Passive keepers or active shapers: a comparative case study of four archival practitioners at the...

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Passive keepers or active shapers: a comparative casestudy of four archival practitioners at the end of thenineteenth century

Donna Holmes

Received: 12 November 2005 / Accepted: 27 March 2007 / Published online: 7 June 2007� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This paper takes up Terry Cook’s idea that through their work, archivists are

active shapers rather than passive keepers. In taking this idea further, this paper discusses a

case study comparing the custodial history of two archival groups of East India Compa-

nies’ archives, the VOC and EIC Archives, during the second half of the nineteenth

century, and how archival practitioners influenced their arrangement and description.

Consideration is given on how archival practice (good and bad) and professional discussion

contributed to the understanding of the importance of provenance and original order and

the need for sound methodology for analysis of the records to precede arrangement and

descriptions. The work undertaken by the archivists on the VOC Archives in the Neth-

erlands in particular, took place at a time during the development of the landmark archival

standard (The 1898 Dutch Manual). This study looks at how the arrangement of the VOC

and EIC Archives reflects these contemporary theoretical discussions. The VOC Archives

in the Netherlands were one of the first archival groups of business records to be arranged

using the 1898 Dutch Manual’s advice. At the same time, in England, those working on the

EIC Archives in London understood the importance of custodial history and its influence

on the arrangement of the EIC Archives. Through an analysis of the work of those involved

in the arrangement and description of the VOC and EIC Archives, this paper argues that it

is possible to see the emergence of fundamental archival principles such as the difference

between physical arrangement and intellectual control, and the development of these ideas

derived from discussions during the writing of the 1898 Dutch Manual and their translation

into archival practice.

This paper is drawn from my Master of Science (Information Science) thesis by research, currently inpreparation Holmes, D. (in prep.). Old Company records: the effect of custodial history on the arrangementand description of selected archival groups of business records. Department of Computer and InformationScience. Perth, Western Australia, Edith Cowan University: in preparation.

D. Holmes (&)C/o Dr. K. Anderson, School of Computer and Information Science, Edith Cowan University,2 Bradford Street, Mount Lawley, Perth, WA 6050, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

123

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298DOI 10.1007/s10502-007-9046-6

Keywords Archives of the East India Companies � VOC Archives �Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) � East India Company (EIC) �EIC Archives � Custodial history of archival records

Introduction

What effect does the custodial history have on the arrangement and description of

archives? What influence have archivists had on custodial history through decisions made

when arranging and describing an archives? This paper builds on Jenkinson’s idea of three

phases of custodial history, and looks at the influence of particular custodial phases across

different phases of their lives on the meaning of the archives themselves. More specifically,

this paper will look at the how archivists from The Netherlands and England in the late

nineteenth century shaped the meaning of East India company archives through their

arrangement and description practices as the records were moved into different kinds of

custodial contexts over time. This study is particularly important as the archivists work in

arrangement and description was taking place at time when Dutch archival theory was

being developed and during the time when ideas contained in the 1898 publication of

Muller, Feith and Fruin’s Manual for the arrangement and description of archives (1898Dutch Manual) were being formulated. Horsman et al. have written that the 1898 DutchManual contributed to the professionalisation of the archivist by setting a code of best

practice for the arrangement and description of archives for the first time (Horsman et al.

2003, p. xxv). It is now understood that archivists professional practices—in particular

arrangement and description—have the potential to influence how the archives are then

understood (Cook 1997a, b; MacNeil 2005). In this regard, Terry Cook has coined the

phrase ‘‘passive keepers, active shapers’’ when analysing the influence of archivists on the

records in their custody. In explaining the shift from archives being based in a legal and

administrative framework to being based in meeting the broader community’s information

needs he wrote that:

Archivists have thereby changed from being passive keepers of a documentary

residue left by creators to becoming active shapers of the archival heritage, that is,

from being allegedly impartial custodians of inherited records to becoming inter-

vening agents conscious of their own historicity in the archive-creating and memory-

formation process (Cook 1997a, p. 207).

Therefore, archivists have influence on the custodial history of archives. The next section

discusses this influence when archivists decide how to arrange and describe an archive.

Just over a century before Cook’s presentation, in January 1890, F.C. Danvers presented

his paper on ‘‘The India Office Records’’ to the assembled members of the Society of Arts

in London. Danvers remarked:

The careful custody of public records is ... an unmistakeable sign of an advanced

state of civilisation. Measured by this standard, the boasted civilisation of this

nineteenth century would seem to be but little in advance of what is now known to

have existed in Nineveh thousands of years ago ... It cannot reasonably be claimed

that public records are the absolute property of any generation, who are, for the time

being, only trustees of an entailed estate, and it is their duty carefully to preserve that

property, and to hand it down to their successors, not only unimpaired but enriched

by the records of their own time (Danvers 1890, pp. 159–160).

286 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Danvers wants his audience to understand about the importance of custody rather than the

actions relating to the records once in custody. While Danvers may not have been an active

shaper like the archivists described by Cook, Danvers was desirous of no longer merely

being a passive keeper of archives. Danvers saw the custodial responsibility as necessarily

active because preservation of archives can only happen when an active interest is taken in

their preservation. Danvers cites a case where old records were assessed for preservation in

1830 only to be flagged for destruction in 1858 (Danvers 1890, p. 162). At the end of the

nineteenth century, Danvers felt that better care should be given to archival records and the

key to better care was the importance of custody.

Archival practice during the second half of the nineteenth century

The nineteenth century in England and the Netherlands was an important period in the

development of European archival practices. The 1898 Dutch Manual was a significant

marker of archival practice at the time as well as being a publication that laid out principles

for the next generation of archivists. The practices archival custodians were using before

the 1898 Dutch Manual was produced, the pre-Manual period, can be deduced in part from

viewing the arrangement and description of the materials themselves—that is physical

order of archives is, in itself, a marker for ideas about arrangement and description. Cook

(1997b) comments that the 1898 Dutch Manual was based on the pre-Manual experience

that Muller, Feith and Fruin had ‘‘either with limited numbers of medieval documents

susceptible to careful diplomatic analysis or with records found in well-organised registries

within stable administrations’’ (Cook 1997b, p. 5). That is, the practices of archival cus-

todians may reflect the era in which they are living and not the era in which the records

were generated unless the archival practitioner was knowledgeable about the way the

records were generated. Tracing and analysing the archival practices applied to a particular

group of records can be complex, as in the absence of a single set of principles, practices

changed between custodians, as can be seen with the arrangement and description of the

East India Companies records. These pre-Manual period men had to use their own

investigations and discussions with their contemporaries as a guide to the best practices

they could use in their work.

Whilst the publication of the 1898 Dutch Manual was a milestone it would take time for

practices to change, and there were many ways in which to interpret the principles the

manual outlined. In the absence of specific documentary evidence of how records were

created and used (such as administrative histories), the arrangement and description of the

records needs to be deduced from the records themselves. When the archival practitioner

has no knowledge about the archival group in their custody and no inventory or description

to draw details from, then the explanation of how the records were generated must be

sought from the arrangement that the records present themselves to their new custodian’s

attention. Horsman (1999) refers to this activity as ‘‘archaeological archivology’’ (Hors-

man 1999, p. 47).

The order of the records in which the custodians received them needed to be investi-

gated so that the relationship of, and between, the records could be identified. These

concepts of order and relationship would be explored and expanded in the 1898 DutchManual, however, for the pre-Manual custodians such as Heeres, Colenbrander and

Danvers, their activities outlined in this paper show that through their work with

arrangement and description, they not only acknowledged they understood the concepts of

order and relationship, but contributed to the further development of these concepts in the

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 287

123

wider profession. Their active custodianship of the archives in their care contributed to the

shaping of those archives as well as implementing improved strategies for providing

intellectual access. More particularly, their activities would also become part of the cus-

todial history of the archives.

East India companies

The effects of archival custodianship of four men on East India Companies records are

discussed in this case study. Working with the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC)

Archives held in the General State Archives, The Hague, were J.K.J. de Jonge (1858–

1877), J.E. Heeres (1880–1897) and H.T. Colenbrander (1898–1912). Working with the

East India Company (EIC) Archives held in the India Office, London was F.C. Danvers

(1884–1898).

The East India Companies of England date from 1599 and the first incorporated

company traded under the title The Governor and Company of the Merchants of Londontrading into the East Indies when it received the royal assent on 31 December 1600

(Birdwood 1891, p. 13). Courten’s Association of the Assada [Madagascar] Merchantswas established in 1635 and united with the London East India Company in 1650 and the

union was completed by 1657 (Birdwood 1891, p. 13). The union of the London East IndiaCompany and the English East India Company (EEIC) to form the East India Company(EIC) occurred in 1710. In 1834, the trading operations of the EIC were brought to an end

and all real and personal property of the EIC was to be held in trust for the Crown for the

service of India. In 1858 the EIC was finally dissolved and all assets, including current

records and the previous companies’ archives, passed into the hands of the British colonial

administrators in the India Office (Sutton 1967).

The East India Company of The Netherlands—Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie(VOC), dates from 1602 when it was incorporated as a company trading into the East

Indies. Similar to the EIC, the VOC also had predecessor companies—the Compagnie vanVerre (1598–1610), the Magellan EIC and the Compagnieen op Oost-Indie (Danvers

1895). In 1795 the VOC was dissolved and all assets, debts and archives passed into the

hands of the States General (Raben 1992, p. 34).

Of particular interest are the business records of these two different companies that

resulted from the operations of the EIC and VOC during the seventeenth century when they

competed with each other for international trade into the East Indies. The seventeenth

century records of these companies comprised mostly of ships logs, agreements between

the two companies and treaties between each company and local rulers within the East

Indies. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the companies changed to

become government bureaucracies with colonial objectives rather than just trade and

business pursuits. The surviving original records from the seventeenth century are held in

the United Kingdom or The Netherlands. Through programmes of transcribing, translating

and copying such as the Australian Joint Copying Project (AJCP1), which sourced some

documents from the India Office Records; and Towards a New Age of Partnership in DutchEast India Company Archives and Research (TANAp2) many of these archives are now

available more widely.

1 The AJCP information web page is at http://www.nla.gov.au/collect/ajcp.html2 The TANAp online resource is at http://www.tanap.net/

288 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Influences of custodial phases on the archival records

Records move through several custodial phases during their lives from the time they are

created, to the time they are arranged and described in an archival institution as has been

noted by Cook (1997a, b) and by Jenkinson in his inaugural lecture at University College

London, delivered in 1947 (Jenkinson 1980a). The records of both the VOC and the EIC

have been moved through different custodial contexts. First, they were active business

records that remained with the companies whilst the companies existed and the arrange-

ment and description they were subjected to in that custodial phase have not yet been

documented. Second, they were transferred to the successor of the defunct company, which

was either another company or a government department. During this phase the whole

archive became scattered among various buildings and had various custodians worked on

the records, primarily to become familiar with the content. Third, the records that survived

the second stage were transferred to archives in London and The Hague where archivists

carried out arrangement and description after a period of investigation into the order of the

records that had survived. Table 1 lists the different entities that created the business

records when the companies existed, the subsequent government departments that held

custody of the records and the repositories to which the archival groups were transferred.

If an archival group is kept badly or subject to poor archival practice during the second

custodial phase, much work will need to be done in the third custodial phase. Jenkinson

observed that the second phase may last for centuries (Jenkinson 1980a, p. 240) and for

records that are disorganised, the time period can be significant as it increases the sepa-

ration of time between the creator of the record and the custodian who will try to bring

order to the disorganisation.

The effects of these custodial phases on the VOC archives

Following the cessation of the VOC, the surviving VOC Archives were a number of

collections scattered between various VOC offices in Amsterdam, Zeeland, Middleburg,

Rotterdam, Delft, Hoorn and Enkhuizen. These were gradually being brought together in

one central location. In 1809, the English took seventeenth century documents relating to

Table 1 Custodial periods of the EIC archives and VOC archives

EIC archives (1599–2005)a VOC archives (1602–2005)b

1599–1834 (First phase): London East IndiaCompany, English East India Company, East IndiaCompany

1602–1795 (First phase): Verenigde OostindischeCompagnie (VOC)

1834–1981 (Second phase): Board of Control, IndiaOffice, Burma Office, Commonwealth RelationsOffice, later the Commonwealth Office, DominionsOffice, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

1796–1856 (Second phase): Commission for EastIndian Affairs, later Council for East IndianAffairs, Ministry of Colonies

1982–2005 (Third phase): EIC Archives (1599–1834)in the India Office Records deposited with thenewly established British Library, London in 1982.

1856–2005 (Third Phase): VOC Archives (1602–1795) transferred to the Algemeen Rijksarchief,The Hague in 1856.

a Details on the on the EIC Archives are drawn from Sutton (1967) and the India Office Records (IOR) webpage http://www.bl.uk/collections/iorgenrl.htmlb Details on the VOC Archives are drawn from Slot (1978) and Raben (1992)

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 289

123

Ceylon from the Middleburg collection when they occupied the island of Walcheron

(Raben 1992, p. 35). In January 1814, the retreating French troops either destroyed or sold

as waste paper a considerable amount of the Middleburg VOC archival records. The events

that occurred in this second custodial phase would influence the records that survived to be

passed on to the third custodial phase (Raben 1992, p. 35).

In 1813 the Netherlands regained its independence and the VOC archival records were

placed in the custodianship of the Netherlands Ministry of Colonies. However over the

next 40 years, Raben recounts the removals and large-scale destruction of various parts of

the VOC archival records including the great mass of paper, which was sold in the winter

of 1821/1822 and the spring-clean of 1832. The records destroyed during the second phase

left gaps in the records that survived to the third custodial phase (Raben 1992, p. 36).

The VOC archival records that had survived were transferred in 1858 from the Ministry

of Colonies to the General State Archives in The Hague 1858 and J.K.J. de Jonge (1828–

1880) was the first non-company and non-government person responsible for the VOC

Archives (Raben 1992). That is, de Jonge was the first independent person not restrained by

company or government directives as to how the VOC archives should be kept. Con-

versely, de Jonge did not have any help from previous custodians and their experiences and

so any decisions he made about arrangement he only had the records themselves to act as a

reference point.

The collection that de Jonge worked with contained records from the VOC (1602–1795)

as well as its predecessor companies—the Compagnie van Verre (1598–1610), the

Magellan EIC, the Compagnieen op Oost-Indie as well as records from the Ministry of

Colonies (Danvers 1895; Raben 1992). However, de Jonge would not be able to discern

these discrete groups straight away, as he did not write up an inventory rather he used

visual assessment of the arrangement of the volumes.

De Jonge found that some volumes in a series were compiled in a different way to other

volumes in that series. First, he found that one of the series of volumes, that is the Lettersand Papers received from Asia, for the years after 1690, had contents tables and therefore

he was able to identify the towns in the East Indies where the VOC officials had had their

representative office. This suggests that de Jonge was able to understand the records in

relation to the VOC’s administrative structure. However, de Jonge also found that the

earlier volumes prior to 1690 of Letters and papers received from Asia did not have

contents tables to guide him through the records. In order to get easier access to records for

a particular representative office, he pulled apart the volumes up to 1659 and then

‘‘rearranged’’ the documents according to individual factories to allow for access to

documents about a particular factory.

By 1858 when de Jonge’s custodianship is recorded by Raben (1992), the letters, papers

and reports sent back to The Netherlands from the various settlements in the East Indies

were kept in one continuous series as Letters and papers received from Asia. De Jonge

carried out his rearrangement in the 1860s and early 1870s before, what Horsman et al.

(2003) describe as the new era of archives management in The Netherlands when more

modern ideas about ‘‘the study of history, diplomatics, and the arrangement and

description of archives’’ (Horsman et al. 2003, p. ix) were being discussed. However, de

Jonge’s rearrangement of some volumes was also a practice that was carried out by other

early nineteenth century archivists (Horsman et al. 2003, p. ix). Therefore, in the context of

his time, de Jonge was following a current practice. However, by disturbing the sequence

of the documents that he had inherited and in doing so, altering the context between the

documents and the sequence of their arrangement, this particular current practice was not a

good one.

290 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Also, by arranging the documents by location of factory, de Jonge did recognise that the

document had originated from the specific factory and though he imposed his own order he

may have seen his rearrangement as preserving the provenance of where the documents

were sent from rather than where the documents were received. With locations of the

factories ranging from Siam (Thailand) to China and Japan, from Cape of Good Hope to

Timor, and from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to Java, preserving the provenance of the documents

sent from these locations over a period of 150 years was always going to be a challenge. De

Jonge may not have been aware that rather than physically rearranging the documents he

could have prepared a list, which would have given him their intellectual arrangement

instead.

De Jonge was not the only person rearranging the VOC archival records during the

1870’s. A retired naval officer, P.A. Leupe, also used the collection to compile a catalogue

of VOC and other East Indian archival documents. Like de Jonge, Leupe ‘‘disturbed the

original unity of the volumes by tearing out items and then arranged them according to

subject’’ (Raben 1992, p. 40). Like de Jonge, Leupe had not worked out the difference

between physical and intellectual arrangement—that listings could provide ways of pre-

senting information about records that did not disturb their original order. For his cata-

logue, Leupe included documents that dealt with the subject of the East Indies regardless of

whether they were from the VOC archival records, the Ministry of Colonies records or

elsewhere as long as the documents contained descriptions of voyages of discovery, ship’s

logs, instructions and similar (Raben 1992, p. 40). Like De Jonge, Leupe too was following

a practice that was current in the context of his time.

De Jonge’s efforts in ‘‘rearranging’’ some volumes attracted much discussion by the

archival practitioners that succeeded him records Raben (1992). Horsman et al. write,

‘‘Progress was first achieved in the discussion about arrangement criterion. It was already

apparent that the wayward manner of arrangement used by earlier nineteenth century

archivists had caused much damage’’ (Horsman et al. 2003, p. ix). As can be seen from the

chequered custodial history of the VOC archival records since the demise of the VOC in

1795, the structure that the VOC archival records had by the 1870s could be better de-

scribed as one that had survived rather than an original structure.

While de Jonge’s actions of ‘‘rearranging’’ documents in some volumes were later

deemed to be an improper action by his successor custodians, Heeres and Colenbrander, by

undertaking the rearrangements in the way that he did he provided excellent evidence for

later discussions as to why his actions were not the best practice for the preservation of the

inherited order of the records of all the volumes in a single group. Put another way, his

actions became an example of what not to do if an inherited order was to be kept. More

particularly, the inherited order of the records should not be rearranged to facilitate access

to some of the records.

J.E. Heeres (1858–1932) took over the custodianship of the VOC Archives after de

Jonge left in 1877. Raben (1992) wrote that Heeres commenced his work by making an

inventory. Heeres’ work shows that he recognised the different provenances, between

private and government records and that the VOC archival records were a collection of

many archives rather than a single archive. By moving from a broad perspective of seeing

the archive as a whole to understanding how records of a particular administrative unit

formed part of the overall administrative process that had created them shows that Heeres

had a much more sophisticated understanding of the nature of archival materials than either

de Jonge and Leupe. This understanding is reflected in his inventory of documents that also

allowed him to gradually separate out the documents of the VOC records, from documents

of private origin and the predecessor companies (Compagnie van Verre, Magellan EIC and

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 291

123

the Compagnieen op Oost-Indie) as well as documents from the Ministry of Colonies’

records.

Heeres completed the provisional inventory of the archives of the Amsterdam Chamber

in 1891 and of the Zeeland Chamber in 1893; and then began work on the arrangement of

the records that had been kept in one of the administrative units in the Amsterdam

Chamber (Raben 1992, p. 40). During the time that Heeres was undertaking this work on

the VOC archival records, which were held in the General State Archives, Theodoor van

Riemsdijk had become General State Archivist. Van Riemsdijk was a likely influence on

Heeres’ work. Later Van Riemsdijk would be the unofficial fourth author of the 1898Dutch Manual. Ketelaar (1997) notes that after becoming General State Archivist Van

Riemsdijk was eager to share his developing methodology of using careful observation and

analysing phenomena providing a basis of archival theory (Ketelaar 1997, p. 60). Heeres

had demonstrated this methodology during his investigation of the VOC archival records

by first separating out the records by their different provenance, then by concentrating on

the VOC Archives of the Amsterdam Chamber, he began an analysis of what records had

been kept by one of the administrative units in the Amsterdam Chamber and then worked

on the definitive arrangement of those records.

From 1898 H.T. Colenbrander (1871–1945) continued the work that Heeres had begun

after Heeres moved on to a new appointment (Raben 1992, p. 40). In the volumes of Lettersand papers received from Asia Colenbrander introduced a break at 1614—before 1614

documents were arranged according to voyage (as Heeres had done)—after 1614 when a

more permanent central administration had been established in Asia and the chambers in

the Dutch Republic could count on a more regular stream of papers from Batavia, the

documents were arranged chronologically (Raben 1992, p. 40). Colenbrander was able to

build on the detail of the administrative history that Heeres had recorded through his work

using both arrangement and description.

Through the years 1898–1902 Colenbrander kept up a regular written correspondence

with Van Riemsdijk about the way in which the inventory of the VOC Archives should be

compiled (Raben 1992, p. 43). Colenbrander agreed with Van Riemsdijk that ‘‘the

inventory should reflect as much as possible the working of the administration of the VOC

but there were too few documents still extant to really do this justice’’ (Raben 1992, pp.

40–41). Colenbrander’s goal remained to return the records as far as possible to their

original order and to weed out the documents that did not belong in the VOC Archives. As

a result, Colenbrander traced documents from the collections of the East Indian section of

the colonial archives to determine whether they belonged to the archives of special VOC

committees or to the private archives of the directors (Raben 1992, pp. 40–41). Signifi-

cantly, Colenbrader was taking Heeres’ work one-step further by building on the admin-

istrative picture that Heeres had identified by discerning separate archival groups and

thereby dealing with the broader view of just what was contained in the collection known

as the VOC Archives that were now in his custody.

Van Riemsdijk was a crucially important discussion partner for Colenbrander on the

methodology of how to return the records to their original order. Van Riemsdijk had been

part of the ‘‘new era of archives management in the Netherlands’’ from 1874 and had

‘‘placed the intellectual center of gravity of the inventory process at the level of the

organisation of the administration and more particularly in the organisation of the

administrative process, which the arrangement of the archive was presumed to mirror’’

(Horsman et al. 2003, p. x). Ketelaar notes that Van Riemsdijk ‘‘believed that the basis of

archival theory was careful observation and analysis of phenomena and organisations, and

the use of diplomatics to understand the records-creating process prior to turning to

292 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

methodology proper’’ (Ketelaar 1997, p. 60). In this way the observation and analysis

could be used in conjunction with the rules outlined in the 1898 Dutch Manual so that best

practice was drawing from both sources. In essence the 1898 Dutch Manual didn’t go far

enough and thoughtful archivists like Van Riemsdijk were essential to further developing

benchmarks for best practice in arrangement and description.

Colenbrander’s work with the VOC Archives makes the VOC Archives one of the first

archival groups of business records to be arranged using the 1898 Dutch Manual’s advice

as well as the pioneering insight of Van Riemsdijk, described by Ketelaar as ‘‘a functional

interpretation of the context surrounding the creation of documents in order to understand

the integrity of the fonds and the functions of the archives’’ (Ketelaar 1997). The context

of how the records were created within an administrative framework was exactly what

Colenbrander was able to achieve by drawing on all the sources available to him.

Colenbrander would have been assisted by Rules 3 and 4 of the 1898 Dutch Manual in

viewing the VOC Archives as being separate from the Ministry of Colonies Archives as

well as the predecessor companies. Rule 4 starts with ‘‘A sharp distinction should be made

between an archival collection and the contents of an archival depository as a whole. In an

archival depository one may find six kinds of archives...’’ (Muller et al. 2003, pp. 20–21).

Similarly, Rule 3 contains ‘‘A merchant, as well as a business partnership or company,

possesses an archival collection consisting of journals, cash books, letters received, copies

of letters sent, etc.’’ (Muller et al. 2003, p. 20). However, the 1898 Dutch Manual would

not have assisted Colenbrander on the methodology he should use to interpret the context

surrounding the creation of the documents.

In 1912, Colenbrander completed the restoration of the original order of the Letters andpapers received from Asia of the Amsterdam Chamber that had been disturbed by De

Jonge (Raben 1992, p. 43). Also in 1912, Theodoor van Riemsdijk retired as General State

Archivist.

It can be seen from Colenbrander’s thoughtful implementation of best practices available

to him that he was much more than a passive keeper of an archival collection. By drawing on

a range of influences, that is, the solid preparation given to him by Heeres, sound advice

from Van Riemsdijk, specific rules in the 1898 Dutch Manual, and his own observation and

careful analysis, Colenbrander was able to make the best use of all the resources available to

him. During Colenbrander’s custodial phase the big picture of what the VOC Archives

contained was becoming much clearer. Colenbrander influenced the VOC Archives and

conversely, the VOC Archives had an influence on Colenbrander and his outlook on ar-

chives generally by recognising similarities and differences with other archival groups.

Custodial phases of the EIC archives

Like the VOC archives, the EIC archives have undergone several different custodial phases

during their lives. When F.C. Danvers (1833–1906) took on the role of Registrar and

Superintendent of Records in the India Office in 1884, the EIC Archives were regarded as

predecessor volumes for the India Office and therefore had been subsumed into being

regarded as records of the India Office, albeit being regarded as the ‘‘Old Records of the

India Office’’ (Birdwood 1891). Even though the records had different origins they had

been kept as a continuous set of records.

Unlike those who worked on the VOC archives in the Netherlands, Danvers brought

direct experience and knowledge of the EIC’s administrative practices to the task of

Registrar and Superintendent of Records. He had joined the East India Company in 1853

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 293

123

and had experienced the transition phase from the East India Company to the newly created

India Office when the latter was formed in 1858.

Prior to his appointment as Registrar and Superintendent of Records in 1884, Danvers

had made several proposals to improve the workflow and efficiency of incoming and

outgoing documents within the India Office. In 1878 the India Office was still using record

management practices that had been used by the East India Company (Kaminsky 1986,

p. 19). Between 1878 and 1883 Danvers introduced modifications to reduce the duplication

of registration of incoming and outgoing documents (Kaminsky 1986, p. 19). In 1883,

Danvers drew on his knowledge of the administration of the India Office, garnered from his

30 years of service, mainly in the Correspondence Branch, to propose a revised structure

for a Registry and Record Department overseen by a Registrar and Superintendent of

Records (IOR/L/R/4/4 1880–1889, p. 4). The proposal was approved and Danvers became

the new Registrar and Superintendent of Records in January 1884. During 1884, Danvers

established a Central Registry for all incoming and outgoing documents for all depart-

ments, except the Secret Department, in the India Office (Kaminsky 1986, p. 19). Danvers

clearly demonstrated his understanding that a central register of incoming and outgoing

documents would allow intellectual control of the documents.

In October 1884, Danvers presented a preliminary report regarding the records man-

agement practices of the Correspondence Branch of the India Office. One of the points,

which he sought approval to implement, was the centralised custody of the records. To this

end he recommended that all departments of the India Office (excepting the Political,

Accounts and Stores departments) hand over their records older than 3 years, to the custody

of the Registry and Record Department. His proposal was approved by Council on the

proviso that the departments concerned did not express any objections. The reason Danvers

gave for wanting the records from the departments sent to the Registry and Records

Department on a regular basis was to be able to classify and arrange documents with an

economy of space and labour and to clear records not required to be retained for record

purposes. Danvers’ work indicates that he had a sophisticated understanding of archival

practice, particularly in regard to gaining intellectual control over the records, and reten-

tion and disposal issues (IOR/L/R/4/2 1879–1885, p. 249).

In Departmental orders of 21 February 1888 Danvers was directed to discontinue the

work of classifying and arranging the old records and implement a plan for the making of

Press Lists (i.e., a list of records in a series) and Calendars (i.e., compilations of events,

narratives, reports on a specific topic) similar to the practices of the Public Record Office

(IOR/L/R/4/5 1890–1892, pp. 339–351). Danvers felt this direction hindered the progress

of the very necessary work of classifying and arranging the old records (IOR/L/R/4/5

1890–1892, p. 349). Danvers was clearly frustrated by the direction but does not reveal any

reason why the direction may have been made.

A comparison of the archival practices carried out in the VOC and EIC Archives

through the 1880s reveal that this was an important period of developing archival theory

and practice in The Netherlands and England. In The Netherlands, Heeres had shown that

he had a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of archival materials by moving

from a broad perspective of seeing the archives as a whole to understanding how records of

a particular administrative unit formed part of the overall administration. In contrast,

Danvers’ task was to administer a department to provide staff to process current records as

well as carry out an investigation on what was contained in the EIC archival records,

however, he did not have enough staff, or the autonomy, to do all that he wanted. Similar

approaches to the nature of archival materials can be seen developing independently in

England and The Netherlands at this time.

294 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Similar to the discussions between Dutch archival thinkers and practitioners, Danvers

consulted with H.M. Lyte, Public Records Office in London and W. Fraser, Scottish

Records Office in Edinburgh about their current practices in gaining intellectual control of

their archival collections.

In 1890 Danvers read his paper entitled The India Office Records: a brief account of theresults of his examination, during the last six years, of the records relating to India andthe East India Company, now in the possession of the Secretary of State for India before

the assembled members of the Society of Arts in London. He remarked that, though the

custodianship of public records in the nineteenth century had been neglected, an oppor-

tunity existed to preserve records they held in trust from previous generations and together

with records of their own time, hand them on to the next generation (Danvers 1890, pp.

159–160). Clearly Danvers had a sophisticated understanding of the nature of archival

records.

In 1891, while mindful of his responsibility to provide researchers with access to the

India Office Records, Danvers took up, once more, the challenge of arranging the records

of the East India Company that were in his custodianship. In an 1891 report, Danvers

described the administrative periods of the East India Company (IOR/L/R/4/5 1890–1892,

p. 339) as:

Factory Records, dating from 1600–1708;

Territorial Records, dating from 1708–1858;

Imperial Records, dating from 1858–current [1891].

By describing the administrative periods, Danvers demonstrated a desire to have the

archival records arranged to reflect the organisational structure that created the records.

This compares favourably with the approach that was being proposed by Van Riemsdijk in

The Netherlands by this time.

Danvers met Van Riemsdijk when he visited the State Archives in The Hague during

August 1893, September 1894 and during 1895. In these visits, Danvers had searched

through 564 volumes of the VOC Archives, including the Letters and papers received fromAsia that de Jonge had worked on (Holmes in prep.). Danvers, assisted by Willem Roo-

segaarde Bisschop and occasional transcribers provided by Van Riemsdijk, began a

working list of the volumes he searched through and on page 30 of the list it is noted,

‘‘Some of the books are in their original state and have not been re-arranged by Mr. de

Jonge and others’’(IOR/I/3/86 1893–1895, p. 30).

Danvers selected over 2,600 documents for transcription in Dutch and of these over

1,500 were translated into English. These documents were bound into a series of 106

volumes and have been kept in the India Office Records (Danvers 1895). Danvers took

particular care to ensure that the transcribed documents were bound in the same

arrangement and description as they had originated. As well, the English translation vol-

umes match perfectly with the Dutch volumes so that a researcher can have both volumes

side-by-side for comparative studies. Danvers clearly demonstrated his understanding of

the order and context, in and of, the records.

Danvers in turn facilitated access to the India Office Records by Willem Roosegaarde

Bisschop during 1895–1896. In his report of his research, Bisschop noted that that it was

difficult to decide which documents qualified to be copied unless one knew of the contents

of all the documents, that is, ‘‘the context can only appear from the lists’’ (Bisschop 1897,

p. 196). By noting the importance of the lists Bisschop demonstrated that he understood

that listings could provide ways of presenting information about records and allow for

intellectual control over the content of the records.

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 295

123

From the foregoing account it can be seen that Danvers carried out research in the VOC

Archives at the same time as Heeres carried out his work and was aware of De Jonge’s

rearrangement of some volumes and was also aware of the concept of an original order of

the archives. By the time of his retirement in 1898, Danvers had seen what the Dutch had

done in the VOC Archives and he would have understood by example.

Topics discussed by English archivists during the second half of the nineteenth century

may be drawn from Jenkinson’s reflections on his own career in Public Record Office

(Jenkinson 1980b). Jenkinson noted that during his tenure, the processing of modern

documents by the Public Records Office took precedence over the processing of ancient

archives and while he wanted to advocate that the care of the modern documents should be

separated from that of the ancient archives, however, he objected to the breaking such

continuity because it was the ‘‘continuity’’ that was ‘‘one of the most precious attributes of

English Administration and Archives’’ (Jenkinson 1980a, 326). Jenkinson accepts that the

arrangement of the records should reflect the continuity of government administration

while the description of the records can show how the original order was formed.

Danvers’ work with the India Office records during the second half of the nineteenth

century (Danvers retired 10 years before Jenkinson entered the service of the Public

Record Office) shows that he saw the India Office Records as a continuance of the

administration of the East India Company and the records were kept as a continuous series.

Also, when staff resources were limited, Danvers reluctantly gave precedence to providing

access to the EIC Archives through finding aids rather than investigating the EIC Archives

to identify the administrative structure that existed and led to the creation of the documents

in the seventeenth century.

Whereas the VOC Archives had been separated out from the records of its predecessor

companies and the Ministry of Colonies records since the time of Heeres and Colenbrander

to become a separate archival collection, the EIC Archives were subsumed into the India

Office Records archival collection. The investigations carried out by Danvers were not

continued by the custodians that followed him. Through the twentieth century the EIC

Archives have retained their order as one continuous series with the India Office Records

to convey ‘‘a clear sense of their administrative cohesion and continuity’’ (Moir 1996, p.

279). There is no separate inventory for the predecessor companies, that is, the first

incorporated company that traded under the title The Governor and Company of theMerchants of London trading into the East Indies (1600–?); or Courten’s Association of theAssada [Madagascar] Merchants (1635–1650/1657); or the London East India Company(1650?–1710); or the English East India Company (EEIC) (?–1710) (Birdwood 1891, p.

13). It was the last company, the East India Company (EIC) (1710–1858) that gives its

name to the whole archives that is known as the EIC Archives.

Passive keepers or active shapers?

What is clear from the work of this small group of archival practitioners during the last half

of the nineteenth century is that they contributed to professional discussion within the

archival community in The Netherlands and England. Their discussions were about

moving from a broad perspective of seeing the archive as a whole to understanding how

records of a particular administrative unit formed part of the overall administrative process

that had created the records. Through these discussions and reflections on practice, par-

ticularly practices which should not be continued such as the inherited order of the records

should not be rearranged to facilitate access to some of the records, it is possible to see the

development of archival theory.

296 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Cook (1997b) comments that the 1898 Dutch Manual was based on experience that

Muller, Feith, and Fruin had ‘‘either with limited numbers of medieval documents sus-

ceptible to careful diplomatic analysis or with records found in well-organised registries

within stable administrations’’ (Cook 1997b, p. 5). What this paper shows is that others had

lengthy experience before and immediately after the 1898 Dutch Manual with records with

little original order (not stable at all). More particularly in relation to Colenbrander’s work,

the 1898 Dutch Manual was only one of the components that he needed to draw upon to

fully complete his work.

In contrast to Muller, Feith, and Fruin’s experience with well-organised records, the

experiences of de Jonge, Heeres, Colenbrander and Danvers were with an archival group of

business records of an administration that no longer existed. Further, their nature as records

of trade and business transactions set them apart from the records of governments and

cities upon which archival practice had developed nonetheless archival practice on com-

pany records would still be part of the broader archival theory. With guidance from the

methodology of Van Riemsdijk and the rules outlined in the 1898 Dutch Manual,Colenbrander would complete the arrangement of the Amsterdam Chamber of the VOC

Archives by 1912. However, the publication of the 1898 Dutch Manual did not affect the

arrangement of the EIC Archives.

The arrangement and description of the EIC and VOC archival groups were affected by

the successive stages of custodianship. Archivists influenced the arrangement and

description of the records and each successive archivists’ influence became embedded in

the custodial history of the records.

De Jonge’s work of actively reshaping some of the records to suit the retrieval of

information clearly demonstrated to Heeres and Colenbrander a need to separate the role of

the archival practitioner in arranging the records from the role in facilitating access to the

records by interested researchers—that is, the physical arrangement and intellectual order

can be different. Colenbrander was also able to draw on the expertise of Van Riemsdijk by

using careful observation and analysis to find the arrangement of the archival records that

respected the original order in which the active business records had been created.

Heeres, Colenbrander and Danvers were more than passive keepers of the archives in

their care. They were all active in building up an understanding of the content and context

of these business archival records. They demonstrated the value of using methodology—

careful observation, making detailed notes and reports, and analysing the results. The use

of this methodology would allow archival practice to mature and develop into archival

science.

Acknowledgements I thank the two reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Myattendance at the ICHORA-2 conference was made possible through financial assistance from Edith CowanUniversity, Perth, Western Australia and I thank the School of Computer and Information Science for theirsupport. I gratefully acknowledge the comments, insights and encouragement in the development of thispaper from my supervisors Dr. Karen Anderson and Dr. Joanna Sassoon.

References

Birdwood G (1891) Report on the old records of the India Office, with supplementary note and appendices.2nd reprint. Calcutta, W.H. Allen & Co., Limited, London

Bisschop WR (1897) Onderzoek van stukken in het India Office: verslag [= Investigation of documents inthe India Office: report to the Board of the Royal Institute of Sciences of Languages, Lands andPeoples of the East Indies, in The Hague]. Bijdragen tot de Taal, Land en Volkenkunde van Neder-landsch-Indie 47:183–209

Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298 297

123

Cook T (1997a) Archives in the post-custodial works: interaction of archival theory and practice since thepublication of the Dutch Manual in 1898. Archivum 43:191–214

Cook T (1997b) What is past is prologue: a history of archival ideas since 1898, and the future paradigmshift. Archivaria: J Assoc Can Arch 43 (Spring 1997)

Danvers FC (1890) The India Office Records: a brief account of the results of his examination, during thelast six years, of the records relating to India and the East India Company, now in the possession of theSecretary of State for India. J Soc Arts XXXVIII(1940):159–178, 178–179

Danvers FC (ed) (1895) Dutch Records at The Hague. First series. Letters from India. Vols. I–LVI 1600–1699. Second series. Letters from the XVII to India. Vols. I–IV 1614–1700. Third series. Letters fromGovernor General to various factories. Vols. I–IX 1617–1699, Held in the British Library at shelfmarkIOR/I/3/1-106

Horsman P (1999) Dirty hands: a new perspective on original order. Archives and Manuscripts 27(1):42–53Horsman P, Ketelaar E et al (2003) Introduction to the 2003 reissue. Manual for the arrangement and

description of archives: drawn up by direction of the Netherlands Association of Archivists by S.Muller Fz., J.A. Feith and R. Fruin Th.Az.; translation of the Second Edition by Arthur H. Leavitt.Chicago, Illinois, The Society of American Archivists: v–xxxiii

IOR/I/3/86 (1893–1895) Dutch Records at The Hague. 86. Held at British Library, India Office Records,IOR/I/3/86

IOR/L/R/4/2 (1879–1885) Papers and Orders relating to the Registry & Records Dept. 1879–1885. Held atBritish Library, India Office Records, IOR/L/R/4/2



Jenkinson H (1980a) The English Archivist: a new profession: being an Inaugural lecture for a new course inArchive Administration delivered at University College, London, 14 October 1947. Selected writingsof Sir Hilary Jenkinson. Gloucester, Alan Sutton, pp 236–259

Jenkinson H (1980b) The future of Archives in England: presidential address to the Society of Archivists, 15December 1955. Selected writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson. Gloucester, Alan Sutton, pp 321–329

Kaminsky AP (1986) The India Office, 1880–1910. Mansell Publishing Limited, London, UKKetelaar E (1997) Archival theory and the Dutch manual: Archivaria 41 (Spring 1996): 31–40. Repr in

Ketelaar E (1997) The Archival Image. Collected essays. Hilversum, Verloren, pp 55–65MacNeil H (2005). Picking our text: archival description, authenticity and the archivist as editor. Am Arch

68(Fall/Winter):261–278Moir MI (1996) A general guide to the India Office records. The British Library, LondonMuller S, Feith JA, Fruin R (2003) Manual for the arrangement and description of archives: drawn up by

direction of the Netherlands Association of Archivists; translation of the second edition by Arthur H.Leavitt; with new introductions by Peter Horsman, Eric Ketelaar, Theo Thomassen and Marjorie RabeBarritt. Chicago, Illinois, The Society of American Archivists

Raben R (1992) History and manual. De archieven van de Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie [= TheArchives of the Dutch East India Company] (1602–1795). R. Raben and J.C.M. Pennings. ‘s-Grav-enhage, Sdu Uitgeverij Koninginnegracht

Slot BJ (1978) Archives in the Netherlands on Indonesian history, 1596–1949. In: Lapian AB, Day A (eds)Papers of the Dutch-Indonesian Historical Conference held at Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands 19 to22 May 1976. Bureau of Indonesian Studies, Leiden, pp 222–233

Sutton SC (1967) Guide to the India Office library with a note on the India Office records. H.M.S.O.,London

Biography

Donna Holmes is Library & Records Coordinator in the Singapore Office of an international law firm andhas worked in the field of finding information for researchers for over 20 years. Donna completed herB.Sc. (Library Technology) from Edith Cowan University (ECU), Perth, Western Australia in 2000. InMay 2003, she won the Head of School’s prize for the best proposal presentation in the School ofComputer and Information Science. Donna is currently writing her M.Sc. (Information Science) thesis byresearch through ECU’s external off campus programme and her supervisors are Dr. Karen Anderson andDr. Joanna Sassoon.

298 Arch Sci (2006) 6:285–298

123

Passive keepers or active shapers: a comparative case study of four archival practitioners at the...

Documents

Transcript of Passive keepers or active shapers: a comparative case study of four archival practitioners at the...