Defining Archival Principles

This section intends to outline and examine some of the significant defining principles of archival arrangement and description practices. It details how these concepts guide our work in the Archival Processing unit at the New York Public Library, and the ways in which we continue to assess and critique these principles. Much of these concepts are also explained in the DACS Statement of Principles, and all terms are defined in the Dictionary of Archives Terminology.

Table of Contents

Processing

Archival processing is the arrangement, description, and housing of collections once they are permanently transferred and accessioned by an archive. Each archival collection is unique and requires varying levels of description based on its content, size, and existing arrangement. The ultimate goal of archival processing is to provide greater intellectual and physical access to collections. Processing also takes into consideration the preservation and long-term storage needs of materials.

While arrangement and description are the primary activities of archival processing, they are not necessarily expected to be performed in a particular order. Sometimes these tasks occur simultaneously, but they may also be performed in phases with gaps of time in between. Challenges such as reformatting of audio and moving image material or digitization can significantly alter the intended or expected workflow of archival processing.

Provenance

Provenance refers to the chain of custody and origin of records. Fulfilling the principle of provenance requires that collections of different origins be maintained as discrete entities in order to preserve context within each collection. This suggests that pulling documents from one collection to create an artificial collection means losing any context that the materials may have had in their original location. Since context can provide valuable information about how or when a document was created, or what other documents were associated with it, individual collections are best kept as separate and distinct entities. 

While the notion of provenance has a long and enduring tradition as a foundational model in archival arrangement and description, we also acknowledge that provenance as a guiding archival principle is one that is historically rooted in legacies of colonialism.1 As a concept derived around the custody and ownership of physical materials, it is one that inherently privileges those with the greatest financial means and power.2 We understand the limitations of provenance as a concept, and recognize that it is part of a legacy that has consistently and systematically led to historically marginalized communities being under-described and inaccurately represented in archives.3 

Original Order

According to the DACS Statement of Principles, original order is an instance of archival context to be documented, but should not be exclusively situated as the central guiding principle of archival arrangement decisions.4 Throughout the lifespan of an archival collection, the creator may have changed the arrangement many times to suit their activities and needs, which is one of a myriad of reasons that the concept of original order becomes complicated. The way a creator initially used or maintained their records may not correspond to the order in which a collection was received.5 While archivists should avoid altering the received order of a collection prior to processing, they should also not assume that the order in which a collection was received aligns with the manner in which the records were used or kept by the creator.6

Some collections arrive without any obvious signs of order, let alone the original order. A collection may arrive in disarray for any number of reasons, and may require the archivist to impose an order to create context for the researcher. The received order may differ due to the collection having been partially processed by another archivist or altered by a third party. For example, if a seller physically rearranged the collection while in their possession, it may be difficult for an archivist to decipher what the original order was. The archivist should avoid altering the received order prior to conducting a thorough survey of the collection and obtaining context of the materials.

In archival theory, the principles of provenance and original order are often described collectively as respect des fonds, a concept dating back to the 19th century, which literally means respecting the fonds or records of a single creator by not mixing them with the records of others,7 while also maintaining the existing arrangement and structure.8 These concepts have endured, but also continue to be reexamined since the guidance was initially intended for the paper records of government agencies. Born-Digital records further complicate these long-standing definitions, as the order, ownership, and origin of digital materials can be more ambiguous.9

Do No Harm

During processing, the archivist should aim to keep the records they are handling in the same condition as they were received. This means anything that cannot be reversed or undone should not be performed unless documented, discussed, and approved by the appropriate parties. Separating certain formats from the collection, for instance, should typically be avoided since it erases the provenance and the ability for researchers to understand how the collection was created and arranged. Similarly, physical handling and sorting at the item level may result in a loss of context that cannot be restored. 

  1. Kimberly Christen and Jane Anderson suggest that “The long arc of collecting is not just rooted in colonial paradigms; it relies on and continually remakes those structures of injustice not only through the seemingly benign practices and processes of the profession, but also through how terms like access and circulation are understood and expressed,”Christen, Kimberly, and Jane Anderson. “Toward Slow Archives.” Archival Science 19, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09307-x. ↩

  2. In this article Jarret Drake questions the principles of provenance and suggests “we archivists must resist our colonial inclinations and realize that not all who are named are truthful and not all who are unnamed are deceitful.” Jarrett M. Drake, “RadTech Meets RadArch: Towards A New Principle for Archives and Archival Description,” On Archivy, April 7, 2016, https://medium.com/on-archivy/radtech-meets-radarch-towards-a-new-principle-for-archives-and-archival-description-568f133e4325. ↩

  3. Nancy Liliana Godoy suggests that, “In order to truly liberate archives from oppressive theory and practice, we need a redistribution of power and resources which grants marginalized people the authority to produce their own narratives.” Godoy, Nancy Liliana. “Community-Driven Archives: Conocimiento, Healing, and Justice.” Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies 3, no. 2 (2021): 18–19. https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v3i2.136. ↩

  4. “Original Order and Arrangement as Archival Context” from “DACS Statement of Principles,” Society of American Archivists’ Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Version 2021.0.0.2, https://saa-ts-dacs.github.io/dacs/04_statement_of_principles.html#original-order-and-arrangement-as-archival-context. ↩

  5. Jennifer Meehan writes that we must consider “the ways in which records are created, used, and maintained initially and over time by the creator (personal recordkeeping); the ways in which records are used, maintained, and transmitted by subsequent custodians (custodial history); and the ways in which records are treated once in archival custody, even before being formally processed (archival interven-tion).”Jennifer Meehan, “Rethinking Original Order and Personal Records,” Archivaria, no. 70 (October 20, 2010): 32., https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13294. ↩

  6. Dorothy Berry reminds us that “Valuing the collection organizer over the collection’s human subjects makes sense in many contexts, but as powerful institutions desire more and more to collect material histories beyond the ruling class, we begin recreating systems of bodily ownership that have now been translated into memory.” Dorothy Berry, “The House Archives Built,” Up//Root, July 23, 2021, https://www.uproot.space/features/the-house-archives-built. ↩

  7. Shelley Sweeney, “The Ambiguous Origins of the Archival Principle of ‘Provenance,’” Libraries & the Cultural Record 43, no. 2 (2008): 193–213. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25549475. ↩

  8. Terry Cook, “The Concept of the Archival Fonds in the Post-Custodial Era: Theory, Problems and Solutions,” Archivaria, no. 35 (1992), https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/11882. ↩

  9. Jefferson Bailey, “Disrespect Des Fonds: Rethinking Arrangement and Description in Born-Digital Archives,” Archive Journal, June 2013, http://www.archivejournal.net/essays/disrespect-des-fonds-rethinking-arrangement-and-description-in-born-digital-archives/. ↩