O'Toole, J., "The SymbolicSignificance of Archives", American Archivist 2 (1993): 255;
Fleckner, J.A., "Introduction", American Archivist 1 (1994): 85.
 MONK, KNIGHT OR ARTIST? 155

Scientific explanation Levels of reality Example of subjects

& tradition

HermeneuUcs ~_~ r Context Structuralism

(subject) Inner discourse, structure
Metacodes, signs, symbols
Deconstruction
Semiotics
Qualitative diplomatics
Systems theory Organization Quantitative diplomatlcs
(system) Procedures of decision
Archives, series, dossiers, files
Positivism The external elemecte of form of the record Special dlplomstics
(object) ~1' The internal elements of form of the record
~ Structured documents and metsdata

rhe arrows show the direction of the explanations.)

Figure4. Epistemologyof 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 compre-
hension of archival science to too many anomalies and have re-established
a functionalisfic interpretation. This has also been influenced by hermen-
eutics and systems theory. The latter could possibly be seen as a reconciling
contribution.