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 

  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. ↩