16
A. I. DIAMOND
The charge cannot be denied. To destroy any of the papers which form part of the body of archives, unless destruction is limited to word-for-word duplicates, is to place the peculiar integrity they had, as such, at risk, and the greater the destruction the greater the violence done to the principles on which their value for research is claimed to rest.
Archivists have no defence in terms of theory for the destruction of archives, and it is only when the practicalities are considered that justification can be found for it. The volume of records generated by modern governments is enormous and growing greater year by year. It has been claimed that if all the records produced or received by the Federal and State governments of the United States in a single year were packed on shelving, that shelving would extend for more than fifty miles. Faced with archival accumulation on such a scale, what are administrators and archivists and scholars themselves, for that matter, to do, but to agree that a policy for the selective destruction of archives is unavoidable. The question, really, is not whether to destroy, but what.
Having said that, it might seem logical now to discuss criteria for the selection of documents for disposal. I have no intention of doing so. It is difficult to say anything in general terms on that subject which is not either spurious or self-evident. What should be preserved will always depend on the nature of the records being appraised and on their relationship, if any, to other records. And the answer may not be the same for similar records under varying sets of circumstances.
It would be more worthwhile, I think, to say a little about the mechanisms which are being developed in modern societies to conserve valuable archives and to channel them into the safe-keeping of archive institutions.
The archivist nowadays stands downstream of a veritable flood of papers, valuable and otherwise, and if he is not to be inundated, he must be granted some part in manipulating the sluicegates.
It is no longer enough for archivists to know how to manage records already in their own custody. They must be conversant also with the techniques and exigencies of records management in the agencies they serve. For it is only if archivists are knowledgeable in this field that they can anticipate problems arising for themselves and hope to enlist the aid of administrators in solving them.
16
A. I. DIAMOND
The charge cannot be denied. To destroy any of the papers which form part of body of archives, unless destruction is limited to word-for-word duplicates, is to place the peculiar integrity they had, as such, at risk, and the greater the destruction the greater the violence done to the principles on which their value for research is claimed to rest.
Archivists have no defence in terms of theory for the destruction of archives, and it is only when the practicalities are considered that justification can be found for it. The volume of records generat- ed by modern governments is enormous and growing greater year by year. It has been claimed that if all the records produced or received by the Federal and State governments of the United States in a single year were packed on shelving, that shelving would ex- tend for more than fifty miles. Faced with archival accumulation on such a scale what are administrators and archivists and scholars themselves for that matter-to do, but to agree that a policy for the selective destruction of archives is unavoidable. The question, really, is not whether to destroy, but what.
Having said that, it might seem logical now to discuss criteria for the selection of documents for disposal. I have no intention of doing so. It is difficult to say anything in general terms on that subject which is not either spurious or self-evident. What should be preserved will always depend on the nature of the records being appraised and on their relationship, if any, to other records. And the answer may not be the same for similar records under varying sets of circumstances.
It would be more worthwhile, I think, to say a little about the mechanisms which are being developed in modern societies to con- serve valuable archives and to channel them into the safe-keeping of archive institutions.
The archivist nowadays stands downstream of a veritable flood of papers, valuable and otherwise, and if he is not to be inundated he must be granted some part in manipulating the sluicegates.
It is no longer enough for archivists to know how to manage records already in their own custody. They must be conversant also with the techniques and exigencies of records management in the agencies they serve. For it is only if archivists are knowledgeable in this field that they can anticipate problems arising for themselves and hope to enlist the aid of administrators in solving them.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.