How History Works: Archives

How History Works: Archives

There seems to be maybe, some confusion as to how historical institutions work. The most common question I hear about archives is what they contain, how they work, and why they can be lacking.

A brief history of archives- the earliest types of archives were collection held by wealthy individuals or families. They were not for the public eye, the artifacts one owned may have no relation to one another. However, these collectors kept lists of their items, which may have reflected their station in life- such as fine paintings or statues.

In their earliest days, museums were used as archives, one of their functions was just to house items. Museum Origins contains many early, and short, readings from early museum employees, owners and benefactors. The earliest museums dedicated themselves to showcasing science. History museums came later.

Currently, and most recently, archives served as a place to catalog, house and preserve artifacts. Some archives have more resources or specialize further than others, factors which may cause disparity between archives. Furthermore, what archives contain also depends on archivists take a personal stake or interest in, including prevailing historical theories.

Howard Zinn dubbed archivists as potential “activist archivists.” Awesome phrase. Archivists, like any other historian (or human) are subject to their own biases and baggage. An activist can only practice activism in context. Currently, people aren’t activists for interracial marriage, because the need for that sort of activism is not needed. Archivists can be instrumental in making new forms of historical study possible.

Some of the earliest historical artifacts don’t need to be sorted- statues, buildings, paintings, all stand on their own. Makes sense. Other early artifacts reflect not only societal biases, but material reality. Why do some archives contain more materials from elite, white men? Early history extolled the importance of this kind of history- it was all that mattered- the political, powerful elites. Also, as a historical reality, these people just wrote more and had more material possessions. Yeoman farmers had less time and less education, therefore did not have as many things seen as worth “saving” due to their social location and lack of access.

That said, as historical theory develops, more items are seen as valuable. As historians include more voices in the narrative, more items can be worth preserving. With the development of social, cultural, gender, another other lenses, items representing the common human have value, not just powerful elites or military items. However, this is a process. Academia is trickle down. Surely museums and other academic-like settings are at least a decade or more behind in historical theory. (I’d argue the public is still eons behind- the most popular selling history books often focus on powerful, elite male figures and/or the military.) It’s a process, but more items can be added to archives- diaries, children’s toys, personal items used by every day people.
Also, historians learn to read between the lines, so to speak. Just because no document spells out what women did in a certain society, reading other documents (through the lens of more recent historical theory) can reveal new information. For example, church records record births, deaths, marriages, etc. Seeing the pattern of women having babies mere months after marriage shows women were having pre-marital sex, despite official doctrine. Diaries or correspondence can reveal how policy/world events affected people on a daily level. Even in reading the same documents examined over centuries can reveal new things, for example Joanne Freeman’s careful cultural historical lens reveals how the concept of honor was woven in the lives of early politicians. With the development of new theory, archives can begin to value other items, and old documents can shine in new lights.

However, these advancements aren’t without limitations. Space, of course, is one, as is focus. Boxes of medals from the Civil War might be great, but a local archive may not have the space or need for such items. (And women’s auxiliary medals reveal hands-on roles some women took during the war!) Monetary investment might also pose a problem- some archives lack resources or human power to preserve or catalog some collections, like 2000 silverfish-worked-over photos. That said, many items, potentially full of historical value are out there- in closets, Goodwills, antique shops, or private collections, just waiting to be discovered or passed on. Collectors often have very sentimental attachments to each of their items, making it hard for them to part with pieces or either chunks of their collection.

Some archives may be digitized- when items can be. Obviously artifacts can only be photographed (possibly). But this also requires lots of human power. Even in my university’s small-ish archive has thousands and thousands of items, far too many to be digitized at once, even by a full-time staff. Also, this requires a huge upgrade in servers, processors, back up storage- lots of space and financial investments that many archives cannot afford. Let me also remind you that museums are conservative places in their nature (museums are not places the general public would like to see their national myths and master narrative questioned) and usually, so are the people working them. It’s a slow moving entity, and even the common use of modern computer technology is not to be taken for granted.

That said, I wonder if archives/museums/universities want to keep some of their archives a mystery? That said, even if an entire archive was digitized, that does not mean each item would be searchable (needs a good finding aid, at least!). It’s an interesting topic to watch, as far as archives go, tying in with the democratization of history and knowledge as well as new historical theory.