Sometimes I wonder how many historians have really clear understandings of how archives work. How much the papers and ledgers (microfiche and scans) they access are shaped, wedded and refined by the institutions that created them, used them and finally archives them?
Most historians know archives are not neutral repositories of the past. They know about the huge scandals - of colonial archives burnt and hidden by the British - but do they know how much the humdrum holdings of archives are also hugely selected? theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/n…
Most government archives hold only a tiny fraction of the files ever created - probably not even 5% for large archives like TNA; maybe a little more for somewhere like PRONI - and that selection used to take place at various points in time (5/20 years) and now is more automated.
There are many ways that files are and archives are shaped from what was actually created to what the public can access - from the designation of status, act of filing, decision to close, retention, reviewing, weeding (which shouldn’t but often happens) and access conditions.
There are many acts that can happen along the way - deliberate and unintentional - to greatly change the preserved archives from what were used when they were open- the decision not to close, the weeding, the full and partial closures and redactions.
There are also unintentional skewing to retain what was considered important at the time - the papers of big men, of departments of the ‘big’ events of high politics and war; in NI that meant everything related to the Troubles - often to the detriment of ordinary life.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
