Ini adalah artikel yang saya copy dari Eric Ketelaar. Saya suka sekali dengan kearsipan yang beliau jabarkan dalam artikel ini. Semoga berguna ya...
Time future contained in time past: archival science in the 21st century
Eric KETELAAR
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
………….
Time past and time future
Allow but a little consciousness.
To be conscious is not to be in time
But only in time can the moment in the rose-garden,
The moment in the arbour where the rain beat,
The moment in the draughty church at smokefall
Be remembered; involved with past and future.
Only through time time is conquered.
From Burnt Norton (1936) by
Thomas Stearns ELIOT (1888-1965)
“I can speak Dutch!” These were the first words spoken
on 8 July 1853 at
the encounter of the Japanese and commodore Perry, an American. “I can speak
Dutch!” yelled a Dutch interpreter from the Japanese government, Horitatsu
Nosuke, from a small boat to the deck of Perry’s flagship, the Susquehanna. On hearing
this, Perry sought the help of his own Dutch interpreter Portman. Thus the
first talks between the U.S.
and Japan
were carried out in Dutch.[i] The
following year, in 1854, treaty
negotiations between Hayashi Daigaku-no-kami and Commodore Perry were carried
from Japanese to Dutch, then from Dutch to English, and vice versa. During the
seclusion policy period of Sakoku, only Dutch and Chinese people were allowed
into Japan
for trading. That is the reason why there were interpreters in Nagasaki, translating from and into these two
languages. One of them, the interpreter Motoki Shozaemon, who actually
translated from and into Dutch, made the first English-Japanese dictionary, a
basic one containing 6,000 words, in 1814.
Fortunately, today, Japanese interpreters have a much
richer vocabulary than 150 years ago. This facilitates communication.
Nevertheless, even today translating from one language into another, even
within the same scholarly domain, may cause difficulties.
If we think of both the term and the concept ‘archival
science’, we already have a problem. The name of your society Nihon
Ahkaibuzu Gaku Kai is rendered in English as Japan Society for Archival
Science. However, for most North American and Australian archivists, the term
‘archival science’ is so foreign, that it has no place in their glossaries. They
will call it: archival theory or archives studies. For many archivists on the
European continent and in Latin America, on the other hand, the term archival
science is synonymous with archivistica, archivistique,
archiviologia, archivology and they do not hesitate to call their
endeavour: archival science (Cook 2001,12). My question is: do you understand the words as I do?
Is your archival science also mine? Even among
Japanese colleagues there appear to be different notions of Ahkaibuzu Gaku and Monjo Kan Gaku and Kiroku-Shiryo Gaku. Do we
understand each other, or rather: what do we understand by ‘archival science’
in your language and in mine?
Allow me to give you my definition: archival science
studies the characteristics of records in their social and cultural contexts
and how they are created, used, selected and transferred through time. Archival
science asks “why”, where archival administration in my opinion asks “what” and
“how”. Science examines received notions for their pertinence and relevance, it is
continuously speculating, experimenting, inventing, changing, and improving (Ketelaar 2000). Or, to paraphrase
Thomas Eliot: archival science is not afraid of
… an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
Time future is contained in time past . That is why,
first of all, I want to outline the development of the archival profession or
archival discipline. That will lead to a reflection about what society now and
in the future will expect of the archivist. I will talk in more detail about
the role of modern information and communication technologies, ICT. Then I will
address archival science and the implications for archival science of a society
well on its way to Being Digital. I
shall distinguish two developments which I define as digitization and memorialization.
The first leads to a paradigm shift in archival
science, while the widespread societal interest in memorialization forms new
challenges for archival science. After having mentioned the connection between
private and public memories, I will wind up by saying something about the
globalization of archival science.
1.
The Dutch Manual
for the Arrangement and Description of Archives by Muller,
Feith and Fruin is mostly regarded as a
starting point of modern archival science (Muller, Feith and Fruin 2003). Theodore
Schellenberg wrote “From the point of view of its worldwide contribution to
archival science the most important manual written on archival administration
is probably that of a trio of Dutch archivists…” (Schellenberg 1956, 12). Note that Schellenberg used the terms archival
science and archival administration, when referring to the Dutch manual.
Archival administration, according to the dictionary of the International
Council on Archives, is “the theoretical and practical study of politics,
procedures and problems relating to archival functions” (Walne 1988). Theoretical and practical. According to the Canadian
archivistics scholar Terry Cook the Dutch Manual owes its importance to the
codification of the European archival theory and its enunciation of a
methodology for treating archives (Cook 1997, 22). I want to detract somewhat from the praise for the
three Dutchmen. The Manual did not offer an archivistics theory, but a
methodology, developed according to a phenomenological approach that is
scholarly justified. The methodology was formulated in 100 rules, which,
according to Muller, Feith en Fruin, might be deviated from if well-motivated,
the motivation to be subjected to a discussion by colleagues. In practice,
however, the rules were seen as inviolable dogmas and what was meant to be an
instrument became
a bible for archivists; the methodology became a
doctrine. The Manual itself writes in § 24 about “the requirements of the new
archival doctrine”. In the French
edition of 1910 – which included among its users the famous British archivist
Hilary Jenkinson – this was translated as: “the requirements of the new archival
science”. But a doctrine is not science.
A doctrine does not permit another vision, it is fundamentalist, not critical,
it stimulates exegesis, but it doesn’t encourage free independent research. Yet
the doctrine has a role in the process of the professionalization of the
archivist. That role the Dutch Manual has certainly had, not only in the Netherlands,
but also in many other places around the world, as is shown by the many
translations, even until today. Codification, normalization and regulation of the
archival practice are important for the professionalization of archivists,
literally when they are trained or ‘disciplined’, the archival discipline being
a branch of learning (Thomassen 1999a). The disciplining or professionalization has more
aspects: a specific professional language, a specific training, a specific
ethical code and many more elements.
As a result of changes in society the discipline
changes as well. Archivists don’t practise their profession for the sake of it,
but to fulfil their mission in society. Archives are formed, used, managed,
passed down and, yes, destroyed, because individuals, organizations and society
judge this to be useful and necessary. Thus, again and again society challenges
the archival discipline – every time and in every place in a different
way.
Exactly 200 years ago, in 1804, the German Josef Anton
Oegg [1762-1819] published his Ideas of a
Theory of Archival Science (Oegg 1804). From the subtitle of his book it is clear that the
book has a practical focus: to guide the practical establishment and processing
of archives and records. It was empirical archival knowledge, described
systematically (this is what Oegg meant by: scientific).
The archivist in the Europe of the ancien
régime did practical work and he was responsible for one administration. The
knowledge he needed was administrative legal knowledge. Practical manuals like
the one by Oegg provided this for archival arrangement. In those days the
scientific involvement in archives was limited to diplomatics: scholarship to
distinguish between real and false documents (Delmas 2001). After the French Revolution many of the old archives
lost their function as legal proof: they became historical objects that were no
longer in use or managed by the archive- forming administration, but by special
archives: institutions, outside the archive-forming administration, taking over
the management of the older records of other government bodies, work that is
carried out by specially appointed civil servants: archivists (Woelderink 1975). The large body of old archives then becomes a source
for history writing. The archival fonds had to be arranged and described. This
practical need leads to the development of descriptive archives administration.
As the public administration grew in size and became more and more important
during and immediately after WW I, the number of papers became massive.
Archivists tried to get a hold on this by appraisal and selection, and by
improving the methods of the formation of files, this also under the influence
of Taylorian scientific management. The utilitarian aspect of archives again
becomes part of the mission of the archivist. The extension of the sphere of
work of the archivist necessitates extension of archival knowledge and in some
countries even the development of a new discipline: records management. The
archivistic domain is gradually extending and contains all stages of the
document cycle. Archival knowledge is extending accordingly.
New challenges announced themselves from the seventies
of the last century: the educational task of the archivist, the increased care
for material preservation, audiovisual archives. With the information society
of the nineties electronic archives come in sight, while the “the paperless
search room” (at the International Congress of Archives
in Paris, 1988, still a dream) is taking shape on the Internet (Ketelaar 1989).
2.
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
……
Only through time time is
conquered.
What does society expect from the archivist today?[ii]
From opinion polls and other sources we know that, at least in Europe, members
of the general public value archives highly, associating archives with Memory
and History (Elgey, Rémond and Wieviorka 2002). Paradoxically, for most people this positive
perception is not based on first-hand experience by visiting an archival
institution. The public considers archives to be part of the collective memory
and as a source to learn about the past. Important as these functions of
archives are, they constitute only part of the mission of the archivist. The
archivist in the 21st century has to ensure not only that records are created
and managed as evidence to serve accountability and memory, but also that
archives are preserved, so that society can be confident of the future (Ketelaar 2002b).
Archiving - all the activities from creation and
management to the use of records and archives - means: transmitting authentic
evidence of human activity and experience through time (Ketelaar 2002a). Transmission of evidence through time. Archives, libraries, museums are all in the “memory business”, ensuring “time future contained in time past”. But what distinguishes archives
from all other memory institutions is that the individual, organizational and
collective memories they preserve are not defined in terms of a cultural
heritage: they are situated on the evidential axis of the records continuum.
Records embody the nexus between evidence, accountability, and memory.
Without evidence no accountability and no memory.
Accountability and memory reside in records, because records are evidence: not
only evidence of transactions, not only evidence in the legal sense, they are
also evidence of some historic fact that is either part of the transaction
itself or that may be traced via the transaction or that is otherwise embodied
in the record or in the contexts of its archivalization and archiving (Ketelaar 1999). Records serve as evidence of a transaction and
records serve as evidence in an external corporate or individual memory. Both
are evidence, with one side supporting accountability, the other memory.
Changing societal expectations of the mission of the
archivist in the 21st century are activated by the increasing
irrelevance of constraints of place, time, and medium, made possible by modern information
and communication technologies. They offer new possibilities and pose new
challenges. The archivist can not fulfil his mission without using modern
information and communication technologies. This, however, does not entail
changing the archivist into an ICT-specialist. The archivist has to know how to
use ICT but, more importantly, he or she has to understand the strategic
implications for the archival discipline of modern technologies and their
impact on social and cultural practices. Out of the host of writers about the
societal impact of ICT, I name but one: Nicolas Negroponte, whose book Being Digital dates from 1995, but is
still worth reading. Negroponte stresses that in the modern information
society we are no longer primarily in the business of providing atoms, but of
providing bits. For archivists and
archival institutions Being Digital means more than preserving
and providing digital documents: it presents a techno-cultural challenge to
connect archives with people (Ketelaar 2003). Archival
institutions will be redesigned as a public sphere where individual,
organizational and collective memories and stories are experienced, exchanged,
and enriched. To achieve this, a
goal-oriented entrepreneurial shift to new products and services is necessary.
Strategies should not be restricted to merely digitizing what
archives-as-a-place already do.
3.
Archives are changing in nature and status with the
evolution of society, and so does archival science (Delmas 2001). And just as archival knowledge developed as the
mission of the archivist changed, archival science went through different
stages of development. Hermann Rumschöttel gave a summary of these developments
(Rumschöttel 2001). He treats the course of the political and legal orientation in
connection with the needs of the State in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Then he describes the stage when archival science was an auxiliary
discipline of History during the 19th century and the first half of
the 20th century and he concludes by reporting on functional
archival science which developed in the 90s. This development is still
continuing. What are the implications for archival science of a society on its
way to being Being Digital. I will
distinguish two developments that I define as digitization and memorialization.
4.
Digitization can be seen as digital reproduction of
analogue information, examples being a paper record or an analogue video. But
digitization also contains “digital-born” records. How do we transmit these
digital records - authentic evidence of human activity and experience - through
time?
When consulting a record its form, content and
structure have to be similar to those at
the time of receiving the record or at the time the
record was made during a specific work process. Structure is the logical
connection between the elements of a document (or of an
archive). Form is the outward appearance showing both the
structure and the lay-out of the document. In paper records content, structure
and form are physically present in the document and its physical arrangement.
Digital records, however, don’t have their content, structure and form in or on
a physical medium, but in a digital representation, that serves as a generator
for various ways in which the document is made visible (Simons 2002). Moreover, a digital document has another
circumscription than a physical document: it contains links to other documents,
it is variable and changeable (that is the reason why printing digital
documents isn’t the right strategy for preservation: a print-out lacks the
characteristic functionality of the digital document). An original does no
longer exist because, intrinsically, each recording or representation (on a medium, a screen or as a print-out) is a
representation or reproduction made by the operating system and the application
software. As David Levy writes: digital materials
are made up of both the digital representation and the perceptible forms
produced from it. The digital representation is a sort of “printing mould” that
enables endless printing. The perceptible form of a digital document ”is always
being manufactured just-in-time, on the spot” (Levy 2001, 152). In
other words “ensuring the technical and intellectual survival of authentic
records through time”, as ISO standard 15489 requires, is enabling the
reconstruction of the content, form and structure of a record through time.
The ‘disappearance of the original’ in a digital age
makes for a major paradigm shift in archival science. Whenever science is no
longer able to explain phenomena with established and familiar concepts we talk
about a paradigm shift in the sense of Thomas Kuhn. Just as Ptolemaic astronomy
underwent the Copernican turn, just as the
Newtonian paradigm took the place of Aristotelian
dynamics, archival science cannot manage any longer with the concepts that were
applicable in the world of paper and parchment. Its object is no longer a
tangible document or file in a logical and partly physical context that can be arranged
and described, as could be done with the help of
the Dutch Manual. As I said earlier on, a digital
document is not a thing in itself. It not only depends on software and
hardware, it also depends on the links it has outside its boundaries. The record is a "mediated and ever-changing
construction," as Terry Cook writes (Cook 2001, 10). It is open yet enclosed, it
is ‘membranic’, the membrane allowing the infusing and exhaling of what I have
called ‘tacit narratives’ which are embedded in each and every activation of
the record (Ketelaar 2001).
Digitization challenges archival science to develop a
new paradigm, meaning new concepts, theories, and methods (Thomassen 1999b). They
needn’t be totally new, as, indeed “time
future is contained in time past”. As Kuhn
indicated, new paradigms
incorporate much
of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the
traditional paradigm had previously employed. But they seldom employ these
borrow elements in quite the traditional way. Within the new paradigm, old
terms, concepts and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other (Kuhn 1996, 149).
Thus, archival science in the 21st century
will study phenomena which look like traditional facts and events, even carry
traditional labels, but which are conceptually totally different. An ‘original’
is no original, a ‘record’ is not a record, ‘preservation’, ‘access’, and ‘use’
are no preservation, access, and use as we used to know them. In this sense you
may understand my question, at the beginning: is your archival science also
mine?
5.
But only in time can the moment in the rose-garden,
…
Be remembered; involved with
past and future.
Only through time time is conquered.
There is another reason why archival science cannot be
continued in the usual way. This is what I
call the memoralization of society.
We are living in an archiving society. “Never
before has so much been recorded, collected; and never before has remembering
been so compulsive” (Gillis 1994, 14). Society
as a whole, according to Pierre Nora, has acquired the religion of preservation
and archivalization (Nora 1996, 8,11). I would
call this memorialization, because it encompasses more than collecting archives
in the strict sense (Ketelaar 2002a (Ketelaar, 2003 #364; 2003). People collect documents, artefacts, oral history, old photographs,
they visit people and places to re-connect with their roots. In doing so, they
are not only engaged in a personal hobby. The living histories of individuals
and families form part of a larger framework, of local, regional, and national
history, but also of the history and identity of political, religious and other
social groups.
Andreas Huyssen disapproves of the current “obsessive
self-musealization”, and the “successful marketing of memory by the Western
culture industry” (Huyssen 1995 {Huyssen, 2003 #314; 2000, 25). I do not share his pessimism, but rather believe that memoralization
is an expression of society’s postmodern temperament. As Huyssen himself
proposes:
What needs to be
captured and theorized today is precisely the ways in which museum and
exhibition culture in the broadest sense provides a terrain that can offer
multiple narratives of meaning at a time when the metanarratives of modernity …
have lost their persuasiveness, when more people are eager to hear and see
other stories, to hear and see the stories of others, when identities are
shaped in multiply layered and never-ceasing negotiations between self and
other, rather than being fixed and taken for granted in the framework of family
and faith, race and nation (Huyssen 1995, 34).
This view corresponds with the outcome of experiments
in distributed memories, conducted at Carnegie Mellon University (Werkhoven 2003). The
individual experience of different people from different locations can be
synthesized into a collective experience. In that way one’s memory can use the
experience of other people. Recollection will no longer be restricted to one’s
own experience. Let me give you an example. A colleague asked me to recommend a
book on collective memory. I knew the book I wanted to advise. I could “see”
its color and its size in my mind. I even knew the name of the author, but
could not recollect the title. Therefore I used an interface: amazon.com. By
entering the author’s name, the website yielded the title and a picture of the
book, which I could then recommend. Who “remembered” the book? Neither I
myself, nor amazon.com could remember in
isolation: the two together were involved in a system of distributed
memory.
6.
Might it be possible that these ideas about
synthesizing memories constitute a new challenge to archival science? Indeed, I
believe archival science might build on the widespread societal interest in
memorialization and try to find out why and how individual memories can be
connected with the memories of archival institutions, museums and libraries.
Such a connection is necessary, because for private memories to become
archives, they have to be, in Derrida’s words, consigned in some external
location, some space outside the self: “It belongs to the concept of the
archive that it be public, precisely because it is located. You cannot keep an
archive inside yourself – this is not archive” (Van Zyl and Harris 2001). Archival science is challenged to attain “not only a more refined
sense of what memory means in different contexts, but also a sensitivity to the
differences between individual and social memory” (Hedstrom 2002, 31-32).
The records continuum model, developed by the
Australian archival science scholars Frank Upward and Sue McKemmish, has four
dimensions: in the first dimension records are created, then captured, thirdly
organized. The fourth dimension of recordkeeping is: pluralizing: archives are brought “into an
encompassing framework in order to provide a collective social, historical and
cultural memory of the institutionalized social purposes and roles of
individuals and corporate bodies” (McKemmish 1997, 203). In that dimension archival science is concerned with
“social and cultural mandates for essential evidence to function as collective
memory”. As Terry Cook said
societal values and community expectations of dimension four do have, or
should have a major impact on shaping the three inner dimensions (Cook 2000).
At the pluralizing dimension we are “essentially on
the ‘outside’ looking in” (McKemmish 1997, 203) to see how records and archives are formed as the
memory of an organization or as the individual’s memory of business or social
functions (the third dimension). Deeper still, we see the creation of authentic
recorded evidence (Ketelaar 2002b;, 2003). The fourth dimension echoes back through the third
and second towards the first dimension. This model is conceptually ideal, but
we do not as yet have found out how to test and implement the model in a
holistic way, embracing all dimensions. Archival science, therefore, is
challenged to study the records continuum within the broader context of the
memorialization of society. We have to look up from the record and through the
record, going beyond the first, second and third dimensions of the records
continuum, to new perspectives, finally seeing with the archive (Ketelaar 2001). In, what I call, “social and cultural
archivistics” we have to try
to understand the role of records and documents in human affairs, we
must try to recover the larger meanings of records and record-making (O'Toole 2002).
Looking at a “community of records” means looking at
the community “both as a record-creating entity and as a memory frame that contextualizes
the records it creates” (Bastian 2003, 3-4). A community of records may be imagined
as the aggregate of records in all forms generated by multiple layers of
actions and interactions between and among the people and institutions within a
community (Bastian 2003, 5).
Derrida saw all meaning as produced by a dual process
of difference and deferral. Meaning is never fully present but is constructed
through the interplay of presence and absence, of the visible and the invisible.
The invisible is located in the past, and also in the hidden spaces of the
archives, the library and the museum, and in the invisible discourse produced
by creators and ‘archivers’. But we also have to take the visitor or user into
account, whose live gaze, as Andreas Huyssen remarks, endows the object with
its aura (Huyssen 1995, 31; Engel 1999, 150-151).
7.
Footfalls echo in
the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
Archival science has to be a comparative science,
taking into account the different ways people make sense. Your archival science
does not need to be the same as my archival science (Ketelaar 1997).
As we all know, globalization has a great impact on
society. The archival discipline is globalizing too. Today, time and place can
hardly be considered objections. Digital records know no physical boundaries,
no distances. In the archival discipline standardization is steadily increasing
world-wide. That is not to say that the archival discipline is up against the
same challenges in each country of the world. Neither does it mean that
solutions that hold good in one country can always be successfully imported in
other countries.
According to Schellenberg there is “no final or
ultimate definition of the term ‘archives’ that must be accepted without change
and in preference to all others. The definition may be modified in each country
to fit its particular needs” (Schellenberg 1956, 15) Because of this, the recent ISO standard 15489
refrains from a definition of ‘archive’. Every society determines the archival
mission and the archival discipline in its own way and adheres, therefore, to
its own concept of ‘archive’.
The same also holds good for archival science. When we
presented the international journal Archival
Science three years ago Peter Horsman, Theo Thomassen and I wrote in the
first issue
it acknowledges the impact of different cultures on archival theory,
methodology and practice, by taking into account different traditions in
various parts of the world, and by promoting the exchange and comparison of
concepts, views and attitudes in those traditions.
Archival science can only flourish by careful study
and by exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes in different
traditions (Ketelaar 1997). I sincerely hope that your society Nihon
Ahkaibuzu Gaku Kai will contribute to that study and to that exchange,
within Japan
and with fellow scholars of archival science all over the world. No longer is
there Sakoku, nor have only the Dutch
the privilege of communicating with Japan. Archival science knows no
boundaries.
Bastian, Jeannette (2003), Owning Memory. How a Caribbean Community Lost its Archives and Found
Its History. publisher and publishing place(if known).
Cook, Terry
(1997), "What is past is prologue: a history of archival ideas since 1898,
and the future paradigm shift",
Archivaria, no. 43, pp - .
--- (2000),
"Beyond the Screen: The Records Continuum and Archival Cultural
Heritage", in: L. Burrow (ed.), Beyond
the Screen: Capturing Corporate and Social Memory. ASA Conference 2000, Australian
Society of Archivists, s.l. pp - .
--- (2001),
"Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old
concepts", Archival Science, vol. 1, 3-24.
Delmas, Bruno
(2001), "Archival science facing the information society", Archival
Science, vol. 1, 25-37.
Elgey,
Georgette, René Rémond and Annette Wieviorka (2002). Les Français
et leurs archives : actes du colloque tenu le 5 novembre 2001 au Conseil
économique et social, Palais d'Iéna, Fayard,
Paris.
Engel, Susan
(1999), Context is everything: the nature
of memory, W.H. Freedman and Company,
New York.
Gillis, John
(ed.) (1994), Commemorations. The
politics of national identity, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Hedstrom,
Margaret (2002), "Archives, Memory, and Interfaces with the Past", Archival
Science, vol. 2, 21-43.
Huyssen, Andreas
(1995), Twilight memories: marking time
in a culture of amnesia, Routledge,
New York.
--- (2000),
"Present pasts: media, politics, amnesia", Public culture, vol. or no. ?
12, pp - .
Ketelaar, Eric
(1989), "Exploitation of new archival materials", Archivum, vol. 35, 189-199.
--- (1997),
"The Difference Best Postponed? Cultures and comparative archival science",
Archivaria, no. 44, 142-148
(http://cf.hum.uva.nl/bai/home/eketelaar/difference.doc).
--- (1999),
"Archivalisation and archiving", Archives
and Manuscripts, vol. 27, 54-61.
--- (2000),
"Archivistics Research Saving the Profession", American Archivist , vol. 63, 329-330.
Ketelaar, Eric (2001a), "Tacit Narratives: The Meanings of
Archives", Archival Science, vol. 1, 143-155.
Ketelaar,
Eric (2001b), "Tacit Narratives: The Meanings of Archives", Archival
Science, vol.1, 143-155. (same as above)
--- (2002a),
"The Archive as a Time Machine", Proceedings
of the DLM-Forum 2002: @ccess and Preservation of Electronic Information: Best
Practices and Solutions, Barcelona, 6-8 May 2002, INSAR European Archives News
(Supplement VII), 576-581 (http://cf.hum.uva.nl/bai/home/eketelaar/Timemachine.doc).
--- (2002b),
"Empowering Archives: What Society Expects of Archivists", in: S.
Lloyd (ed.), Past Caring? What does
Society Expect of Archivists? Proceedings of the Australian Society of
Archivists Conference. Sydney 13-17 August 2002, Australian Society of Archivists, Canberra, 11-27.
--- (2003),
"Being Digital in People's Archives", Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 31, 8-22
(http://cf.hum.uva.nl/bai/home/eketelaar/Beingdigital.doc).
Kuhn, Thomas S.
(1996), The structure of scientific
revolutions, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London.
Levy, David M.
(2001), Scrolling forward. Making sense
of documents in the digital age, Arcade,
New York.
McKemmish, Sue
(1997), "Yesterday, today and tomorrow: a continuum of
responsibility", (ed.), Naar een
nieuw paradigma in de archivistiek. Jaarboek
1999 Stichting Archiefpublicaties ’s-Gravenhage, Stichting Archiefpublicaties, 195-210.
Muller, S., J.A.
Feith and R. Fruin (2003), Manual for the arrangement and description
of archives, Society of American
Archivists, Chicago.
Nora, Pierre
(1996), "General Introduction: Between Memory and History." in: P.
Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory: Rethinking
the French Past [on the jacket: The Construction of the French Past], vol. I.
Conflicts and Divisions, Columbia
University Press, New York.
Oegg, Jos. Ant. (1804), Ideen einer
Theorie der Archivwissenschaft. Zur Leitung der Praxis bey der Einrichtung und
Bearbeitung der Archive und Registraturen, Carl Wilhelm Ettinger, Gotha.
O'Toole, James
M. (2002), "Cortes's Notary: The Symbolic Power of Records", Archival
Science, vol. 2, 45-61.
Rumschöttel,
Herman (2001), "The Development of Archival Science as a Scholarly
Discipline", Archival Science, vol. 1, 143-155.
Schellenberg, T.
R. (1956), Modern archives : principles
and techniques, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill.
Simons, Jan (2002), Interface en cyberspace. Inleiding in de nieuwe media, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Thomassen, Theo
(1999a), "Archivists between Knowledge and Power. On the independence and
autonomy of archival science and the archival profession", Arhivski Vjesnik, vol.
or no. ? 42, 149-167
(http://www.archiefschool.nl/docs/thomarch.pdf).
--- (1999b), The Development of Archival Science and its
European Dimension, in:.The Archivist
and the Archival Science. Seminar for Anna Christina Ulfsparre... , Landsarkivet, Lund, 67-74 (http://www.archiefschool.nl/docs/thomdeve.pdf).
Van Zyl,
Susan and Verne Harris (eds.) (2001), Refiguring the Archive, David Philip Publishers, Cape Town.
Walne, Peter
(1988), Dictionary of archival
terminology : English and French, with equivalents in Dutch, German, Italian,
Russian, and Spanish = Dictionnaire de terminologie archivistique, K.G. Saur, München ; New York.
Werkhoven, Peter (2003), Multimedia door een sleutelgat, Vossius Pers, Amsterdam.
Woelderink, B. (1975), De geschiedenis van het archiefwezen in Nederland in hoofdlijnen.Verslag en bijdragen rijks archiefschool
1972-1973 1973-1974 , Rijks
archiefschool,
Utrecht,
61-90.
[i] http://www.japan-society.org/commodoreperry_p2.html
[ii]
This paragraph contains some material from my contribution to Part 3 of
the
New report on archives in the enlarged European Union (forthcoming).
