Sonderband 2. International Council on Archives. Dritte Europäische Archivkonferenz, Wien 11. bis 15. Mai 1993. Tagungsprotokolle (1996)
3. Session / Séance. Sharing of Experience and Exchange of Staff / Partage d’Expériences et Echange des Personnes - Thibodeau, Sharon: The Pitfalls of Terminology and linguistic Barriers / Pieges de la Terminologie et Barrieres linguistiques (english 207 - français 217)
only one of these representations, the definitive representation that is formulated by an archivist „after the archival material has been selected for permanent preservation and arranged“8. The definition of description articulated in the draft Statement of Principles elicited the most comment from reviewers in the United States9 10. These reviewers expressed two important points of view. The first point is that a definitive representation of archival material need not be limited to a post-arrangement descriptive process; definitive representations may (and in fact should) be developed early in the life cycle of records and adopted by archivists when the records are transferred to archival custody. The second point is that archival description is as much a representation of provenance as it is of archives. By „representation of provenance“, the US commentators intended compilation and presentation of information about the circumstances in which archival materials were created or accumulated and used; in other words information that might help users understand the significance of the materials. In a government context, representations of provenance include information about functions and activities and recordkeeping requirements and practices of government organizations. US archivists are by no means unique in their recognition of the importance of collecting and conveying information about the provenance of archives10 11. Such a recognition is, of course, attributable to all who adhere to basic archival principles. The distinctly US aspect of this recognition, however, is that representation of provenance is not merely part of representation of archives; rather, representation of provenance is equal partners with representation of archives. The distinction between the two perspectives is illustrated by the examples in Appendix A. At first glance, the difference between these two examples seems to be limited to the manner in which they are displayed, but the distinction goes beyond format. It has important implications for the standards that govern the process of description and for the products that result from that process. Standards based on a concept of archival description that includes representation of provenance as part of representation of records are likely to limit the rules governing representation of provenance11. Descriptive products that result from implementation of such standards are in turn likely to abbreviate and obscure 3. Session/Séance: Thibodeau, Pitfalls of Terminology and linguistic Barriers This focus appears to be consistent with that of the compilers of the ICA Dictionary of Archival Terminology. München 2. ed. 1988. 9 Comments received by the Ad-Hoc-Commission from the Society of American Archivists (July 1, 1991) and from David Bearman (August 1, 1991) both address this issue. 10 Two European archivists, in particular, have emphasized the importance for archivists of understanding and describing the recordkeeping context. Provenance plays a key role in the appraisal process advocated by Hans Booms (see „Überlieferungsbildung: Archives-keeping as a Social and Political Activity“, in: Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-2) p. 25-33) an in both appraisal and description processes advocated by Peter Sigmond (see „Form, Function and Archival Value: The Use of Structure, Forms and Functions for Appraisal, Control and Reference“, also in: Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-2), p. 141-7). 11 Indeed, the IS AD (G) prepared by the Ad-Hoc-Commission based on its definition includes 27 rules for representing records and only 3 rules (3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3) for representing provenance. 212
