UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The German archival system 1945-1995 Landwehr, Regina 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1996-0237.pdf [ 5.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087115.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087115-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087115-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087115-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087115-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087115-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087115-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087115-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087115.ris

Full Text

THE GERMAN ARCHIVAL SYSTEM 1945-1995 by REGINA LANDWEHR B.Sc.(Hons.), The University of Calgary, 1993 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIES i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF LIBRARY, ARCHIVAL AND INFORMATION STUDIES We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1996 © Regina Landwehr 1996 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. -Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date APnJL 2.2/ 14% DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT After World War Two, Germany became divided into two countries commonly c a l l e d East and West Germany. This thesis describes how the two countries, one communist and one p l u r a l i s t i c , developed d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t a r c h i v a l systems with respect to the organization, l e g i s l a t i o n and appraisal methods of government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . East Germany's archival system was organized and l e g i s l a t e d into a rigorous h i e r a r c h i c a l structure under central government control with the mandate of f u l f i l l i n g i n a systematic way primarily i d e o l o g i c a l objectives. Although professional collaboration between the a r c h i v i s t s of the two countries had been o f f i c i a l l y severed since the early years of separation by East Germany, because of i r r e c o n c i l a b l e p o l i t i c a l differences, they influenced each others' thoughts. S p e c i f i c a l l y , East German a r c h i v i s t s borrowed and implemented extensively appraisal concepts formulated i n West Germany, such as the documentation p r o f i l e idea. The examination of the archival system i n West Germany reveals organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y p i c a l of f e d e r a l i s t countries. The development of archival l e g i s l a t i o n i n West Germany was c l e a r l y the outcome of i n i t i a t i v e s from the archival profession i t s e l f , and West Germany's appraisal methods r e f l e c t e d a d i v e r s i t y of t h e o r e t i c a l considerations which, because of the p l u r a l i s t i c nature of the discussions, were marked by a lack of professional consensus. The description of the discussions that took place over time i l l u s t r a t e s an ongoing struggle to i d e n t i f y and respect the perceived demand for sources, and to formulate appraisal methods focusing on the contextual and functional analysis of records creators' a c t i v i t i e s and competencies. The discussion of the. developments that followed Germany's p o l i t i c a l r e u n i f i c a t i o n i n 1990 shows that East Germany's archival system was absorbed by the West German system. The thesis concludes that the main e f f e c t of r e u n i f i c a t i o n was a search for a balance between East and West appraisal concepts and methods, and a renewed constructive debate characterized by a reexamination of previous archival contributions supporting contextual and functional appraisal approaches. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Acknowledgments v Introduction 1 Chapter One: Archival Organization i n West Germany 7 Chapter Two: Archival L e g i s l a t i o n i n West Germany 23 Chapter Three: Archival Organization and L e g i s l a t i o n i n East Germany 3 6 Chapter Four: Appraisal Theory and Methods i n West Germany 57 Chapter Five: Appraisal Theory and Methods i n East Germany 91 Chapter Six: Appraisal Theory i n Germany a f t e r 1989 124 Conclusion 154 Bibliography 157 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS F i r s t , I would l i k e to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor Luciana Duranti, for her assistance which has s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced t h i s thesis. I would also l i k e to express my appreciation to Prof. Dr. Hans Booms, former president of the German Federal Archives, Koblenz, and Dr. Angelika Menne-Haritz, di r e c t o r of the Archives School-Inst i t u t e for Archival Science, Marburg, for t h e i r generous help during my thesis research i n Germany. F i n a l l y , I am ve gratefu l to my husband Wendell Koning for his continuous support during the preparation of t h i s thesis. INTRODUCTION This thesis studies the organization, l e g i s l a t i o n and appraisal approaches of German archives between 1945 and 1995. A discussion of the role and character of German archives i s useful for three reasons. F i r s t , there i s l i t t l e i f any-archival l i t e r a t u r e i n English dealing with the archival developments i n the former East and West Germany. Second, the German archival experience i s s i g n i f i c a n t both i n i t s own right and as a component of history of archives. And t h i r d , the di f f e r e n t motivations and influences that East and West German a r c h i v i s t s brought to the archival function of appraisal may form the basis for constructive r e f l e c t i o n s on the role of archives i n modern s o c i e t i e s . Studies i n arc h i v a l h i s t o r y have demonstrated that the sel e c t i o n of records for preservation i s d i r e c t l y connected to the needs and perceptions of the society for which the records were kept and depended on the p a r t i c u l a r world view of a given people i n a given period of time 1. The impact of d i f f e r i n g world views may be most c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e when comparing d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l forms of society. The 1 Adolf Brenneke, Archivkunde. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Geschichte des europaischen Archivwesens. ed. Wolfgang Leesch (Munchen: K.G. Sauer Verlag, 1988); and Ernst Posner, Archives in the Ancient World. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972). 1 states of East and West Germany during t h e i r existence i n the period 1945-1990, represent an exemplary contraposition of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l philosophies. In fact, these states shared a common c u l t u r a l heritage before t h e i r separation i n 1945, and the way i n which t h e i r d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l paths over nearly f i v e decades have determined d i f f e r e n t a r c h i val approaches and the formation of d i f f e r e n t a r c h i val heritage, provides an in t r i g u i n g case study i n archival history. At the end of World War Two, Germany became divided into East and West. Each country subsequently underwent d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t developments regarding the organization and l e g i s l a t i o n of government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s , and the role that they were to play i n society. In West Germany the archival system was, as i n other confederations, such as Canada, described i n terms of a p r o v i n c i a l and federal a r c h i v a l structure. The federal archives, i . e . the Bundesarchiv, only had archival j u r i s d i c t i o n over records of federal government departments. The Bundesarchiv did not possess any leg a l authority or j u r i s d i c t i o n a l competence upon the archives of the federated provinces 2. The provinces were autonomous i n 2 Eckhart G. Franz, Einfuhrung in die Archivkunde. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), 16. 2 regulating the administration of the records of t h e i r governments. Municipal and c i t y archives, and those of private persons and i n s t i t u t i o n s were outside of p r o v i n c i a l and federal competencies. Within the framework of government archives, archival a c t i v i t i e s encountered the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the determination of p r i o r i t i e s that are t y p i c a l of western p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t i e s . In contrast, East Germany had a central archives administration, placed under central government, which became d i r e c t l y responsible for a l l l e v e l s of the hierarchy of administrative units i n the state archival system. The German Central Archives was just one, a l b e i t a very important one, among the archival administrative units of East Germany. Municipal and c i t y archives also were under•central archival administration and formed the bottom of the hierarchy of state archives. Archival r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and practices were l e g i s l a t e d and regulated by central government authority i n accordance with o v e r a l l state objectives. The primary function of government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s i s to preserve public records and to make them available for 3 use. The preservation of the documentary heritage i n the East and West German s o c i e t i e s was motivated by e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t philosophical reasons, which are made evident by the way government archives were organized and regulated. A descriptive analysis of the organization and l e g i s l a t i o n of government archives w i l l help to c l a r i f y these differences. However, an e f f e c t i v e way to gauge the degree of difference i n the role of archives and archival i n s t i t u t i o n s i n both states i s to analyze the methods and theories developed for s e l e c t i n g records worthy of preservation for society. The difference i n appraisal approaches exemplifies the mind set of a r c h i v i s t s i n the two German states, and by extension that of the society of which they were part. Therefore, a description of appraisal theories and methods developed i n both countries w i l l provide a basis for comparison. A general overview of the trends i n the debate on appraisal theory and methods i n Germany since r e u n i f i c a t i o n i n 1990 w i l l then show how the d i f f e r e n t approaches converged. The focus of t h i s thesis i s on government records and on archives i n government i n s t i t u t i o n s as these best reveal the p o l i t i c a l and philosophical differences between East and West Germany. In any case, because private archives were incorporated into the public domain i n East Germany, a discussion of them as separate e n t i t i e s i s e s s e n t i a l l y superfluous. The examination of appraisal theories and methods w i l l be l i m i t e d to an i l l u s t r a t i o n of concepts and t h e i r factual implementation. The d e f i n i t i o n s of the terms used i n the thesis, such as "archives", and "records", and the terms associated with the process of "appraisal", are based on the respective entries i n the ICA "Dictionary of Archival Terminology" 3. Unlike West Germany, East Germany discontinued the use of the term "Behorde" (agency) i n the 1950s. The term that substituted i t , "Registraturbildner", i s most accurately translated with the English term "records creator". The d e f i n i t i o n s of both German terms, however, were v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l . Thus, the English equivalent terms "agency" and "records creator" w i l l be used as synonyms and for both countries. The structure of t h i s thesis aims to f a c i l i t a t e comparison and reveal contrast. Chapter One deals with the West German archives organization from 1945 to the present. However, i n 3 Peter Walne, ed., ICA Handbooks Series, Vol. 3 (Munich: K . G . Sauer, 1984). 5 order to allow for a general comprehension of the state of archives i n 1945, a b r i e f retrospection to pre-war Germany i s included. Chapter Two describes the development of a r c h i v a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n West Germany, i t s problems and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s . Chapter Three describes the organizational developments of the archives system i n East Germany for the period of i t s existence from 1945 to 1989. As the formation of the ar c h i v a l system was undertaken by the central l e g i s l a t u r e , i t s s t r u c t u r a l organization and the d e f i n i t i o n of i t s l e g a l competencies and functions cannot be discussed separately, as i n the case of West Germany. Thus, they w i l l be dealt with i n an integrated way i n the same chapter. Chapter Four and Five discuss the theories and methods of appraisal developed during the existence of each country (1945-1989), respectively. Chapter Six describes the trends i n the appraisal debate since 1990, as i t developed among the a r c h i v i s t s of the reunited Germany, and presents i t s d i r e c t i o n . The Conclusion provides a b r i e f summary of the findings from the in d i v i d u a l chapters. 6 CHAPTER ONE: ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION IN WEST GERMANY With the end of the Second World War i n 1945 and the d i v i s i o n of Germany into four m i l i t a r y zones, each administered by one of the a l l i e d forces, the German state of Prussian heritage and i t s central government i n s t i t u t i o n s were declared dissolved. From an archival point of view, the tasks of the f i r s t hour were to take stock of the damage to and loss of archival holdings and government records, to salvage and put together scattered archival holdings and government r e g i s t r i e s of a l l l e v e l s of government, and to reconstitute and construct archival storage and administration f a c i l i t i e s . The western a l l i e s soon gave permission for the reorganization of archival administrations i n the western zones 4. Upon the i n i t i a t i v e of a r c h i v i s t s i n the B r i t i s h and American zones, a resolution was passed i n 1946 regarding the professional organization of a r c h i v i s t s . This resulted i n the establishment of the "Society of German A r c h i v i s t s " (Verein der Deutschen Archivare) i n the same year. The society's purposes, according to i t s statutes, were to "promote archival concerns, to support the cohesion of 4 Friedrich P. Kahlenberg, Deutsche Archive in West und Ost. Zur Entwicklung des staatlichen Archivwesens seit 1945. Mannheimer Schriften zur Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 4 (Dusseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1972), 26. 7 i t s membership and i t s continued education, as well as to represent the membership's professional i n t e r e s t s " 5 . These goals were to be promoted by regularly held conferences of the ar c h i v i s t s ' society {Deutsche Archivtage), and by the establishment i n 1947 of the quarterly professional journal "Der Archivar"6. This new journal was to complement the more h i s t o r i c a l l y oriented, annual archival journal "Archivalische Zeitschrift", published since the early 1900s by the Bavarian state archives 7. Furthermore, the board of dir e c t o r s of the ar c h i v i s t s society formed a Special Committee {Deutsche Archivausschuss), which was to f a c i l i t a t e p r i m a r i l y the cooperation of the f l e d g l i n g p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations within the western a l l i e d zones, to represent t h e i r concerns i n front of the a l l i e d a uthorities, and to function as t h e i r resource s t a f f 8 . The committee, which acted from 1947 to 1952, was also i n charge of establ i s h i n g international contacts, i n p a r t i c u l a r with the International Council of Archives (ICA), and the Table Ronde Des Archives 9. 5 First issue of the Statutes of the Verein der Deutschen Archivare, in Der Archivar 1 (1947/1948): 44; Revised Statutes, in Der Archivar 20 (1967): 109-122. 6 Kahlenberg, 1972,37. 7 Wolfgang Leesch, "Das Deutsche Archivwesen seit 1945, Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Deutsche Demokratische Republik," Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique 55 (1984) (a): 113-114. 8 Kahlenberg, 1972, 38. 9 Wilhelm Winkler, "Der Internationale Archivrat und die deutschen Archivare," Der Archivar 10 (1957): 161-164; quoted in Kahlenberg, 1972, 39. 8 The tasks of the committee which are of primary concern to the purpose of t h i s thesis were: 1. the establishment of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries for government archives, including the r e p a t r i a t i o n of records scattered i n various safety deposits and/or confiscated by the a l l i e d powers; 2. the formulation of new archival l e g i s l a t i o n for the management of public and private archives; and 3 . the establishment of a new central government archives 1 0. The i n i t i a l e f f o r t s of a r c h i v i s t s to weld together a u n i f i e d administrative structure of government archives i n the western a l l i e d zones were a continuation of the struggles of a r c h i v i s t s i n pre-war Germany. Before the war, the strongly independent states had successfully managed to keep to a minimum any ob l i g a t i o n of regulated cooperation as favoured by the central Prussian power. In fact, a c e n t r a l l y directed and u n i f i e d state archives organization had never existed i n pre-war Germany. However, the presence of eighteen Prussian-style state archives i n the federated states and of the central government archives {Reichsarchiv) i n B e r l i n , with i t s Kahlenberg, 1972, 39. 9 I n s t i t u t e for Archival Science (Institut fur Archivwissenschaft), had been e f f e c t i v e l y y i e l d i n g a guiding and unifying influence on the management of government archives i n the i n d i v i d u a l German s t a t e s 1 1 . Aft e r 1946, i t became increasingly clear that the western a l l i e d zones were facing a prolonged separation from the soviet zone. This s i t u a t i o n l e f t no choice but to proceed with the re-organization of government structures i n western Germany, including those related to archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . As steps were taken i n 194 7 to form a national German government, the pre-war p o l i t i c a l structure of a federation of states under a central government was maintained. New provinces were created, and t e r r i t o r i a l and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries re-defined. In p a r t i c u l a r , the western and northern areas of the western a l l i e d zones experienced a severing of old state borders, whereas the south, namely the state of Bavaria, survived e s s e n t i a l l y i n t a c t . The new provinces of Baden-Wiirttemberg, North Rhine Westphalia {Nordrhein-Westfalen), and Schleswig-Holstein were forged out of a number of fragmented states. As a r e s u l t , archival j u r i s d i c t i o n s which t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e f l e c t e d 1 1 Ibid., 26. 10 both h i s t o r i c t e r r i t o r i e s and government structures required adjustment. Each new province established a p r o v i n c i a l archives administration which had the purpose of overseeing a l l government archives within the province i t s e l f . Each province maintained from three (North Rhine Westphalia) to eight (Bavaria) former state archives, most of which had existed since the 19th Century 1 2. Those former state archives which happened to be located i n the new p r o v i n c i a l c a p i t a l s , such as i n Diisseldorf (1961), Hannover (1971), Koblenz (1975), and Wiesbaden (1958), were elevated to the rank of Main Pr o v i n c i a l Archives (Hauptstaatsarchiv) . They became responsible for the records of the central agencies of t h e i r p r o v i n c i a l government. In contrast, former state archives i n other locations were merged and/or reduced to subordinate p r o v i n c i a l archives 1 3. As a resu l t , some archival i n s t i t u t i o n s which had been quite s i g n i f i c a n t because of the large t e r r i t o r i a l or administrative j u r i s d i c t i o n they had i n the past, l o s t t h e i r high rank i n the o v e r a l l organizational hierarchy. Usually, the Main P r o v i n c i a l Archives were also designated repositories for records generated i n a c a p i t a l ' s 1 2 Franz, 1990, 19. 1 3 Leesch, 1984(a), 116-117. 11 adjacent region. In addition, the p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations were given the mandate to care for records produced by regional agencies of the federal government, based on a 1931 agreement between central and i n d i v i d u a l state governments 1 4. In spite of the formation of new administrative j u r i s d i c t i o n s for the p r o v i n c i a l archives, t h e i r h i s t o r i c t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s (Archivsprengel) remained l a r g e l y unaffected, as the new provinces were constituted from the aggregation of former states which were t e r r i t o r i a l l y smaller. In one case, as indicated e a r l i e r , the state of Bavaria merely substituted the t i t l e "province" for "state", that i s i t became the province of Bavaria. There were only two cases i n which a pre-war state was divided into segments assigned to d i s t i n c t new provinces. B r i e f l y , the administrative organization within each province changed the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure among i t s archives, which became either the central or the regional re p o s i t o r i e s for p r o v i n c i a l government records 1 5. 1 4 Franz, 1990, 19. 1 5 Ibid. 12 An e n t i r e l y new member (post 1945) of the arc h i v a l organizational structure i n West Germany was the Archives for V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s {Personenstandsarchiv) . Two such archives were established i n the province of North Rhine Westphalia, one in Briihl (1954/55) , and one i n Detmold (1964) . In these archival i n s t i t u t i o n s , the a r c h i v i s t ' s competence and that of the records administrator were integrated, as a r c h i v i s t s also made entries i n current records, such as death r e g i s t r i e s and old age pension f i l e s 1 6 . The new p r o v i n c i a l governments placed t h e i r respective archival administrations within t h e i r government hierarchy according to d i f f e r e n t conceptions. In some provinces, such as i n the Saarland, Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen), Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinlandpfalz) , Baden-Wiirttemberg, and Schleswig-Holstein, the p r o v i n c i a l archives administration was i n i t i a l l y placed d i r e c t l y under the head of government, according to the Prussian t r a d i t i o n . By the 1970s, only the Saarland and Lower Saxony among those provinces, maintained t h i s arrangement. On the other hand, Baden-Wiirttemberg sought a new d i r e c t i o n by giving i t s archives administration the rank of a senior Leesch, 1984 (a), 118-119. 13 government agency (Oberbehorde)removed from the head of the government, but without a d i r e c t m i n i s t e r i a l a f f i l i a t i o n . On the other hand, Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein, made t h e i r archives administrations dependent on the p r o v i n c i a l ministry of culture, as the provinces of North Rhine Westphalia, Hessen, B e r l i n , and Bremen had favoured from the beginning 1 7. In these provinces, the archives administration formed a section of the ministry of culture. The dependence of the archives on t h i s ministry fostered the perception of government archives as c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s serving research needs and diminished the role of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s as 18 i n t e g r a l part of the government's records management Bavaria was an exception i n t h i s restructuring as i t was the state least affected by t e r r i t o r i a l changes. Its archives organization was developed i n the 19th century, and consisted of one central archives i n the c a p i t a l of Munich and eight subordinate state archives i n the regions. The structure of the Bavarian p r o v i n c i a l government went through minor modifications a f t e r the war, and thus the organization of i t s archives matched the pre-war s i t u a t i o n . The archives 1 7 Kahlenberg, 1972, 27. 14 administration was under the ministry of culture u n t i l 1970, ' and l a t e r i t became a separate senior government agency, as i n Baden-Wiirttemberg . By the end of the 194 0s, as the government archives i n the provinces were firm l y established within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , the foundation of a central government archives for West-Germany was i n the phase of preparation. As a r e s u l t of the h i s t o r i c a l developments i n Germany, an "all-embracing" national archives, such as that of France, had never existed. The closest approximation was the central government archives {Reichsarchiv) i n B e r l i n , which existed from 1919 to 1945 and functioned as the repository for the archives of the federal government and of a l l federal government departments and t h e i r regional agencies, including a l l other public i n s t i t u t i o n s that held delegated powers to carry out federal a f f a i r s 2 0 . The Reichsarchiv also a c t i v e l y pursued the a c q u i s i t i o n of non-government archives of national s i g n i f i c a n c e which were intended to complement government archives, and thus r e f l e c t a l l aspects of German so c i e t y 2 1 . The Reichsarchiv strove for "Leesch, 1984 (a), 115. 2 0 Kahlenberg, 1972, 19. 2 1 Ibid., 20. 15 the " t o t a l archives concept", but f i n a n c i a l and p o l i t i c a l developments l i m i t e d i t s e f f o r t s . A f t e r the end of World War II, the western a l l i e d zones were e f f e c t i v e l y without a central government archives, as the Reichsarchiv was situated i n the soviet sector of B e r l i n . In fact, the majority of the holdings of the Reichsarchiv and the Prussian state archives i n B e r l i n were under the control of the soviet a u t h o r i t i e s . Most of the surviving r e g i s t r i e s of the central departments of the Nazi's government were confiscated by the a l l i e d forces. The Americans and the B r i t i s h created special document c o l l e c t i n g centres for records of central government agencies and t h e i r a f f i l i a t e d l o c a l agencies, the most important of which were located i n Kassel, Frankfurt, and in B e r l i n . Department r e g i s t r i e s which had been used for the war crime t r i a l s at Nuremberg were taken to the United States (in Alexandria, near Washington, D.C.) and England (Whaddon Hull/Buckinghamshire), or to Moscow by the Russian a l l i e s 2 2 . Guides to German Records Microfilmed at Alexandria. Va.. Washington 1958. Edited by the National Archives, National Archives and Records Services. For information on one of these allied collecting centres see Lester K. Born, " The Ministerial Collecting Centre near Kassel, Germany," American Archivist XIII (1950): 237-258. 16 When the Russian authorities announced the establishment of a central German archives i n the soviet sector of B e r l i n i n 1946, intending to b u i l d on the t r a d i t i o n of the former Reichsarchiv, western Germany considered t h i s i n i t i a t i v e a promising one to form the nucleus of a future united German national archives 2 3.. In fact, for the f i r s t three years, the establishment of a new central government archives i n the western zones was not a pressing issue. There were no central government records, past or present. By 1948, however, the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n had deteriorated, and the separation of West and East Germany became ine v i t a b l e . Naturally, the old Reichsarchiv was not longer considered as a repository for the records of the future government of West Germany. In addition, many of the records used i n the Nuremberg t r i a l s of 1946 and the holdings of the documentation centres were being released for d i s t r i b u t i o n among the western and east zones. F i n a l l y , the 194 9 proclamation of West Germany as a sovereign state accelerated the establishment of a new central government archives. Because of the need to house the records of the interim German administration of the western zones, and the anticipated transfer of confiscated records, the new federal Kahlenberg, 1972, 56-57. 17 government was soon convinced of the necessity of having i t s own government archives. The subsequent proposal for the establishment of the "Bundesarchiv" was prepared by the Special Committee of the Society of German A r c h i v i s t s , and was presented i n parliament i n 1950. It recommended to place the Bundesarchiv d i r e c t l y under the authority of the head of the government, the chancellor 2 4. Based on the t r a d i t i o n of the Prussian archives administration, such an arrangement was expected to provide the best solution for an e f f e c t i v e cooperation with a l l the government departments. However, the 1950 resolution of the federal parliament established that the Bundesarchiv be placed under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, and s p e c i f i c a l l y within i t s Cultural A f f a i r s D i v i s i o n , thus receiving less than departmental st a t u s 2 5 . The Bundesarchiv was f i n a l l y opened i n 1952 i n the c i t y of Koblenz, about 60 km south of the c a p i t a l Bonn, as a concession to regional p o l i t i c s . The distance from i t s sponsor was faulted for the organizational obstacles which arose and for the lack 2 6 of cooperation between the archives and the government . Yet, i n the 1950s, the location of the Bundesarchiv i n Koblenz, as Ibid., 58. Ibid., 64. Ibid., 66. 18 well as the location of the German c a p i t a l i n Bonn, was viewed as a temporary s i t u a t i o n . It was widely hoped and expected that the r e u n i f i c a t i o n of East and West Germany would occur i n the near future 2 7. At i t s inception i n 1952, the Bundesarchiv was given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for: 1. the acq u i s i t i o n , arrangement, and research use of the archives of the federal government and i t s agencies; 2. the a c q u i s i t i o n of archives holdings from the former Reichsarchiv and Prussian central state archives as fa r as they were located i n West Germany, as well as the a c q u i s i t i o n of the records of the Nazi government; 3. the transfer of records of the German administrations created i n the western a l l i e d zones; and 4. the r e g i s t r a t i o n and care of confiscated and retrieved 2 8 records from previous federal {Reich} j u r i s d i c t i o n s . This rather general mandate s p e c i f i e d that only the federal government and i t s immediate administration were to 2 7 When the reunification finally occurred forty years later in 1990, and the government was transferred, with most federal departments and agencies, to the new capital of Berlin, the Bundesarchiv began to be seen as a possible regional branch of a new federal archives in Berlin. 2 8 Kahlenberg, 1972, 61. 19 f a l l under the archival j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Bundesarchiv. The other c o n s t i t u t i o n a l organs, that i s , the Parliament, the Upper House (representatives of a l l provinces forming the L e g i s l a t i v e Council), the Supreme Court, and the Auditor General were not included. Moreover, the archival competence for the appraisal of non-current records was l e f t undefined, and t h i s resulted i n the subsequent dependence of a r c h i v i s t s on the voluntary-cooperation of government administrations. This s i t u a t i o n also allowed for the continuation of various departmental archives as separate i n s t i t u t i o n s l a r g e l y inaccessible to the public. A most notable example here was the P o l i t i c a l Archives of the Ministry of Foreign A f f a i r s . The issue of public access to federal government archives i n general was v i r t u a l l y not addressed either, as the term "research use", f a i t h f u l to pre-war t r a d i t i o n , referred p r i m a r i l y to the research function of s t a f f a r c h i v i s t s of the Bundesarchiv i t s e l f . In other words, the mandate f a i l e d to provide the Bundesarchiv with the l e g a l authority i n matters of records transfer, records appraisal, and provision of public access for most federal government records. F i n a l l y , the fact that the Bundesarchiv became part of one ministry resulted i n suspicion and at times mistrust by 20 neighbouring m i n i s t r i e s . However, i n time, on the i n i t i a t i v e of federal a r c h i v i s t s i n t e r n a l administrative procedures were established within each government department, and t h i s i n part compensated for some of the d e f i c i e n c i e s . In summary, the basic s t r u c t u r a l organization of government archives i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r p r o v i n c i a l and federal governments had been completed by the end of the 1950s. .The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l competencies were defined separately for the p r o v i n c i a l and the federal archives. The federal structure of West Germany produced independently operating p r o v i n c i a l archives, while the federal archives was e x c l u s i v e l y responsible for the federal domain. A c e r t a i n degree of consistency regarding the j u r i s d i c t i o n s and operation of government archives was favoured by regular consultations of senior management. The 1946 Special Committee of the Society of German A r c h i v i s t s , which had been the d r i v i n g force i n a l l archival matters a f t e r the war, had ceased to exist i n 1952 with the foundation of the Bundesarchiv. A new semi-annual conference (Konferenz der Archivreferenten des Bundes und der Lander) took i t s place i n 1953. It was composed of the 2 9 Siegfried Btlttner, "Ressortprinzip und Uberlieferungsbildung," in Aus der Arbeit der Archive , No. 36, Festschrift fur Hans Booms, ed. F.P.Kahlenberg (Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1989), 154. 21 directors of the main p r o v i n c i a l archives and of the Bundesarchiv, who represented both t h e i r archives and t h e i r superior government agency 3 0. The establishment of t h i s conference concluded the f e d e r a l i z a t i o n of the archives organization i n West Germany, i n respect of the new co n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s 3 1 . Its purpose was to function as an extension of the archives administrations for consultation and for reaching an agreement regarding common administrative a f f a i r s . However, the conference was not given the competence to issue binding resolutions, but only recommendations. Yet, the establishment of t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n represented an improvement compared to pre-war conditions where no such formal 3 2 i n t e r - s t a t e archives representation had existed . In combination with the professional Society of German A r c h i v i s t s , the conference provided the arena from and through which ideas and i n i t i a t i v e s were disseminated. m Leesch, 1984 (a), 120. 3 1 Kahlenberg, 1972, 55. 3 2 Ibid., 86. 22 CHAPTER TWO: ARCHIVAL LEGISLATION IN WEST GERMANY The development of archival l e g i s l a t i o n had a d i f f i c u l t h i story i n West Germany. In fact, p r i o r to the 1980s, the care and protection of government archives i n West Germany (and i n Germany p r i o r to the Second World War) was s o l e l y managed through i n t e r n a l administrative regulations. As a rule, they were created by and for government administrations. Standardization of such regulations even within one l e v e l of government was never f u l l y a t tained 3 3. Although a r c h i v i s t s frequently were involved i n creating administrative p o l i c i e s , they v i r t u a l l y had no authority over administrators i n regards to records transfer, scheduling, and appraisal. An advisory function was the closest allowed r o l e . A f t e r the French Revolution i n the late 18th century and the r i s e of h i s t o r i c i s m i n the early 19th century, government archives began to be perceived as part of the c u l t u r a l heritage of the state which were to be gathered i n cen t r a l i z e d a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . During the early 19th century i n Germany, state 3 3 Heinz Hoffmann, Behordliche Schriftgutverwaltung , Schriften des Bundesarchivs, No. 43 (Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1993), 48ff. 23 archives administrations were established within each state. Among them, the archives administrations of Bavaria and Prussia became important for the development of a government archives organization i n Germany, as well as for the establishment of professional p r i n c i p l e s within Germany . Soon, questions arose about t e r r i t o r i a l and administrative j u r i s d i c t i o n s of indi v i d u a l state archives with respect to each other and other kinds of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s which were not under state control, s p e c i f i c a l l y l o c a l government archives, and the large sphere of private archives. It also became apparent that i n t e r n a l regulations frequently were i n s u f f i c i e n t to ensure the orderly and regular transfer of non-current records of a l l government departments, and to prevent the destruction of p o t e n t i a l l y valuable records by those records creators. A well-established r e g i s t r y system moreover, competed with archival i n s t i t u t i o n s for the control over records transfer and appraisal. These r e g i s t r i e s operated as sp e c i a l i z e d and independent o f f i c e s between the government agencies whose current records they managed, and the archives 3 5. However, a r c h i v i s t s were not s u f f i c i e n t l y motivated to make arc h i v a l 3 4 Kahlenberg, 1972, 17. 3 5 Richard Klumpenhouwer, Concepts of value in the archival appraisal literature: an historical and critical analysis (University of British Columbia, M.A.S. Thesis, 1988). This thesis provides a detailed discussion of the development of appraisal theories and methods during this period in Germany highlighting the relationship of the registry system to archival institutions. 24 l e g i s l a t i o n a p r i o r i t y . The close association of a r c h i v i s t s with the h i s t o r i c a l community contributed heavily to t h i s lack of i n i t i a t i v e . Historians and a r c h i v i s t s a l i k e were mainly concerned with the archives created between the medieval period and the early 19th century. This fostered a passive-conservative r e l a t i o n s h i p with, and resultant lack of intere s t i n , the l i v i n g government administration and records management36. Since a r c h i v i s t s were hist o r i a n s themselves, they were preoccupied with t h e i r own research, for which "old" archives were of primary importance. A stronger involvement i n the records management practices of t h e i r sponsors would have allowed for less time spent on research, and also held l i t t l e prestige. In fact, the subject of records management was a l l but absent from the a r c h i v i s t s ' t r a i n i n g during the 19th and the f i r s t half of the 20th century 3 7. State archives had become central research and c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , and thus divorced themselves from the role of repo s i t o r i e s of the records of p a r t i c u l a r government departments. Hence, archives no longer served the business needs of the records creators. In turn, administrations r a r e l y saw reasons for granting any 3 6 Kahlenberg, 1972,42. 3 7 Fritz Wolff, "Die wissenschaftliche Archivarsausbildung an der Archivschule Marburg als postuniversitarer Ausbildungsgang." in Wissenschaftliche Archivarsausbildung in Europa , ed. Wilhelm A. Eckhart, Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 14 (Marburg, 1989), 110. 25 competence to archival i n s t i t u t i o n s i n matters of transfer and a p p r a i s a l 3 8 . A more concerted e f f o r t undertaken by a r c h i v i s t s towards the formulation of archival l e g i s l a t i o n involved those archives which c l e a r l y f e l l outside the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the state archives but were considered v i t a l l y important for h i s t o r i c a l research. As early as 1871, h i s t o r i c a l , antiquarian, and archival s o c i e t i e s across Germany appealed to the national government to create laws or i n t e r n a l administrative regulations which would ensure that l o c a l governments, churches, foundations, corporations etc. e i t h e r took proper care of t h e i r archives, or transferred them to the custody of state archives 3 9. A s i m i l a r e f f o r t was made a f t e r World War One, as i n f l a t i o n had l e f t many such records creators f i n a n c i a l l y unable to care for t h e i r holdings. When state a r c h i v i s t s requested that these archives be placed under the authority of the state archives, t h e i r owners and sponsors r e s i s t e d vehemently. Thus, the only national l e g i s l a t i o n that came to pass, and that was e f f e c t i v e from 1920 to 1925, was one p r o h i b i t i n g the unauthorized expatriation of "objects of 3 8 Kahlenberg, 1972, 43. 3 9 Brenneke, 409 (footnote). 26 h i s t o r i c a l , a r t i s t i c , and research value" 4 0. Although a r c h i v a l documents and records were not l i s t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y (except i n the Prussian interpretation, which mentioned deeds and h i s t o r i c a l l y valuable records), t h i s law was nevertheless to be understood to include them. In the same decade, many German states created t h e i r own l e g i s l a t i o n protecting t h e i r public heritage from destruction and expatriation {Denkmalschutzgesetze). Primarily intended for buildings, monuments, and art, i n so far as they were owned by the public, t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , i n some states, included archives of l o c a l governments, churches, and private owners 4 1. During the Nazi period (1933-1945), the strongly ce n t r a l i z e d government of the Third Reich sought to bring the ind i v i d u a l German states under t i g h t e r control. One such measure resulted i n a national d i r e c t i v e {Reichsverordnung), issued by the Ministry of the Interi o r i n 1934, which was intended to provide a common leg a l basis for the protection of state government archives from unauthorized destruction or loss due to lack of care 4 2. It prescribed that the responsible 4 0 Ibid., 414-415. « I b i d ' Ibid., 411. The state of Prussia had issued its own directive earlier in 1934, a reflection of its dominant role in Germany in archives initiatives of practical and theoretical nature. 27 state archives be informed about intended records d i s p o s i t i o n , and that,authorizations for records destruction be issued to the records creator by i t s superior administrative authority. Furthermore, schedules of records transfer were to be devised to avoid the unnecessary accumulation of records i n the r e g i s t r i e s , and poorly managed r e g i s t r i e s had to be properly arranged and described or sent d i r e c t l y to the archives. The care of archives s t i l l held i n the government r e g i s t r i e s was to be f a c i l i t a t e d by an e s p e c i a l l y created p o s i t i o n of archives custodian (Behdrdenarchivpfleger) within the bureaucracy, who was to constitute the l i n k between the r e g i s t r y o f f i c e r and the archival i n s t i t u t i o n by a s s i s t i n g i n the storage, arrangement and description, and appraisal of records. Local government, that i s , c i t i e s , m unicipalities, and towns, although outside of immediate state control, were i n p r i n c i p l e included as well i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the archives custodians 4 3. Yet, t h i s d i r e c t i v e was only implemented i n one central government department, namely the Ministry of J u s t i c e 4 4 . Possible reasons may again point to the fact that the German states had routinely r e s i s t e d c e n t r a l i z i n g tendencies, and i n addition disapproved of the dominant role of the state of Prussia, which 4 3 Brenneke, 414. 4 4 Ibid., 412. 28 provided the model for t h i s d i r e c t i v e 4 5 . Also, the war years would have required administrations to focus on the bare necessities of functioning, and thus there were l i t t l e time and human resources available for archival management. When the discussion about archival l e g i s l a t i o n began again a f t e r 1945, i t revealed the stagnant p o s i t i o n of a r c h i v i s t s and various l e v e l s of government from the decades before the war. A 194 9 proposal prepared by the Special Committee of the Society of German A r c h i v i s t s suggested a model that would see dramatic changes i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a r c h i v i s t s toward records creators (private and public) to be enshrined i n a common l e g i s l a t i o n binding a l l provinces. The proposal recommended to i n s t i t u t e laws that regulated the transfer of records from the records creators to archival r e p o s i t o r i e s , with a r c h i v i s t s holding the sole competence for a r c h i v a l appraisal and records d i s p o s i t i o n , as well as having a role i n records management. The resistance of private records creators and l o c a l governments to state intervention i n the following years resulted i n the dismissal of the entire proposal i n 1953 4 6. The only national l e g i s l a t i o n that obtained support 4 5 Ibid., 411. 4 6 Kahlenberg, 1972, 49. 29 from a l l sides was passed i n 1955 and was a new ed i t i o n of the cu l t u r a l property law of 1920. Archives constituted just one category of c u l t u r a l property protected from unlawful e x p a t r i a t i o n 4 7 . A few of the well-established Prussian archival advisory bodies bridging state and l o c a l governments from the 192 0s were revived and s t i l l e xist today: examples are i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the Archives Advisory O f f i c e (Archivberatungsstelle), and the P r o v i n c i a l O f f i c e for the Care of Archives {Landesamt fxir Archivpflege) i n North Rhine Westphalia 4 8. In the 1960s, a trend towards p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of a r c h i v i s t s was v i s i b l e as churches, private corporations, and l o c a l governments, established t h e i r own chapter within the Society of German Ar c h i v i s t s , and also formed t h e i r own i n t e r - p r o v i n c i a l professional associations, but t h i s did not re s u l t i n any ef f o r t towards the issuing of archival l e g i s l a t i o n 4 9 . The federal Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n of 1977 [Datenschutzgesetz) worked as a catalyst for a renewed 4 7 Hans Booms, "Die Archivgesetzgebung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland," Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique 57(1986): 69. 4 8 Wolfgang Leesch, "Das Deutsche Archivwesen. Ein informatorischer Uberblick," Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique41 (1970): 452-453. 4 9 Toni Diederich, "Registraturgut in Kommunalverwaltungen," Der Archivar 25 (1972): 39-42: and Volker Schafer, "Universitatsarchive," Der Archivar 37 (1984): 449-452. 30 discussion of comprehensive archival l e g i s l a t i o n 5 0 . The 1977 law created an impediment to the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of government records/archives by the public, and forced a r c h i v i s t s to rethink t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with records creat o r s 5 1. The issues of regulated transfer of records, closure periods of sen s i t i v e records, and d i s p o s i t i o n needed urgent attention. Although a r c h i v i s t s had no authority with respect to records creators, they had a mandate, more or less l e g a l l y defined (otherwise perceived as professional obligation), to provide access to records to the public. In the following years, p r o v i n c i a l and federal archives administrations lobbied t h e i r respective superior government agencies to create a law that would secure access to and use of government archives. The province of Baden-Wiirttemberg was the f i r s t to pass a law on "the care and use of archives" i n 1987. This law s p e c i f i c a l l y included a l l other public archives within the p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , such as community and c i t y archives 5 2. The f i r s t federal archives law (Bundesarchivgesetz) on "the protection and use of records of the federation" was 5 0 Gesetz zum Schutz vor Missbrauch personenbezogener Daten vom 27. Januar 1977 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, S. 201), in: Archivum XXIX (1981):104. 5 1 Booms, 1986, 70. 5 2 Franz, 1990, 39. 31 passed i n 198853. It was, however, li m i t e d to the archives produced by federal bodies. This law st i p u l a t e d that a l l federal m i n i s t r i e s had to transfer a l l t h e i r respective records of no further administrative use to the Bundesarchiv (Art.1 of the Bundesarchivgesetz). Excluded from t h i s o b l i g a t i o n were the l e g i s l a t i v e bodies of Parliament and Upper House, which could decide themselves whether to o f f e r records to the Bundesarchiv for appraisal and transfer, and when. S p e c i f i c a l l y included i n the provisions of the law was the previously independent Ministry of Foreign A f f a i r s {Auswartige Amt) and i t s P o l i t i c a l Archives. The Bundesarchiv f i n a l l y was given the sole competence for appraisal: the t r a n s f e r r i n g administrations were e n t i t l e d to a s s i s t i n the process, but were given no authority to decide on f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n (Art.3). Those records which the Bundesarchiv had designated as having enduring value had to be transferred to the Bundesarchiv i t s e l f . A l l other records were to be destroyed. The aspects which were to be considered i n the appraisal decisions were: 1. the l a s t i n g value of records for research and for the understanding of German history; 2. the protection of the c i v i c rights of c i t i z e n s ; and Hoffmann, Appendix 3, 607-612. 32 3. the provision of access to information to the l e g i s l a t u r e , the j u d i c i a r y , and the administration. In addition, the Bundesarchiv was given the authority to advise the federal government i n records management (Art.2). The archival "human rights" , that i s , the c i v i c r i ght of use of federal government records was f i n a l l y l e g a l l y protected. A r e s t r i c t i o n period of 30 years a f t e r records creation or, i n the case of records dealing with natural persons, 30 years a f t e r t h e i r death, had to be observed (Art.5). Longer periods of closure applied to records of government f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t e s (80 years), and records protected for reasons of national security. In addition, access to records s t i l l retained by the administrations themselves was l e g a l l y guaranteed, and t h i s meant that the location of a record no longer influenced whether access was to be granted. In 1989, the provinces of Bavaria, Hessen, and North Rhine Westphalia passed laws with the same content as the federal law. The remaining provinces, and some of the new provinces of former East Germany followed s u i t i n the early 1990s 5 4. 54 Ibid., 613. 33 In summary, a f t e r the i n i t i a l discussions i n the la t e 1940s, the interest i n archival l e g i s l a t i o n seemed to wane for a long period of time. This may be explained i n part by the fact that the sense of chaos and urgency following the Second World War were gradually replaced by a sense of s t a b i l i t y and order. With the proclamation of the Federal Republic of Germany i n 1949, the separate spheres of j u r i s d i c t i o n of provinces and state were confirmed 5 5. In the 1950s, the administrative structures of the p r o v i n c i a l governments were i n a phase of consolidation, and any desire for a c e n t r a l l y organized and l e g i s l a t e d a r c h i val system i n Germany l o s t i t s appeal. Solutions to archival problems were sought through dialogue with i n d i v i d u a l governments, and improvements to intern a l regulations. The Special Committee of the Society of German A r c h i v i s t s , which had been the only common body for a l l archives and a r c h i v i s t s , regardless of t e r r i t o r i a l and p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n , dissolved i n 1952 to be replaced by the conference for government a r c h i v i s t s of provinces and state i n 1953, but t h i s increased p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of a r c h i v i s t s did not lead to archival l e g i s l a t i o n . It was only i n the 1980s Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz) 1949. Article 30: regarding the distribution of competencies between provinces and state; Article 146: regarding the temporary nature of the constitution. 34 that government a r c h i v i s t s succeeded i n esta b l i s h i n g a legally-grounded rela t i o n s h i p with t h e i r sponsors. 35 CHAPTER THREE: ARCHIVAL ORGANIZATION AND LEGISLATION IN EAST GERMANY In East Germany, archival organization soon came under cent r a l i z e d state control, and a uniformly structured archives system resulted. The building of a state archives system was perceived as an int e g r a l part of the formation of communist society. As East Germany slowly phased i n the Soviet model of government, private property underwent progressive n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n through dispossession. In p a r t i c u l a r , the na t i o n a l i z a t i o n of industry and a g r i c u l t u r a l production was considered v i t a l to the planning of economic growth under communist p r i n c i p l e s . This understanding of state r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s n a t u r a l l y resulted i n a s i g n i f i c a n t extension of state j u r i s d i c t i o n i n archival matters. The ob l i g a t i o n to protect and manage large volumes of records resulted i n the gradual increase of central control over the state archives system. In 1946, without hesitation, the Russian m i l i t a r y administration supported the foundation of a Central German Archives (Deutsches Zentralarchiv) i n i t s occupied zone, i n 36 part because the main bulk of the holdings of the former Reichsarchiv was located there and urgently needed c u r a t o r i a l attention. The new Central Archives was placed under the authority of the Soviet a l l i e d administration, s p e c i f i c a l l y under the Department of National Education {Verwaltung fur Volksbildung) . The promptness with which the Russian authorities acted, and the administrative l i n k i n g of archives to national education were in d i c a t i v e of the p o l i t i c a l importance that communist countries assigned to archives. The Central Archives was i n i t i a l l y given the following mandate: 1. to care for the archives of the former Reichsarchiv; 2 . to acquire the records of the dissolved central government {Reich) and Prussian government agencies; 3 . to acquire the non-current records of the new central administration of the Soviet occupied zone; 4 . to acquire the non-current records of p o l i t i c a l p a rties, labour unions, "democratic mass organisations", and industry; 5. to " c o l l e c t " contemporary materials; 37 6. to acquire the archival holdings of the pre-war a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s of the former German t e r r i t o r i e s i n the east as far as they were located within the Soviet zone; and, 7. to deal with fundamental archival questions as instructed by the Department of National Education 5 6. This mandate was eventually reduced i n a few areas. The c o l l e c t i o n of contemporary materials and sources became the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of two new documentation centres: the Insti t u t e for Contemporary History (Institut fur Zeitgeschichte), and the German Economic Inst i t u t e {Wirtschaftsinstitut) . S i m i l a r l y , p o l i t i c a l and "mass organisations" created a f t e r 1945, such as the r u l i n g S o c i a l i s t Uniformity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei), and the National Trade Union (Freie Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund), established t h e i r own archives, with the 5 8 Central Archives merely having an advisory role . The fact that the mandate included records and materials of non-government provenance, which now were considered to be the property of the people, that i s , of industry and other 5 6 Helmut Lotzke, "Zehn Jahre Deutsches Zentralarchiv," Archivmitteilungen 6 (1956): 35 quoted in Kahlenberg, 1972,31. 5 7 Gerhard Schmid, "Probleme des nicht-staatlichen Archivwesens im Deutschen Zentralarchiv in Potsdam," Archivmitteilungen 6 (1956): 46-50 quoted in Kahlenberg, 1972, 32. 5 8 Heinz Vosske, "Das Zentrale Parteiarchiv der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands," Archivmitteilungen 17 (1967): 44-46, and Georg Reitsch, "Das Archivwesen des Freien Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes," Archivmitteilungen 17 (1967): 25-72, both cited in Kahlenberg, 1972, 32. 38 private organizations, i s evidence of the progressive transformation of East German society under Soviet guidance. Accordingly, the evolution i n the organization of the state archives system was characterized by a marked s h i f t i n ar c h i v a l competencies and functions. The archival system of the Soviet Union, which had accumulated half a century of experience, became the model for East Germany. The claim of the communist state to a l l archives o r i g i n a t i n g i n public bodies, and t h e i r conceptual aggregation under the term 'State Archival Fonds' {Staatlicher Archivfonds) were f i r s t presented and stated i n 5 9 the Soviet Union, following a decree by Lenin i n 1918 . This claim was soon subject to an expanded i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n East Germany to include non-current records, and the expression of the right of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s to control records management and to secure the proper care of records at the place of cr e a t i o n 6 0 . With the proclamation of East Germany as a sovereign state i n 1949, i t s s o c i e t a l transformation from western s t y l e democracy to communism had come to completion. The central archives administration began to create mechanisms Botho Brachmann, Archivwesen der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik , ((East-)Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaft, 1984), 142. This publication is a good source of reference on the archival organization and literature of the former Soviet Union. 6 0 Brachmann, 1984, 143. 39 to regulate the management of archives and records under state control, and to formalize them through l e g i s l a t i o n . Professional cohesion, and the continuous involvement of ar c h i v i s t s of a l l archival j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n of new l e g i s l a t i o n and i n the objectives of archival work were f a c i l i t a t e d by the establishment of a national archives journal. The central archives administration created the only archival journal of East Germany, e n t i t l e d "Archivmitteilungen", i n 1950, a journal i n i t i a l l y intended to be an int e r n a l government publication only. In 1953, i t began to be widely d i s t r i b u t e d and, since then, i t evolved to become a professional organ for the continuing education of a r c h i v i s t s and for the communication of reports and the discussion of work projects, as well as a venue for the dissemination of research i n a r c h i v al theory and practice. Professional development was further supported by regular, state sponsored a r c h i v a l conferences, held since the early 1950s 6 1. A f i r s t l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t i n g the archives system was passed i n late 1949. It prohibited a l l records creators i n the 6 1 Wolfgang Leesch, "Zur Entwicklung des mitteldeutschen Archivwesens," Der Archivar 18 (1965): 345. 40 public domain from destroying any records . This p r o h i b i t i o n seemed necessary a f t e r the uncontrolled destruction of records that took place i n the f i r s t chaotic years a f t e r the war. The records had to be kept with the records creators u n t i l proper archival care could be established. The establishment of the state archives system proceeded by creating a separate central archives department, the Department for Archives Management (Hauptabteilung f u r Archivwesen), i n the central Department of the I n t e r i o r . It included a section for the Central German Archives, a section for archives education, and a section for economic archives 6 3. The f i r s t fundamental l e g i s l a t i o n regarding the organization of the archives system of the new state was passed i n 1950 6 4. It impacted d e c i s i v e l y on the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l competencies of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s which had existed p r i o r to World War Two. It should be noted that East Germany had a federal state structure between 1945 and 1952. There were f i v e provinces {Lander) : Thuringia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, and Brandenburg, which were formed from pre-war 6 2 Ministerialblatt der DDR 1950, No.l, S.l. Printed in: Archivmitteilungen 1 (1951): 7ff quoted in Kahlenberg, 1972, 69. 6 3 Leesch, 1970, 430. 6 4 Gesetzblatt der DDR 1950, No. 92, S. 836. Printed in: Archivmitteilungen 1 (1951): 9ff quoted in Kahlenberg, 1972, 70. 41 confederated states, Prussian provinces, and a duchy. Each province had a "main" p r o v i n c i a l archives {Landeshauptarchiv) which administered a number of subsidiary p r o v i n c i a l archives. These p r o v i n c i a l archives c o l l e c t i v e l y were placed e i t h e r under the p r o v i n c i a l Ministry of the Interi o r (Brandenburg), the pr o v i n c i a l Ministry of National Education (Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Mecklenburg), or d i r e c t l y under the premier of the province (Saxony) 6 5. Prior to East Germany becoming a sovereign state i n 1949, the central archives administration i n B e r l i n had no authority over the p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations. With the 1950 archives l e g i s l a t i o n , t h i s independence was progressively undermined, as i t represented the f i r s t step towards a c e n t r a l l y directed archives system. The central Department for Archives Management was given the authority to issue d i r e c t i v e s regarding the archives administrations and archival i n s t i t u t i o n s of a l l provinces 6 6. In 1951, the p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations experienced a further reduction i n powers. Now, the main p r o v i n c i a l archives within each province also constituted i t s Leesch, 1965, 346. Leesch, 1970, 430. 42 6 V archives administration . The p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations became responsible to the central Ministry of Interio r v i a t h e i r respective p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s of Interior. The p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations were delegated authority to oversee a l l archives i n t h e i r respective provinces, including c i t y and municipal archives, and business and industry archives. Special departmental sections were created i n the p r o v i n c i a l archives administration: one for the pr o v i n c i a l archives, one for municipal and c i t y archives, and 6 8 one for business and industry archives . The l o c a l governments and economy were brought under state control also by means of two regulations aimed to implement the 1950 l e g i s l a t i o n : i n 1950, the creation of archives i n a l l nationalized industries, businesses, and a g r i c u l t u r a l 6 9 productions became a requirement ; and, i n 1951, l o c a l governments were required to transfer t h e i r archives to either e x i s t i n g or new c i t y archives, or to newly established municipal archives 7 0. Leesch, 1984 (a), 121. Leesch, 1965, 347. Minsterialblatt 1950, No.10, S. 1. Printed in: Archivmitteilungen 1 (1951): 8 cited in Kahlenberg, 1972, 71. Ministerialblatt 1951, No. 9, S.l. Printed in: Archivmitteilungen 1 (1951): 1 Iff cited in ibid. 43 In 1951, i t became a leg a l requirement for every government administration to create an agency archives {Verwaltungsarchive) where the non-current records were to be managed by a t e c h n i c a l l y trained archives administrator 7 1. The 1949 l e g i s l a t i o n on records protection, which prohibited the destruction of records by records creators, could thus be enforced. The purposes of the agency archives were s i m i l a r to the West German o f f - s i t e storage concept of the 1960s. Yet, the l e g a l competence for the East German agency archives was much more c l e a r l y defined and far-reaching. An agency archives regulated and supervised records management i n the current administration, ensured the orderly r e g i s t r a t i o n of records, supervised records scheduling, and ca r r i e d out the sel e c t i o n process; i t looked a f t e r the transfer of records, and provided access to records for current administrative use. The goal was to transfer only already selected archives to a " f i n a l a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n " {Endarchiv) . The appraisal process took place i n two stages i n two separate archives. The disposal of records by the agency archives constituted the se l e c t i o n for destruction of those records judged a priori as not worthy of preservation. The " f i n a l archives" was the place where the 7 1 Leesch, 1965, 352. 44 p o t e n t i a l l y valuable records were appraised for purposes of se l e c t i o n for f i n a l a c q u i s i t i o n (see Chapter Five). The agency archives were placed under the authority of t h e i r respective archives administration: the professional supervision of the a c t i v i t i e s of the agency archives within central government agencies rested with the Central Archives, having been delegated to i t by the central Department for Archives Management; the supervision of the a c t i v i t i e s of the agency archives of the regional and l o c a l government agencies was instead the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p r o v i n c i a l archives administration 7 2. In t h i s system, every government administration had one agency archives. A c e r t a i n degree of concentration, where an agency archives was responsible for several government administrations, such as the government records centres i n West Germany, was not attempted u n t i l the 1970s. One s h o r t - l i v e d exception existed i n the former province of Saxony, and was abandoned due to j u r i s d i c t i o n a l restructuring i n 1952 7 3. The year 1952 marked the o f f i c i a l and f i n a l transformation of East Germany from a federal state to a uniform c e n t r a l i z e d 7 7 ibiZ 7 3 Ibid., 353. 45 state, conform to the communist state model of Soviet design. The f i v e provinces were replaced by fourteen regions {Bezirke) without h i s t o r i c a l roots, and named a f t e r t h e i r respective new ca p i t a l s . Lower administrative units comprised the approximately two hundred d i s t r i c t s (Kreise), which included the former c i t i e s and muni c i p a l i t i e s . The right to municipal self-government was e f f e c t i v e l y annulled i n t h i s reform. The regions and d i s t r i c t s were administered by t h e i r respective councils (.Rate der Bezirke, and .Rate der Kreise) . The councils for the regions and d i s t r i c t s answered to t h e i r respective elected public representation (Volksvertretung), which i n turn answered to the unicameral People's Assembly of the State (Volkskammer) 74. The consequence of the p o l i t i c a l reform of 1952 was a f i n a l concentration of archival competence with the central archives administration, which was renamed State Archives Administration {Staatliche Archiwerwaltung) i n 1953. Temporarily, the former p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations were renamed Archives Inspectorates (Archivinspektion), and placed under the authority of t h e i r respective sections for Leesch, 1970, 431. 46 i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s i n the regional councils. However, the competence of the central archives administration soon rendered the existence of regional archives inspectorates e n t i r e l y redundant. Their r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were absorbed i n 1954 by the sections for in t e r n a l a f f a i r s i n the respective regional councils. In other words, the management of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s was no longer the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of professional a r c h i v i s t s , but became one of the components i n the work of government administrators trained i n arc h i v a l practices. In p a r t i c u l a r , at the regional and d i s t r i c t l e v e l , the councils' archives o f f i c i a l s were not un i v e r s i t y trained a r c h i v i s t s ; instead they received more t e c h n i c a l l y oriented archival i n s t r u c t i o n , and were comparable to modern ar c h i v a l technicians 7 5. In addition, there was only one archives o f f i c i a l i n charge of a l l archives located i n one region, which included one or several of the former p r o v i n c i a l archives, numerous d i s t r i c t archives, and those of economic agencies. However, a regional archives administrator received assistance 7 6 from the managers of d i s t r i c t archives . 7 5 Leesch, 1965,348. 7 6 Ibid. 47 The d i s t r i c t archives e s s e n t i a l l y received archives and non-current records from various l o c a l government bodies i n one central i n s t i t u t i o n . Each d i s t r i c t archives thus served a dual role as: 1. the agency archives of the d i s t r i c t council; and 2. the " f i n a l archives" for records transferred from the d i s t r i c t ' s agency archives, and for the archives of businesses and economic organizations and c i t i e s i n the d i s t r i c t which had 77 not been granted the right to maintain t h e i r own archives A complete adjustment of archival j u r i s d i c t i o n s to the 1952 regional administrative structure took more than a decade. After the archives l e g i s l a t i o n of 1965, some of the major regional archives received the designation of "state" archives, others that of " h i s t o r i c a l state" archives, and s t i l l others were reduced to branches of the state archives, or archives storage 7 8. The breaking date for the designation of an archival i n s t i t u t i o n as " h i s t o r i c a l state archives" was the year 1952. Accordingly, the "state archives" continued to operate as repositories for records created since 1952,. and the " h i s t o r i c a l state archives" closed t h e i r holdings at the year 7 7 Ibid., 351. 7 8 Wolfgang Leesch, "Entwicklungstendenzen im Archivwesen der DDR," Der Archivar 25 (1972): 168. 48 1952. The h i s t o r i c a l state archives were placed under the authority of the state archives. In 1976, f i n a l l y , the h i s t o r i c a l state archives were reduced to mere branches of the state archives, which, due to space l i m i t a t i o n s , required additional storage for t h e i r own modern holdings 7 9. The archives l e g i s l a t i o n of 1965 also established the authority relationships within the state archives system. The state archives organization was directed by the State Archives Administration of the Ministry of the Inte r i o r . The Central German Archives was d i r e c t l y responsible to the State Archives Administration. Archives at the regional and d i s t r i c t l e v e l were supervised and controlled by the central State Archives Administration. They received administrative assistance from the sections for int e r n a l a f f a i r s i n the regional and d i s t r i c t councils. The agency archives of central government agencies had authority over agency archives of lower l e v e l government bodies 8 0. Ministerialblatt 1976. Printed in: Archivmitteilungen 26 (1976): 126 cited in Leesch, 1984 (a), 123. 8 0 Gerhart Enders, Archivverwaltungslehre . ((East-)Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1968), 24. 49 The plan to b u i l d a separate archives system for the state's economic management soon encountered serious problems, and was eventually abandoned. The mandatory establishment of a " f i n a l archives" for each major economic area proved to be u n r e a l i s t i c . In addition, the large number of economic management agencies incurred unreasonably high f i n a n c i a l and st a f f t r a i n i n g costs for t h e i r maintenance. The frequent restructuring i n the economic sector has been c i t e d as another reason impeding the formation of sp e c i a l i z e d archives system 8 1. The t h i r d major archives l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1976 f i n a l l y determined that only large economic agencies, and those with p a r t i c u l a r economic significance were to have t h e i r own " f i n a l a r c h i val 82 • • i n s t i t u t i o n " . Most economic agencies merely had to maintain an agency archives which, s i m i l a r l y to the agency archives of government administrations, transferred records that had undergone the sele c t i o n process to regional, d i s t r i c t , or c i t y a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n s 8 3 . In addition, the 1976 l e g i s l a t i o n made provisions for the concentration of agency archives of sim i l a r economic administrative areas 8 4. 1 Leesch, 1965, 355. 2 Leesch, 1984 (a), 125. 3 Wolfgang Leesch, "Neuorganisation des Archivwesens in der DDR," Der Archivar 29 (1976): 393. 4 Leesch, 1984(b), 508. 50 Problems also occurred i n the management of the countless agency archives within government administration. In addition to f i n a n c i a l constraints, the number of a r c h i v i s t s required 8 5 exceeded the capacity of archival t r a i n i n g programs . The 1976 archives l e g i s l a t i o n f i n a l l y established that the number of agency archives ought to be reduced by integrating those of sim i l a r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , and creating "decentralized" agency archives, or records centres which transferred t h e i r records to the regional, d i s t r i c t , and c i t y archives i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n 8 6 . The 1976 l e g i s l a t i o n also expanded the State Archival Fonds. Previously, t h i s was comprised of archives held i n f i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . The new int e r p r e t a t i o n included "potential archives" which was defined as a l l records that are to be created and have been created and are i n the 8 7 custody of the records creator i n the agency archives . Accordingly, the competence of government agency archives was broadened to include the entire appraisal process, c a r r i e d out according to prescribed guidelines, before the records were transferred to the competent f i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n 8 8 . Lieselott Enders, "Zum System der Bewertung," Archivmitteilungen 18 0968): 188-189. Wolfgang Leesch, "Das Archivwesen der DDR seit 1971," Der Archivar 37 (1984) (b): 508. Leesch, 1976, 391. Leesch, 1984(b), 508. 51 The development of the archives system for the management of the State Archival Fonds was e s s e n t i a l l y completed i n the late 1970s. It provided the framework within which state objectives regarding the a c t i v i t i e s of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s and a r c h i v i s t s were ca r r i e d out. As indicated at the beginning of t h i s chapter, the archives system was perceived as an essen t i a l participant i n "the progressive evolution of the 8 9 state towards an advanced form of communism" . A b r i e f i l l u s t r a t i o n of the basic tenets of the Marxist-Leninist world view w i l l help to understand the role of archives and archival i n s t i t u t i o n s i n East Germany. It w i l l also illuminate the philosophical underpinnings of the discussions surrounding the appraisal function presented i n Chapter Five. In the o v e r a l l state structure, archival i n s t i t u t i o n s f u l f i l l e d functions which, according to Marxist-Leninist philosophy, aided society to proceed on i t s path to equality and freedom 9 0. The s o c i e t a l study of archival information, together with the information held, for example, i n museums and l i b r a r i e s , was to f a c i l i t a t e an understanding of the human condition as i t evolved over time. The evolution of society 8 9 Leesch, 1976, 391. 9 0 Enders, G., 1968, 18. 52 was believed to be subject to pre-determined l a w s o f economic 9 X development ( h i s t o r i c a l materialism) . As a class - d i v i d e d society struggled to become a c l a s s l e s s society ( d i a l e c t i c materialism) i t needed to be supported by a state structure which f a c i l i t a t e d the id e o l o g i c a l advancement of the 9 2 i n d i v i d u a l . In t h i s context, the main purpose of arc h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s was to make available archival information p a r t i c u l a r l y for p o l i t i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l , research, l e g a l , economic, and cultural-educational uses 9 3. Archival information provided the basis for h i s t o r i c a l research, which was to explore and track the evolution of society. The res u l t s of t h i s research were to further the necessary i d e o l o g i c a l education of the i n d i v i d u a l 9 4 . Archival science, as one of the s o c i a l sciences, was obliged to devise plans and solutions 9 5 aimed at s a t i s f y i n g the " s o c i e t a l need" for information . As the economy and the entire s o c i e t a l l i f e were subject to central planning and regimentation, the same applied to the archives system and i t s a c t i v i t i e s . Government conventions 9 1 Willem Banning, Karl Marx. Leben. Lehre und Bedeutung. (Munchen and Hamburg: Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag , 1966), 74. 9 2 Ibid, 75. 9 3 Brachmann, 1984, 154. 9 4 Ibid., 15. 9 5 Leesch, 1972, 164. 53 {Parteitage), which occurred at approximately f i v e year i n t e r v a l s , formulated p r i n c i p a l d i r e c t i v e s . On the basis of long term goals, the prospective f o c i were determined and l a i d out i n master plans for a given period of years (Perspektiveplan)96. On the basis of these plans, the central archives administration then determined the tasks for subordinate archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . Accordingly, every archival i n s t i t u t i o n , every a r c h i v i s t ' s working group, and each a r c h i v i s t were instructed to prepare a work plan for the coming year, which was then subject to control and approval 9 7. The modus operandi of defining goals and planning cycles i n the East German archives system focused on a number of di f f e r e n t a r c h i val a c t i v i t i e s over time. A de t a i l e d description of these e f f o r t s would go beyond the scope of t h i s thesis, but examples are worth mentioning: thus, work on description and arrangement resulted i n universal "guidelines for description and arrangement", published i n 196498; between the late 1950s and the 1980s, the appraisal of modern records was given major attention (see Chapter Five); beginning i n the 9 6 Brachmann, 1984,37-75. 9 7 Leesch, 1984(b), 496. 9 8 Ordnungs-und Verzeichnungsgrundsatze fur die staatlichen Archive der DDR. 1964. Discussed in Brachmann, 1984, 305; and G. Enders, 1968, 104. 54 late 1960s, the d e f i n i t i o n of archival science within Marxist-Leninist philosophies was the focus of arc h i v a l a c t i v i t y ; and, the reworking of archival terminology as l o g i c a l consequence began i n 1970 9 9. In summary, the proclamation of a State Archival Fonds and the resultant expansion of archival j u r i s d i c t i o n s sanctioned the establishment of a c e n t r a l l y c ontrolled archives system i n East Germany. Archives generated by the central state administrations, public i n s t i t u t i o n s , and economic management were placed under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Central Archives; the p a r a l l e l i n s t i t u t i o n s and agencies on the regional l e v e l were under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the competent state archives; and the archives generated by the lowest l e v e l s of government i n the d i s t r i c t s were placed under the competence of the d i s t r i c t , and c i t y a r chives 1 0 0. In contrast to West Germany, East Germany immediately focused on the management of modern archives and accordingly developed a system of i n s t i t u t i o n s supported by central government l e g i s l a t i o n . In West Germany instead, the t r a d i t i o n a l occupation of the h i s t o r i a n - a r c h i v i s t Eberhard Schetlich, "Zur Terminologie der marxistisch-leninistischen Archivwissenschaft," Archivmitteilungen 20 f 19701: 62; and 23 (1973): 71-73, 113-115, 149-153. 1 0 0 Enders, G , 1968, 24-27. 55 with "old" records resulted i n a slow development of modern records management concerns a f t e r 1945. The competence of East German archival i n s t i t u t i o n s was progressively broadened and t h i s allowed for the extensive control of records management i n government and economic administration through the creation of agency archives, followed by the expansion of a r c h i v a l j u r i s d i c t i o n to records creation i t s e l f . By the 1950s, i n East Germany, the program of a r t i c u l a t i n g comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n for the protection of archives under state j u r i s d i c t i o n seemed completed, while at t h i s same time West German e f f o r t s were on the brink of f a l t e r i n g . The economic goals and planning of the East German l e g i s l a t u r e defined the objectives for the a r c h i v a l system. The supreme authority of the central state archives administration over a l l archives and records administrations i n the state provided a basis for coordinating a r c h i v a l tasks, promoting coherence i n archival research, and implementing p o l i c i e s . The p o l i t i c o - i d e o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of East German archival a c t i v i t i e s stood i n stark contrast to West Germany, where archival i n i t i a t i v e s were s o l e l y the domain of i n d i v i d u a l , and r e l a t i v e l y unguided archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . 56 CHAPTER FOUR: APPRAISAL THEORY AND METHODS IN WEST GERMANY In West Germany, discussions concerning appraisal theory and methods did not begin u n t i l the 1950s. The contributions of a r c h i v i s t s 1 at the l a s t pre-war German Archives Conference i n Gotha i n 1937 had provided the l a s t important s t i m u l i 1 0 1 . The conference contributions by the Prussian state a r c h i v i s t s H.0.Meisner and H.Meinert had been p a r t i c u l a r l y important. Meisner reported on the f i r s t findings of the Prussian archives commission on sel e c t i o n for d i s p o s i t i o n , which operated from 1936 to 1940. He urged that appraisal decisions be no longer based on the i n t u i t i o n of the a r c h i v i s t {Fingerspitzengefiihl) but on cle a r rationales, based on appraisal g u i d e l i n e s 1 0 2 . In fact, Meisner had i n i t i a t e d the "Motivenberichte", that i s , reports which Prussian state a r c h i v i s t s had to prepare since the late 1920s for every major records d e s t r u c t i o n 1 0 3 . In the late 1930s, the Prussian state archives administration had c a p i t a l i z e d on these reports and worked out p r i n c i p l e s for 1 0 1 For a description of the development of value concepts in appraisal in Germany prior to the 1930s, see Klumpenhouwer, Concepts of value. 1 0 2 Brenneke, 42. 1 0 3 Bodo Uhl, "Die Geschichte der Bewertungsdiskussion," in Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung , ed. Andrea Wettmann, Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 21 (Marburg, 1994), 22. 57 records d i s p o s i t i o n (Gruppengrundsatze) for several government agencies 1 0 4. In his presentation at the 1937 conference, Meisner also suggested c r i t e r i a for judging the value of documents which referred to t h e i r age, content, and the rank of t h e i r records creator within the administrative hierarchy 1 0 5. The c r i t e r i o n of age resulted into a mandatory preservation of archives created p r i o r to the 16th Century 1 0 6; i t r e f l e c t e d German a r c h i v i s t s ' primary concern with pre-modern records. The c r i t e r i o n of content referred to the informational value of records: Meisner believed that considerations of the importance of the informational content of records should not be relinquished e n t i r e l y . He judged necessary the preservation of those records which provided information about the creation of agencies, i n p a r t i c u l a r related laws, decrees, and regu l a t i o n s 1 0 7 . Meisner explained his c r i t e r i o n of rank as a way of giving p r i o r i t y to central government agencies over l o c a l agencies. However, a deciding factor s t r i c t l y connected to i t was whether the records of a central agency resulted from 108 a decision-making competence {Federfiihrung) . In concluding his argument, Meisner stressed that appraisal p r i n c i p l e s should 1 0 4 Brenneke, 39-40, footnote 23. 1 0 5 Heinrich O. Meisner, "Schutz und Pflege des staatlichen Archivgutes unter besondere Beriicksichtigung des Kassationsproblems," Archivalische Zeitschrift 45 (1939): 47 discussed in ibid., 42. 1 0 6 Meisner, 1939, 47. 58 not be considered a dogma, as such a view would paralyze the 109 a r c h i v i s t ' s freedom of decision making At the same conference, Meinert attempted to summarize i n a systematic way the previously a r t i c u l a t e d methods of records appraisal. He e s p e c i a l l y emphasized the o r i g i n of documents, that i s , t h e i r provenance. He supported the view, also expressed i n the f i n a l report of the Prussian committee on selection, that a knowledge of structure, functions, and procedures of the records creator was fundamental and was a st a r t i n g point for a p p r a i s a l 1 1 0 . However, Meinert also asserted that i n the f i n a l analysis, s e l e c t i o n for d i s p o s i t i o n was a sele c t i o n according to the informational content of documents, that i s , the subject matter. The evaluation of the content was to follow established standards of value, which Meinert found i n society i t s e l f as represented by the state {Staat), the people (Volk) , and the culture {Kultur)111. Meinert contended that the appraisal of the informational content of records 1 0 8 Ibid., 49. | " Ibid., 50. Hermann Meinert, "Die Aktenwertung. Versuch einer methodologischen Zusammenfassung," Mitteilungen der Preussischen Archivverwaltung (1939): 106 discussed in Brenneke, 42. 'Final Report of the Prussian Commission on Selection', 1940, discussed in Uhl, 1994, 22. 1 1 1 Meinert, 1939, in Uhl, 1994, 22. 59 remained a d i f f i c u l t task, as a r c h i v i s t s had to anticipate and respect future research interests of agencies and h i s t o r i a n s 1 1 2 . The discussions of the 1930s demonstrated a p a r a l l e l i s m of two appraisal approaches, one based on the value of the informational content of documents, and the other on the provenance of the records, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y on the a c t i v i t i e s and nature of the records-creating agencies. Common to both approaches was, however, the conviction, at times e x p l i c i t l y expressed, that archives existed to s a t i s f y the h i s t o r i c a l demand for sources. Whether and how these approaches were to be reconciled appeared not to have been a concern of a r c h i v i s t s at that time. A delineation of t h e i r implications was attempted i n the discussions following the war, which were characterized by an entrenchment on one of two positions: that advocating a content approach, and that supporting the provenance approach. In the early 1950s, when East Germany b u i l t i t s "agency archives" system, West German p r o v i n c i a l archives administrations l i m i t e d themselves to reforming i n t e r n a l 1 1 2 Meinert, 1939, in Brenneke, 43. 60 regulations and u t i l i z i n g i n part the records destruction guidelines of Prussian times. In government agencies which had e f f i c i e n t records keeping systems, d i s p o s i t i o n schedules for cert a i n records classes were implemented that fi x e d the length of time a f t e r which records were either destroyed or transferred to archival i n s t i t u t i o n s 1 1 3 . These measures proved unsatisfactory, as they did not s u f f i c i e n t l y reduce the high volumes of records generated i n e x i s t i n g government agencies. The problem was exacerbated as.lack of storage became severe, i n p a r t i c u l a r i n the p r o v i n c i a l a r chival i n s t i t u t i o n s . The issue of appraisal was pressing, and the German Archives Conference of 1957 i n Koblenz addressed the urgency of the problem by searching for d i f f e r e n t appraisal methods. There was consensus on the need to f i n d ways to reduce d r a s t i c a l l y the flood of records towards archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . Prominent contributions at t h i s conference came once again from a r c h i v i s t s of the pre-war Prussian archives t r a d i t i o n . Meinert had proposed a l i t t l e e a r l i e r , and did again so, with more emphasis, at the conference, to place the focus on the "positive" decision of what to keep rather than on the 1 1 3 Kahlenberg, 1972, 101. 61 t r a d i t i o n a l "negative" decision of what to destroy"1"1*. This s h i f t i n focus was l a t e r termed the revolutionary "Copernican turn" (Kopernikanische Wende) i n a p p r a i s a l 1 1 5 . Meinert believed that the a r c h i v i s t , being h i s t o r i a n , had to consider h i s t o r i c a l research and methods i n a r r i v i n g at p o s i t i v e s e l e c t i o n . He stressed that a po s i t i v e s e l e c t i o n did not stem from the needs of records creating agencies 1 1 6. Yet, he conceded that, i f pos i t i v e s e l e c t i o n u t i l i z e d his value.categories proposed i n the 1930s, the issue would soon arise of how value could be concretely formulated. With a sense of resignation, Meinert concluded that "a good a r c h i v i s t had to be something of an a r t i s t " . In reverting back to t r a d i t i o n a l views, he stated that, as experience and practice were valuable but not s u f f i c i e n t , a passion and an i n t u i t i v e decision were ,117 required The a r c h i v i s t s G.W.Sante andW.Rohr who had also been involved i n the pre-war Prussian committee on selection, urged a r a d i c a l reduction of the records to be i n d e f i n i t e l y 1 1 4 Hermann Meinert, "Von archivischer Kunst und Verantwortung," Der Archivar 9 (1956): 283. 1 1 5 Hans Booms, "Gesellschaftsordnung und Uberlieferungsbildung," Archivalische Zeitschrift. 68 (1972): 25; English translation, "Society and the formation of a documentary heritage," Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987): 93. 1 1 6 Hermann Meinert, "Zur Problematik des modernen Archivwesens aus der Sicht eines Stadtarchivars," Archivalische Zeitschrift 54 (1958): 99. 1 1 7 Ibid., 100. 62 preserved. Both proposed to begin s e l e c t i o n not with the records themselves, but with the records creators, that i s , government agencies, and thus to exclude whole agencies from preservation. Sante explained that only those agencies which were most s i g n i f i c a n t i n the structure of government administration, the "creme de l a creme", should be considered. The si g n i f i c a n c e was to be determined by analyzing and assessing the functions of each s p e c i f i c agency i n r e l a t i o n to XX8 the other agencies . He also said that only those records which were to be preserved permanently should enter the archival i n s t i t u t i o n , while a l l records of temporary value, even i f needed for a r e l a t i v e l y long time, should be kept by the records c r e a t o r 1 1 9 . Rohr, i n an attempt to make Sante's concept workable, suggested to rate agencies within t h e i r administrative hierarchy. The deciding c r i t e r i a had to be the degree of autonomy of an agency, i t s degree of competence for decision-making, the significance of i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and 12 0 the h i s t o r i c a l or leg a l importance {Tragweite) of i t s work 1 1 8 Georg W. Sante, "Behorden-Akten-Archive. Alte Taktik und neue Strategien," Archivalische Zeitschrift 54 (1958): 93. 1 , 9 Ibid. 1 2 0 Wilhelm Rohr, "Zur Problematik des modernen Aktenwesens," Archivalische Zeitschrift 54 (1958): 79. 63 In contrast, F.Ziramermann, a r c h i v i s t of a younger generation, r e v i s i t e d the content-based approach to appraisal. He asserted that the essen t i a l character of sele c t i o n r e l a t e d to the informational content of single documents or, at most, the content of certai n forms of records. He i n s i s t e d that the o r i g i n of documents, the provenance, was only he l p f u l i n so f a r as i t indicated which records creators did not produce valuable material to begin with. Provenancial considerations were thus merely focusing on negative selection, which was too i n e f f i c i e n t for reaching desirable r e s u l t s . A p o s i t i v e s e l e c t i o n had to consider the value of documents to the users. Zimmermann recommended that the a r c h i v i s t pay more attention to the l e g a l , p r a c t i c a l , and research uses of arc h i v a l sources. A r c h i v i s t s ought to benefit from current and past h i s t o r i c a l research i n q u i r i e s , as means to i d e n t i f y areas of inquiry worth knowing about 1 2 1. Zimmermann concluded that the demand for documents by researchers, present and future, determined t h e i r 1 2 1 Fritz Zimmermann, "Wesen und Ermittlung des Archivwertes," Archivalische Zeitschrift 54 (1958): 121-122. 1 2 2 Ibid., 106-107. 64 The intense discussions of the late 1950s ended without consensus on the th e o r e t i c a l foundation of appraisal methods. However, i n t e r e s t i n g l y , the contributions of Meinert, Rohr, and Sante at the 1957 conference were accepted and implemented by East German a r c h i v i s t s , as w i l l be seen i n Chapter Five. In the 1960s, West German a r c h i v i s t s continued t h e i r struggle to fi n d an agreement on the solution to the problem of appraisal. The a r c h i v i s t J.Papritz, professor at the Archives School i n Marburg, i n the mid 1960s, suggested to approach the problem of appraisal from a d i f f e r e n t angle. He maintained that progress could only be made i f a r c h i v i s t s studied the various forms of records 1 2 3. The st r u c t u r a l differences of, for example, case f i l e s , subject f i l e s , and correspondence f i l e s , could be used as the basis for the d e f i n i t i o n of appraisal standards d i s t i n c t for each records form (Stru/cturtyp) 1 2 4. Moreover, since the same record forms occurred across many records creators, a r c h i v i s t s could create appraisal guidelines for each type only once. Based on these guidelines, standardized appraisal catalogues could be created that would 1 2 3 Johannes Papritz, "Methodik der archivischen Auslese und Kassation bei zwei Strukturtypen der Massenakten," Der Archivar 18 (1965): 118. 1 2 4 Johannes Papritz, "Zum Massenproblem der Archive," Der Archivar 17 (1964): 219. 65 be useful for a l l government records i n West Germany. Papritz c a l l e d attention to the appraisal practice of Prussian a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the 1920s and 1930s. A r c h i v i s t s there had applied the standardized reports on records d i s p o s i t i o n across many records creators, and thus were able to exclude large parts of r e g i s t r i e s from preservation i n archives. Papritz had great f a i t h i n the capacity of the records keeping system to guide appraisal as was evident i n his recurrent description of the r e g i s t r y system of Prussian times and i n the recommendations that he derived from an analysis of i t s structure. In essence, he believed that a thorough examination of the s t r u c t u r a l components of the modern r e g i s t r y system would be able to lead i t s appraisal. .This conviction became p a r t i c u l a r l y clear when he r e i t e r a t e d the stance of A. Brenneke, the i n f l u e n t i a l supporter of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, that the process of appraisal was e s s e n t i a l l y a component of the process of arrangement and d e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 5 . Papritz did not address the method for determining the values used to decide on the destruction or preservation of the various record forms. He simply stated that valuation and 12 6 s e l e c t i o n had to be based on s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s 1 2 5 Papritz, 1965, 119 quoting Brenneke, 38. 1 2 6 Papritz, 1964,220. 66 Despite the persistent lack of an appraisal theory which would determine appraisal methods, a r c h i v i s t s began to incorporate some of the suggestions made by archival writers into appraisal practice. However, the t r a d i t i o n a l view that archives had to be selected according to general values, whether l e g a l , administrative, or scholarly, was upheld. In describing the various appraisal methods devised over the years, the archival l i t e r a t u r e simply avoided addressing the the o r e t i c a l basis, or rationale for appraisal decisions. In fact, a r c h i v i s t s turned to what was more fe a s i b l e and p r a c t i c a l . In the absence of a universal value theory, formal appraisal c r i t e r i a were favoured which were based on an analysis of the organization and functions of records creators. As a sort of prerequisite of appraisal, t h i s analysis provided a r c h i v i s t s with a better understanding of the context of records creation. Values could emerge i n the course of the. process i t s e l f 1 2 7 . Thus, a r c h i v i s t s became more involved i n the workings of records administrations. The s h i f t of parts of the appraisal process away from the archival i n s t i t u t i o n s allowed for an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the valuable records at a much e a r l i e r time, and thus addressed the problem of volume before the 1 2 7 Friedrich P. Kahlenberg, "Aufgaben und Probleme der Zusammenarbeit von Archiven verschiedener Verwaltungsstufen und Dokumentationsbereichen in Bewertungsfragen," Der Archivar 25 (1972)(a): 57-58. 67 material arrived i n the archival i n s t i t u t i o n . Three approaches could be recognized at t h i s time: 1. the creation of archival advisory programs which sought cooperation with the records-creating administrations; 2. the creation of di v i s i o n s within archival i n s t i t u t i o n s dealing with the management of non-current records s t i l l i n the custody of the agencies; and 3. the creation of o f f - s i t e records centres (Zwischenarchive) under archival j u r i s d i c t i o n . Archival advisory programs established i n some provinces were concerned with, for example, the creation of records retention schedules and the improvement of records keeping practices by promoting the formation of consistent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes and f i l e p l a ns 1 2 8. The province of Hamburg had begun as early as 1951 to employ special archives custodians (Behordliche Archivpfleger) delegated by the pr o v i n c i a l archives to a s s i s t the government i n records management and d i s p o s i t i o n 1 2 9 . However, most provinces opted for the second approach, and established mechanisms within the " 8 Franz, 1990, 77. 1 2 9 Hans W. Eckardt, "Auswahlverfahren und Bewertungskriterien im Archiv des Stadtstaates Hamburg," Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 117. 68 archival i n s t i t u t i o n s f or taking care of non-current records s t i l l i n the custody of the creating agency, although the records service obligations to creating agencies did not r e s u l t i n a benefit for the archives with respect to i n t e l l e c t u a l . -, 130 control The concept of o f f - s i t e storage i n decentralized records centres, at the core of the t h i r d approach, allowed for a better control of resources. A recommendation for the creation of records centres had been voiced by the a r c h i v i s t s Rohr, Sante, Meinert, and Zimmermann i n the papers they delivered at the 1957 Archives Conference. Accordingly, the purpose of records centres was to "divert the volumes of records away from the archival i n s t i t u t i o n s " 1 3 1 . Records centres were j u s t i f i e d as temporary solutions as they allowed the a r c h i v i s t ample time to make appraisal decisions. It was hoped that without time and space constrictions a r c h i v i s t s could develop appraisal . 132 c r i t e r i a "Franz, 1990, 79. 1 Sante, 95. 2 Meinert, 1958, 100; Rohr, 86; and Zimmermann, 1958, 119. 69 Although only two records centres were a c t u a l l y b u i l t , one for federal government records (1965), and one for government records of the province of Lower Saxony (1969), they provide another insight on how government a r c h i v i s t s chose to deal with appraisal. The federal records centre of the Bundesarchiv, as the more prominent one, w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l . By the early 1960s, the federal government archives, the Bundesarchiv, began to experience the record volume problems that p r o v i n c i a l archives had dealt with since the early 1950s. The Bundesarchiv, which was confined to make-shift quarters i n Koblenz, could not cope p h y s i c a l l y with the flood of the non-current records from federal m i n i s t r i e s . The task of appraisal was further complicated as the qu a l i t y of record keeping practices i n some federal m i n i s t r i e s had declined i n comparison to pre-war times. This required an assessment of the agency's organization and f i l e plans before any decision about the value of records could be made133. The records centre of the Bundesarchiv opened i n 1965 i n proximity to the federal m i n i s t r i e s i n Bonn 1 3 4. Transfer to and processing of 1 3 3 Friedrich P. Kahlenberg, "Das Zwischenarchiv des Bundesrachivs-Institution zwischen Behorde und Archiv." Der Archivar 21 (1968): 39. 1 3 4 Hoffmann, 364. The federal records centre was located in Bonn-Bad Godesberg, until in 1971 it moved to a new facility in St. Augustin-Hangelar near Bonn, which was the first specially designed records centre in Europe. 70 m i n i s t e r i a l records i n the federal records centre were regulated through the Common Rules of Procedure (Gemeinsame Geschaftsordnung der Bundesministerien)135. The records creator set the length of the retention period, calculated from the time the records arrived i n the centre. As the non-current records were s t i l l i n the custody of the records creator, and some administrative use was ongoing, a r c h i v i s t s provided reference services for the records creators. A r c h i v i s t s c a r r i e d out appraisal for d i s p o s i t i o n and selection, and records judged worthy of preservation were transferred to the custody of the archives a f t e r the expiry of t h e i r retention periods. As discussed i n Chapter Two, the competence for appraisal, however, was not c l e a r l y a ttributed to the Bundesarchiv u n t i l the enactment of the f i r s t federal archives l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1988. The appraisal practice i n the records centre was guided by the purpose of maintaining evidence of the organizational structure, through which the federal government c a r r i e d out i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 1 3 6 . The establishment of a systematically organized index, l i s t i n g the competencies and organizational 1 3 5 Hoffmann, 365, and Appendix 2d, 586-587. 1 3 6 Kahlenberg, 1968,42. 71 structures, aided i n t h i s process. This tool was u t i l i z e d further to i d e n t i f y and describe records r e l a t i n g to a pa r t i c u l a r subject matter, thus providing the appraising 13 7 a r c h i v i s t s with a comprehensive basis for comparison . By the early 1970s an appraisal method had been defined which followed 13 8 two basic c r i t e r i a , namely : 1. the completeness of the h i s t o r i c a l record {Uberlieferung) ; and 2. the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the records creating agency. The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n applied only to those records of federal government agencies which were under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Bundesarchiv. Completeness was ensured through the role by the records centre i t s e l f , as i t received the e n t i r e t y of non-current records of a l l government agencies. Therefore, d i s p o s i t i o n of records by the records creators was made t h e o r e t i c a l l y impossible. The second appraisal c r i t e r i o n related to the degree of competence of the administrative unit within an agency. Competence was defined to consist of two elements: decision making competence (Federfuhrung), and 1 3 7 Ibid. 1 3 8 Irmtraut Eder-Stein, and Gerhard Johann, "Das Bundesarchiv-Zwischenarchiv," Der Archivar 32 (1979): 295-296. 72 p a r t i c i p a t i n g competence. Those records which demonstrated decision making process were preserved, regardless of informational content. Yet, i f a subject matter was judged p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the records r e l a t i n g to i t were preserved. On the other hand, those records which were the resu l t of a p a r t i c i p a t o r y competence required further assessment. If there was evidence of confrontation of the unit generating them with the superior administrative unit, then the records were preserved. The appraisal practice of the Bundesarchiv as implemented i n the federal records centre was a clear i n d i c a t i o n of the preference for a provenance based approach to appraisal. An analysis of functions and competencies of the records creator was at the basis of the appraisal process. However, the element of content evaluation was present as well. Determining the significance of a subject matter, or i t s "controversial nature", required the assignment of a r e l a t i v e value to the records. Implicit i n t h i s a c t i v i t y was the assumption that certa i n events were more interesting, and thus more valuable, to researchers than others. The strongly provenance focused appraisal strategy was adopted by the Bundesarchiv, somewhat 73 paradoxically, only a few years a f t e r i t s president H. Booms had delivered his passionate c a l l for a content-based appraisal theory, culminating i n his documentation plan for society. At the West German A r c h i v i s t s Conference i n Dortmund i n 1.971, Booms, i n his well-known presentation, provided a thorough analysis of the inherent flaws i n past approaches to 13 9 archival appraisal theory and methods . Booms maintained that systematic methodologies based on provenancial considerations had not been e f f e c t i v e , as they had l e f t open the question of judging the value of records 1 4 0. He believed that records did not have an inherent value; rather, the a r c h i v i s t assigned values to records 1 4 1. Therefore, a r c h i v i s t s ought to concentrate on the appraisal of the informational content of records. The necessary value c r i t e r i a had to be taken from society i t s e l f . Booms wanted a r c h i v i s t s to f i n d ways which yielded s o c i e t a l values, and proposed a documentation plan which would l i s t the events and processes which deserved consideration i n For a discussion of Booms' article, see also Klumpenhouwer, Concepts of value. 136-147. 1 4 0 Booms, 1972, p. 20, and 34 (in the original German publication). 1 4 1 Ibid., 14. 74 the appraisal of records . A r c h i v i s t s had to use research methods from the various h i s t o r i c a l and s o c i a l sciences i n order to gain insight into h i s t o r i c a l processes and determine which events were s i g n i f i c a n t 1 4 3 . The f i n a l mechanism of control i n t h i s evaluation process should be society i t s e l f . Thus, Booms recommended that the a r c h i v i s t consult the contemporary a r t i c u l a t i o n s of public opinions, provided they were formulated i n a p o l i t i c a l l y unrestricted environment 1 4 4. Booms's suggested that t h i s strategy ought to be ca r r i e d out within the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l competence of each a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n , and the outcome of the appl i c a t i o n of the strategy to a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s would be a complete documentary heritage of s o c i e t y 1 4 5 . Within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Bundesarchiv, he recommended that the organization and competence index compiled i n the federal records centre be used to i d e n t i f y and locate where and by whom records containing subject matter of s o c i e t a l s i gnificance were created 1 4 6. Booms' contribution i s s i g n i f i c a n t because for the f i r s t time appraisal methodology was approached from a philosophical 142 Ibid, 34-35. Ibid, 36. Ibid, 37-38. Ibid. Ibid, 40. 143 144 145 146 75 point of view, and the motivations underlying the various appraisal methods of the past were explored. His support of a content based approach to records appraisal by i t s e l f was reminiscent of the past. Yet, his expansion of the approach to a formulation of a documentation plan for society's h i s t o r y was something r a d i c a l l y new. His plan was rejected by his peers as unwieldy and u n r e a l i s t i c 1 4 7 , and was never r e a l i z e d i n West Germany. However, i t came to f r u i t i o n i n East Germany (see Chapter Five). It i s therefore i n t e r e s t i n g to study the h i s t o r i c a l context, the professional atmosphere, which made Booms' v i s i o n of a s o c i e t a l value theory for ar c h i v a l appraisal and the resultant documentation plan possible. Booms' contribution was i n response to a claim made i n 1969 by the East German a r c h i v i s t H.-J. Schreckenbach. He had written that "the hopelessness of bourgeois a r c h i v a l science, due to i t s given s o c i e t a l context, was unable to solve the problem of information appraisal i n a d e f i n i t e manner". Schreckenbach concluded that "a comprehensive, s c i e n t i f i c a l l y based system of information appraisal, one that i s v a l i d f or a l l areas of society, i s i n the f i n a l analysis only possible 1 4 7 Gerhard Granier, "Die archivische Bewertung von Dokumentationsgut, eine ungeloBte Aufgabe," Der Archivar 27 (1974): 231-240. 76 under the conditions of s o c i a l i s t society" . The mixing of p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n and professional i n t e g r i t y characterized the deterioration i n the relat i o n s h i p between East and West German a r c h i v i s t s which began i n the late 1950s. During the early 1950s, constructive dialogue had occurred as can be seen, for example, i n the a c t i v i t y of the working group on German archival terminology which had produced a common German publication i n I960 1 4 9. As well, conferences i n East and West Germany were attended by a r c h i v i s t s of both sides and papers were given, u n t i l the verbal altercations at the Historian Conference i n T r i e r (West Germany) i n 1958 e f f e c t i v e l y severed a l l d i r e c t professional t i e s 1 5 0 . This resulted i n the subsequent boycott by East German a r c h i v i s t s of a l l subsequent West German a r c h i v i s t conferences. Schreckenbach's a r t i c l e of 1969 merely s p e c i f i e d the id e o l o g i c a l tenor which had characterized, since the mid 1960s, the East German arc h i v a l journal "Archivmitteilungen", and the East German h i s t o r i c a l publications, such as the "Journal for History" (Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft)151. Booms' paper, at the 1971 Hans-Joachim Schreckenbach, "Stand der Informationsbewertung in kapitalistischen Landern," Archivmitteilungen 19(19691: 182. 1 4 9 Heinrich 0. Meisner and Wolfgang Leesch, "Grundzilge einer deutschen Archivterminologie," Archivmitteilungen 10 (1960): 134-152. 1 5 0 Kahlenberg, 1972, 90. 1 5 1 Booms, 1972, 4, footnote 8. 77 conference, represented c l e a r l y a reaction to the recurrent antagonistic comments made by East German a r c h i v i s t s . His formulation of a s o c i e t a l value theory should be understood as an attempt to vindicate West Germany's p l u r a l i s t i c society and i t s a b i l i t y to develop a genuinely democratic value theory. In doing so, Booms addressed a question raised by the a r c h i v i s t Meinert i n 1958 on whether the method of the d i a l e c t i c Marxism adhered to by communist countries could indeed ar r i v e at genuine se l e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s 1 5 2 . However, Booms' desire to address East German i d e o l o g i c a l claims was only part of what spurred him to write his paper. His contribution occurred within the context of a program of inquiry of the German A r c h i v i s t Society on a c q u i s i t i o n and appraisal. The West German.Archivists Conference i n Dortmund represented the l a s t i n a set of three conferences held between 1969 and 1971 and designed to s o l i c i t discussions on t h i s program of inquiry. The interest i n the area of ar c h i v a l a c q u i s i t i o n i n the 1960s was a r e f l e c t i o n of a strong trend i n the information professions concerned with the formation of a comprehensive documentation of society. It should also be Meinert, 1958, 99. 78 r e c a l l e d that the 1960s saw the beginning of e l e c t r o n i c information technologies, which provided storage for more and more data and opened up the p o s s i b i l i t y of sophisticated data manipulation and improved access provisions. The anticipated c a p a b i l i t i e s of information storage and r e t r i e v a l , combined with an increase i n records production, were a factor i n the discussions on documentation. The idea of a r c h i v i s t s as active shaper of, or at least active contributors to the documentary heritage of society was sincerely entertained at the time. The notion of government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s being merely responsible to care for records of t h e i r sponsors was repeatedly challenged, a phenomenon that could be traced back to the early 1900s 1 5 3. Many a r c h i v i s t s supported the idea of formally and o f f i c i a l l y expanding the archival i n s t i t u t i o n s ' a c q u i s i t i o n mandate to include non-archival information materials to complement t h e i r archival holdings on c e r t a i n subjects. Booms in p a r t i c u l a r had been a strong proponent of the recognition of archival c o l l e c t i o n s (private fonds) as an i n t e g r a l part i n the Heinz Boberach, "Dokumentation im Archiv," Der Archivar 16 (1963): 211. 79 a c q u i s i t i o n mandate of public archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . Booms claimed that a r c h i v i s t s , i n c o l l e c t i n g archival materials above and beyond those of t h e i r sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n s , had long recognized that the sum of a l l a c t i v i t i e s of government agencies was not congruent with the sum of a l l h i s t o r i c a l and p o l i t i c a l l i f e 1 5 5 . His documentation plan proposed at the 1971 conference was i n a sense a natural extension of his a l l i a n c e with segments i n the documentation movement. The issue of the significance of archival work for society at large and of the ar c h i v i s t s ' o b l i g a t i o n to the public i n r e l a t i o n to how and what to select was one of the questions he intended to address. Although, as indicated e a r l i e r , Booms' documentation plan was rejected as u n r e a l i s t i c and unwieldy i n West Germany, the larger documentation movement of the 1960's succeeded i n influencing p o l i c y making. Noteworthy was the 1974 UNESCO resolution for a program c a l l e d "National Information Systems" (NATIS), which aimed at a coordinated organization of national infrastructures i n the areas of documentation, l i b r a r y and 1 5 6 archives . In the same vein, the West German government Hans Booms, "Grenzen und Gliederungen zeitgeschichtlicher Dokumentationen in staatlichen Archiven," Der Archivar 19 (1966): 31-46. 1 5 5 Booms, 1972, 34 (in the original German publication) 1 5 6 Eckhart Franz, "Archiv und Archivfunktion innerhalb des Gesamtbereichs Information und Dokumentation." Der Archivar 29 (19761: 32. 80 developed the "Information and Documentation Program" i n the early 1970s 1 5 7. After Booms' attempts at a comprehensive appraisal model, discussions of si m i l a r depth came to an end i n the 1970s. Subsequent contributions focused on less conceptual and global appraisal models, and sought more p r a c t i c a l solutions. Yet, the consideration of researchers' demands was never put aside. The 1970's C.Haase's three part series on appraisal, although reminiscent of many elements of Boom's documentation plan, was noteworthy because i t discussed for the f i r s t time the taboo 158 subject of reappraisal {Nachkassation) . Haase stated that the function of the records centres i t s e l f was a kind of organized reappraisal, because records remained untouched, due to highly variable and often lengthy retention periods, a f t e r t h e i r transfer to the records centre 1 5 9. The appraising a r c h i v i s t had ample time to gain a perspective on what to keep and what to destroy. According to Haase, archival holdings i n archival i n s t i t u t i o n s should therefore not be excluded from reappraisal. He recommended the establishment of reappraisal Ibid., 33. Bodo Uhl, "Der Wandel in der archivischen Bewertungsdiskussion," Der Archivar 43 (1990): 533. Carl Haase, "Studien zum Kassationsproblem." Der Archivar 29 (1976): 193. 81 schedules for a l l archives, and suggested to begin a reappraisal process at 100 years, but not l a t e r than 250 years, from the time when archives had become accessible for use through arrangement and d e s c r i p t i o n 1 6 0 . Haase concluded that frequency of use ought to decide whether archives survived the reappraisal process. The other noteworthy contribution came from Zimmermann, a persistent proponent of a pertinence approach to appraisal, as mentioned e a r l i e r . In 1979, he admitted that his e a r l i e r views needed a r e v i s i o n . He believed that i t was wrong to make the archival value of records dependent on t h e i r q u a l i t y as sources for h i s t o r i c a l research 1 6 1. He postulated two new kinds of value c r i t e r i a . He believed that a r c h i v i s t s had to revise t h e i r assumption as to t h e i r role i n appraisal, and argued that archival science was i n part administrative law, as arc h i v a l appraisal was i n large part defined by- administrative 162 regulations . Thus, consideration should be given to the value assigned to records by the records creator themselves. Records creators defined which records had prolonged value for 1 6 0 Ibid., 194. 1 6 1 Fritz W. Zimmermann, "Theorie und Praxis der archivischen Wertlehre," Archivalische Zeitschrift 75 (1979): 268. 1 6 2 Ibid, 270. 82 the conduct of t h e i r business, as set out i n retention schedules, which were the basis from which a r c h i v i s t s conducted t h e i r a p p r a i s a l 1 6 3 . In respecting the value determination of the records creator, the a r c h i v i s t could e a s i l y segregate the worthy from the unworthy. He termed t h i s "the primary value determination". Zimmermann's secondary value determination consisted of the process of reappraisal, the concept of which he had derived from Haase. His main tenet was to prolong the appraisal process, as value categories presented themselves i n the sequential stages of a p p r a i s a l 1 6 4 . At the beginning, the primary values became apparent; l a t e r , as records were held i n the archival i n s t i t u t i o n , other values could be determined. Zimmermann believed i n a "maturation process" within the archival i n s t i t u t i o n : the longer the records were i n the i n s t i t u t i o n , the more s i g n i f i c a n t became t h e i r research value, and the smaller the l e g a l or administrative values 1 6 5. He suggested that a r c h i v i s t s ought to reappraise records at set i n t e r v a l s . User s t a t i s t i c s could aid i n t h i s process, as they indicated which records were used most frequently, and also signaled the value of records as sources. Accordingly, the Ibid., 271. Ibid., 275. Ibid., 277-278. 83 less frequently used archives could be destroyed. Zimmermann disregarded the provenance of records as i n d i c a t i v e of value, as reappraisal would destroy records context. In fact, at the outset, he reaffirmed his b e l i e f i n pertinence, i n the informational content as the determining factor of a record's -i 166 value Although there was extensive overlap between the ideas expressed by Haase and Zimmermann, what was new was the idea that reappraisal had to be sanctioned as an acceptable method by the archival profession. Yet, the practice of reappraisal was not e n t i r e l y unknown, as i s evidenced i n the a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e of the 1970s. E x p l i c i t mention of i t can be found i n the reports of the working group on "methods and guidelines for a c q u i s i t i o n and appraisal of archives" of the previously discussed West German Archives Conference of 1971. The term "reappraisal" was, however, consistently avoided, and instead the term "fine selection" {Feinkassation) was used. For example, the main p r o v i n c i a l archives and other p r o v i n c i a l archives i n the province of Baden-Wiirttemberg, i n the 1970s, considered reappraisal a very useful t o o l . A r c h i v i s t s Ibid., 272. 84 practiced reappraisal during the process of description and arrangement, to remove duplicates, and also materials 16 7 recognized i n retrospective as not "worthy of preservation" Si m i l a r l y , a working group report on the survey of appraisal practices and methods i n many c i t y and municipal a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n West Germany came to the same conclusion. Reappraisal was considered a valuable means of "condensing" records which was c a r r i e d out most economically during the process of d e s c r i p t i o n 1 6 8 . The foregoing discussion has shown that, i n the 1970s, appraisal methods and practices had been developed or adjusted to include some of the suggestions made over time. Yet, a d i r e c t debate on appraisal theory did not occur again u n t i l 1989. The F e s t s c h r i f t of the Bundesarchiv i n honour of H.Booms, published i n 1989 (before the f a l l of the B e r l i n wall), marked the beginning of the new discussions. Two of the a r t i c l e s , by S.Biittner and O.Merker, w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e two very d i f f e r e n t points of view, reminiscent of past discussions. The federal a r c h i v i s t Biittner rejected sharply 167 Bemd Ottnad, "Methoden und Leitlinien des Archivars zur Erfassung, Bewertung und Aussonderung von Archivgut, Teil I: Registraturgut einer Landesregierung und ihrer Landesverwaltung," Der Archivar 25 (1972): 39. 168 Toni Diederich, "Methoden und Leitlinien des Archivars zur Erfassung, Bewertung und Aussonderung von Archivgut, Teil II: Registraturgut in Kommunalverwaltungen," Der Archivar 25 (1972): 42. 85 Booms' 1971 documentation p l a n 1 6 9 . He explained his reasons i n the context of c r i t i q u i n g the degree of cooperation, following the f i r s t a r c h i v al l e g i s l a t i o n of 1988, between the Bundesarchiv and i t s sponsoring m i n i s t e r i a l agencies. He commented that the Bundesarchiv had for a long time conducted appraisal u t i l i z i n g the provenance approach and st r u c t u r a l organizational p r i n c i p l e s , but found i t s strategy p e r s i s t e n t l y hampered by two main problems, namely: 1. the lack of cooperation of many m i n i s t e r i a l agencies regarding the transfer of records, as they had the f i n a l say i n determining which records were considered of no further use "for the f u l f i l l m e n t of public r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " , and thus what was subject to the a r c h i v i s t s ' appraisal work 1 7 0; and, 2. the resistance by government agencies to es t a b l i s h uniform records keeping practices, a s i t u a t i o n which impeded the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of administrative changes as to functions and competencies 1 7 1. Biittner asserted that the concept of Booms' documentation plan would have f a i l e d p r i m a r i l y because of the apparent 1 6 9 Biittner, 159-160. 1 7 0 Ibid., 155. 1 7 1 Ibid., 157-158. 86 d i s i n t e r e s t of the federal government i n accepting a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the formation of the modern documentary heritage of s o c i e t y 1 7 2 . His statement reacted to the p o s i t i o n taken by the Ministry of the Interior, responsible for the Bundesarchiv, which emphasized - as expressed i n another a r t i c l e i n the Booms' F e s t s c h r i f t - the h i s t o r i c a l research r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Bundesarchiv and envisioned i t s closer a f f i l i a t i o n with h i s t o r i c a l museums and or a l h i s t o r y X "73 programs . Furthermore, Biittner, r e f u t i n g Booms, considered archival appraisal not to be aimed at the formation of a balanced documentary heritage of the past: complex human perceptions and ideas of value could hardly be harmonized, e s p e c i a l l y when one dealt with a concrete single appraisal s i t u a t i o n 1 7 4 . Biittner concluded that appraisal decisions had to be based on ra t i o n a l and accountable professionalism, aided by systematic methodological e f f o r t s , and characterized by a general disregard of any expressed or implied p o l i t i c a l or research i n t e r e s t 1 7 5 . Ibid., 160. 1 7 3 Siegfried v. Kokritz, "Einige Bemerkungen uber die Zukunft des Bundesarchivs," in Aus der Arbeit der Archive , No. 36. Festschrift fur Hans Booms, ed. F.P.Kahlenberg (Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1989), 92-93. 1 7 4 Biittner, 160. 1 7 5 Ibid., 160-161. 87 Merker provided an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t perspective. Describing appraisal practice i n the p r o v i n c i a l archives of Lower Saxony, he stated that the value of records for present and future h i s t o r i c a l research was paramount for appraisal d e c i s i o n s 1 7 6 . He i n s i s t e d that, as the se l e c t i o n of archives determined the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of future research, a r c h i v i s t s had to be i n close communication with research d i s c i p l i n e s using h i s t o r i c a l methods. A r c h i v i s t s ought to derive from t h e i r research interests the standards for the formation of the •* X 7 7 documentary heritage (Uberlieferungsbildung) . This approach to appraisal was i l l u s t r a t e d with p r a c t i c a l suggestions regarding the selection of case f i l e s . As quantitative research methods using case f i l e s had become the main stay of researchers of the previous two decades, appraisal e f f o r t s had X7 8 to take t h i s demand into consideration for the future . In order to provide a better f i t between present appraisal methods and p o t e n t i a l demand for sources, Merker proposed the use of sampling techniques for case f i l e s aided by s t a t i s t i c a l software programs. This strategy would ensure a representative 1 7 6 Otto Merker, "Zur Bildung archivarischer Uberlieferung. Unvorgreifliche praktische Gedanken aus Landessicht," in Aus der Arbeit der Archive , No. 36. Festschrift fur Hans Booms, ed. F.P.Kahlenberg (Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1989), 143. 1 7 7 Ibid., 143. 1 7 8 Ibid., 147. 88 s e l e c t i o n of both the " t y p i c a l " and the "unique" at the same . . 179 time The contributions of Biittner and Merker may be i n d i c a t i v e of differences between the federal archives and p r o v i n c i a l archives. As indicated e a r l i e r , the Bundesarchiv, as a post-war creation, dealt l a r g e l y with contemporary government records. This s i t u a t i o n may have favoured a p r a c t i c a l approach to appraisal that has u t i l i z e d the available information, such as the records creators' organizational and functional structures, and that has narrowed i t s focus to the 18 0 documentation of government sponsorial a c t i v i t i e s P r o v i n c i a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n s , on the other hand, t r a d i t i o n a l l y dealt with archival holdings of much older o r i g i n , of which modern government records were just one component. As a res u l t , p r o v i n c i a l a r c h i v i s t s , by and large, were more accustomed to research i n q u i r i e s requesting older records. This s i t u a t i o n may i n part be responsible for ongoing support and defense of the t r a d i t i o n a l h i s t o r i c a l value approach to appraisal. In any case, Merker's and Biittner's " y Ibid, 148-149. 1 8 0 Angelika Menne-Haritz, "Anforderungen der Bewertungspraxis an die archivarische Theorie," Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 102. 89 contributions revealed that the debate surrounding a value theory of appraisal had not yet reached the point of consensus. Merker's philosophy of a records value derived from h i s t o r i c a l research gave testimony to the v i t a l i t y of the orthodox view of appraisal theory. In contrast, Biittner's assessment appeared to be v a s t l y c r i t i c a l of t h i s view, as he c l e a r l y wished to distance himself from the a t t r a c t i o n of h i s t o r i c a l and p o l i t i c a l voices lobbying for the a r c h i v i s t ' s attention i n records sele c t i o n . As w i l l be discussed i n Chapter Six, the ensuing debate gained an unforeseen momentum with the f a l l of the B e r l i n Wall i n October of 1989. 90 C H A P T E R F I V E : A P P R A I S A L T H E O R Y A N D M E T H O D S I N E A S T G E R M A N Y As discussed previously (Chapter Three), archival theory and methods i n East Germany had completely d i f f e r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l bases from those developed i n West Germany. Marxist-Leninist philosophy had been adopted as the i d e o l o g i c a l framework within which a l l s o c i e t a l a c t i v i t i e s took place. In the words of the East German a r c h i v i s t G.Enders, the p r i n c i p a l purpose of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s was to support the continued maturation of the communist society by making accessible 181 archival documents for p o l i t i c a l , academic, and economic use He further explained that, i n accordance with communist economic policy, archival appraisal was regarded as the mechanism which would ensure that the economic expenditure of preserving records was warranted by t h e i r use for s o c i e t a l purposes. Thus, the value of archival documents was determined 182 by t h e i r r e l a t i v e significance for s o c i e t a l purposes Archival standards of value were derived from the prevalent world view, which was defined by a s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of history: h i s t o r i c a l and d i a l e c t i c materialism. Of p a r t i c u l a r 1 8 1 Enders, G , 1968, 18. 1 8 2 Ibid., 86. 91 significance, therefore, were archival sources documenting the histo r y of the working class, the hist o r y of economic production, and the hist o r y of the state i n i t s educating and economic planning functions i n the context of the formation of 18 3 communist society . As the development of communist society was perceived to be an ongoing process, the d i r e c t i o n of h i s t o r i c a l i n q u i r i e s and methods was expected to change over time. Accordingly, also the appraisal of records was subject to adjustment 1 8 4. Generally, three stages can be i d e n t i f i e d i n the development of East German appraisal theory and methods 1 8 5. The f i r s t , which dealt l a r g e l y with the development of value categories, appraisal c r i t e r i a , and methodological appraisal guidelines, ended i n 1965. The second, which focused on developing appraisal tools for sel e c t i n g records creators of significance, ended i n the mid 1970s. The t h i r d stage, i n which a r c h i v i s t s turned to selecting s o c i e t a l a c t i v i t i e s worthy of documentation, came to an abrupt end with the collapse of 1 8 3 Ibid., 87. Ibid. 1 8 5 Ingrid Grohmann, "Bewertungskataloge in der ehemaligen DDR," in Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung . ed. Andrea Wettmann, Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg, No. 21 (Marburg, 1994), 40. 92 East Germany i n 1989. The following description w i l l trace the developments within each stage. Stage One: Development of Value Categories, Appraisal C r i t e r i a , and Appraisal Guidelines. In 1949, the East German state delegated the competence for appraisal to state archival i n s t i t u t i o n s by issuing s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n that prohibited records creators to destroy any record without the permission of the responsible archival i n s t i t u t i o n (see Chapter Three). With the establishment of the c e n t r a l l y organized state archives system i n the early 1950s, the structure to carry out t h i s competence was i n place. From 1945 to the early 1950s, a r c h i v i s t s u t i l i z e d and expanded on guidelines for records destruction employed by the pre-war Prussian state archives. In order to make the process of s e l e c t i o n more e f f i c i e n t , s i m p l i f i e d destruction guidelines (Kassationsrichtlinien) were produced i n 1959 and 1961 for s p e c i f i c categories of records. These guidelines were intended to be used by the records creators themselves to destroy s p e c i f i e d records without f i r s t requiring permission from the 93 186 respective f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n s . However, i n a si t u a t i o n s i m i l a r to that of West Germany i n the late 1950s, East German a r c h i v i s t s saw themselves confronted with an ever increasing volume of records. In p a r t i c u l a r , the repeated restructuring of the East German state, i n 1949 and 1952, had rendered many records creators defunct and t h e i r records i n need of appraisal. As indicated i n Chapter Four, some of the suggestions for appraisal methods and c r i t e r i a presented by West German a r c h i v i s t s at the 1957 West German A r c h i v i s t Conference i n Koblenz were implemented i n East Germany. In p a r t i c u l a r , the ideas of the West German a r c h i v i s t s Rohr, Sante, and Meinert found f u l l sanction i n East Germany. These included the concepts of po s i t i v e s e l e c t i o n and of sel e c t i o n of records creators before s e l e c t i o n of records. In fact, the East German a r c h i v i s t G.Enders described these contributions as 187 revolutionary . The East German a r c h i v i s t H.J.Schreckenbach (whose a r t i c l e had spurred Booms' documentation plan) also Enders, G., 1968, 89-90. Enders, G., 1968,91. 94 described the West German contributions as s i g n i f i c a n t steps i n the appraisal d i s c u s s i o n 1 8 8 . In 1964, an East German state commission was formed to develop appraisal methods, and i n 1965 i t published the "prin c i p l e s for appraisal for the preservation and destruction of records of the s o c i a l i s t era" (hereinafter "appraisal p r i n c i p l e s " ) 1 8 9 . The focus of t h i s method were records created since 1945 which were to be appraised i n terms of t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l and p r a c t i c a l value. The h i s t o r i c a l value category was defined as comprising s c i e n t i f i c , p o l i t i c a l , economic, leg a l , and c u l t u r a l values 1 9 0. The p r a c t i c a l value of records consisted of t h e i r capacity to serve as evidence and memory-aid for the various purposes of the state, as well as for the protection of the personal interests of c i t i z e n s 1 9 1 . The h i s t o r i c a l value of records was connected to t h e i r p o t e n t i a l use as sources for h i s t o r i c a l research. Records of p r a c t i c a l value required temporary preservation i n agency archives; records of h i s t o r i c a l value, on the other hand, required Schreckenbach, 179. 1 8 9 Grundsatze der Wertermittlung fur die Aufbewahrung und Kassation von Schriftgut der sozialistischen Epoche in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik , 1965, discussed in Enders, G , 1968, 91. 190 Giinter Miiller, "Fragen der Wertermittlung und Kassation," Archivmitteilungen 14(1964): 193, footnote 1. 1 9 1 Enders, G , 1968, 92. 95 permanent preservation i n f i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . The 1964 appraisal commission stated that the two value categories were not mutually e x c l u s i v e 1 9 3 , yet, t h e i r f i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s i n the appraisal p r i n c i p l e s ignored t h i s statement and gave to the two values a temporally sequential nature. The appraisal p r i n c i p l e s also described f i v e c r i t e r i a which were to be considered i n the appraisal process, targeting the s e l e c t i o n of both records creators and records. These 194 were : 1. the function of the records creator;• 2. the type and character of the records; 3. the completeness, form, concentration, and duplication of records; 4. special circumstances due to major s o c i e t a l changes; and 5. t e r r i t o r i a l s p e c i a l t i e s . The s t a r t i n g point of appraisal was to be the evaluation of the s o c i e t a l s i gnificance of a records creator's function. This function was assessed i n r e l a t i o n to the p a r t i c u l a r 1 9 2 Ibid. 1 9 3 Muller , p. 194. 1 9 4 Enders, G., 1968, p. 92-93. 96 s o c i e t a l area i n which the records creator acted, i t s rank i n the organizational structure within the s o c i e t a l area, and i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and competencies i n regard to t e r r i t o r i a l and subject j u r i s d i c t i o n . Generally, the records of central agencies had more sig n i f i c a n c e than those of l o c a l agencies. A si m i l a r evaluation process was to be c a r r i e d out for the administrative components of each agency 1 9 5. Based on t h i s analysis, the records creators were to be ranked into three categories. Records creators i n Category One generated records "primarily worthy of preservation" i n f i n a l a rchival i n s t i t u t i o n s (to be distinguished from agency archives, see Chapter Three). Examples of these records creators were central government bodies and t h e i r l o c a l representative agencies. In general, t h i s group was comprised of state bodies which had a leading role i n the various areas of endeavour of society. Category Two consisted of records creators whose records were " p a r t i a l l y worthy of preservation" i n f i n a l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n s . Included i n t h i s group were agencies at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l , as t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s were 195 The macro-appraisal concept developed by Terry Cook in the early 1990's for the National Archives of Canada showed some striking similarities with East Germany's appraisal of records creators prior to appraisal of records. For a comparison see Terry Cook, "Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal," in The Archival Imagination. Essays in honour of Hugh Taylor, ed. B.Craig (Ottawa: ACA, 1992). 97 p a r t i a l l y r e f l e c t e d i n records of the superior regional l e v e l . Category Three consisted of records creators whose records did not warrant the economic expenditure for preservation, e i t h e r because they c a r r i e d out mere a u x i l i a r y functions, or because t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s were s u f f i c i e n t l y documented i n superior records creators. Among the members of t h i s group were the lowest administrative l e v e l s within a c e r t a i n state domain. The appraisal p r i n c i p l e s stressed that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into the three categories was to be subject to a thorough analysis of the contextual r e l a t i o n s h i p of records creators within the structure of society. The assignment of records creators to the various categories was to be followed by a thorough 19 6 analysis of the records themselves The second of the f i v e appraisal c r i t e r i a focused on the degree of comprehensiveness and thoroughness with which a p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and the a c t i v i t i e s and processes comprised i n i t , were r e f l e c t e d i n the records. The records which concerned decision making, such as s t a t i s t i c a l reports, d i r e c t i v e s , and planning documents, were regarded as the most important. The records which related to the implementation of Muller, 194. 98 i n d i v i d u a l decisions or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , such as case f i l e s , 19 7 were considered of lesser value The t h i r d appraisal c r i t e r i o n consisted of four components: completeness, form, concentration and duplication. In order to ensure the completeness of recorded information on a given topic, a preservation of routine records was warranted. The form component related to the state of transmission of the records: o r i g i n a l s were preferred to copies. The component concentration was meant to give p r i o r i t y to documents r e f l e c t i n g higher concentrations of information: summary documents were to be chosen over documents dealing with i n d i v i d u a l incidents. The component duplication implied that the appraisal of duplicates of documents had to be conducted i n r e l a t i o n to the context i n which records were found. The fourth appraisal c r i t e r i o n referred to major s o c i e t a l changes. Records created during such times were considered more important than those created during times of slower s o c i e t a l developments. The f i f t h and l a s t c r i t e r i o n concerned t e r r i t o r i a l s p e c i a l t i e s : the preserved records were to r e f l e c t 99 the regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of records creators carrying out c e r t a i n s o c i e t a l functions, such as agriculture or industry. The issue of appraising uniform volumes of records was not addressed i n the appraisal p r i n c i p l e s ; yet, a r c h i v i s t s were to follow a basic ru l e : s e l e c t i o n techniques were not to focus on 198 the unique and spe c i a l , but on the t y p i c a l G.Enders summarized the approach of the 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s . He remarked that the appraisal c r i t e r i a and the methodological guidelines constituted the tools for solving the appraisal problem, but they did not i n themselves represent the solution. He asserted that a l l records had an information and documentation value, otherwise they would not have been created and retained by t h e i r creators. Appraisal was a matter of deciding which of these records were of value to society at large. The ultimate way of determining that value was to focus 19 9 on the informational content of records . He pointed out, however, that the content value could not be grasped by s c i e n t i f i c archival analysis. As the content of records dealt with a l l s o c i e t a l areas, a knowledge of those areas was necessary. Not only were insights into the course of East 1 9 8 Enders, G , 1968,93. 100 Germany's developmental process required, but an extensive knowledge of economics, law, and many other academic d i s c i p l i n e s was indispensable. Enders concluded stressing that appraisal remained a very complex problem. His c a r e f u l l y formulated view shows how, also i n East Germany, the problem of a value theory of appraisal continued to ex i s t . Other East German a r c h i v i s t s f e l t more confident that a r e l i a b l e value theory had been found. The a r c h i v i s t R.Kluge was a prominent supporter of t h i s view. He stated that the 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s were e s p e c i a l l y commendable as they approached the appraisal problem from the p o s i t i o n of d i a l e c t i c and h i s t o r i c a l materialism 2 0 0. Accordingly, the records' value was neither the re s u l t of in d i v i d u a l views of a r c h i v i s t s , nor was i t derived from c o l l e c t i v e subjective opinion. Rather, the value derived from the objective capacity of records to give information about s o c i e t a l situations, organizations, objects and people. Thus, the value of records was ob j e c t i v e l y conditioned by the s o c i e t a l s i gnificance of phenomena r e f l e c t e d i n them. The degree of significance could be established on the basis of a records creator's j u r i s d i c t i o n and competencies. 2 0 0 Reinhard Kluge, "Zukiinftige Aufgaben in Forschung und Praxis der Wertermittlung," Archivmitteilungen 17 (1967): 47. 101 Therefore, appraisal was not a process of assigning a value, but rather a process of i d e n t i f y i n g or recognizing a value that was o b j e c t i v e l y there. Upon i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the value of records was to be further assessed with regard to the form and kind of representation, and the pr e c i s i o n and completeness of the information i n them 2 0 1. It i s clear that G.Enders and Kluge represented two camps in the ongoing debate that took place during the 1960s and early 1970s on the o r i g i n and character of records' value 2 0 2. The proponents of Kluge's p o s i t i o n claimed the existence of an absolute value that i s inherent i n records and has to be recognized or "located" by a r c h i v i s t s . The English term "value location" corresponds best to the term "Wertermittlung", which was created to r e f l e c t t h i s view. This term was i n i t i a l l y , and most importantly, used i n the 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s . The supporters of G.Enders' p o s i t i o n believed that records only have an absolute informational content to which a r c h i v i s t s assign a value during the appraisal process. Accordingly, the term evaluation (Bewertung) was preferred to that of 2 0 1 Kluge, 1967, 47-48. 2 0 2 Lieselott Enders, "Schriftgutbewertung im Archivwesen der ehemaligen DDR," Der Archivar 45 (1992): 36. 102 a p p r a i s a l 2 0 3 . In the end i t was Enders' position, and his suggested term which eventually p r e v a i l e d 2 0 4 . Stage I I . Development of Appraisal Tools. The 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s s p e c i f i e d formalized appraisal tools which would a s s i s t i n the implementation of the prescribed appraisal methodology. In the late 1960s and 1970s, East German a r c h i v i s t s developed records creator indexes {Registraturbildnerkarteien), pattern l i s t s {Musterlis ten), and accompanying records schedules {Schriftgutkataloge). The pattern l i s t s consisted of a description of the records creators belonging i n a number of major administrative 2 0 5 domains . The pattern l i s t s registered each records creator into one of the three designated categories that ranked them i n order of importance, and determined whether t h e i r records would be considered for preservation. The pattern l i s t s formed the basis from which record creator indexes, or l i s t s , were prepared. Each archival i n s t i t u t i o n compiled one such index for i t s respective t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . This index also 2 0 3 According to the ICA Dictionary of Archival Terminology, the entry "Bewertung" corresponds to the English term 'appraisal' which encompasses the concept of'evaluation'. 2 0 4 Gerhart Enders passed away in 1972; his position continued to be articulated by his wife, Lieselott Enders. 2 0 5 Enders, G., 1968, 95. 103 served to determine which agency archives was under the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of each " f i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n " . The records schedules were to be worked out by the agency archives i n accordance with the ranking t h e i r records creator had received. In t h i s a c t i v i t y , they were assisted by the responsible archival i n s t i t u t i o n . The records schedules were to be b u i l t on f i l e plans specifying record groups, series, f i l e s , and record forms. Letter codes were then used to mark the entries according to preservation, further appraisal, or 2 0 6 destruction, the l a t t e r having retention periods attached The development of these appraisal tools was aimed at a coordinated appraisal process involving records creators, agency archives, and f i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . The f i n a l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n would be freed of most of the actual appraisal work that was to be c a r r i e d out by the agency archives. F i n a l archival i n s t i t u t i o n s would receive from agency archives primarily records of Category One. As a r e s u l t , a r c h i v i s t s of the f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n would have the time to turn to other archival tasks, namely arrangement and description, and reference service. Agency archives, on 104 the other hand, would administer records which had primarily-p r a c t i c a l value, that i s , Category Two and Three, and i n time destroy most of them following established guidelines for records d e s t r u c t i o n 2 0 7 . During the phase of development of these appraisal tools, a r c h i v i s t s raised numerous concerns regarding t h e i r actual effectiveness for records reduction. The contributions of R.Kluge, L.Enders (not to be confused with G.Enders), and B.Brachmann were p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent i n t h i s phase. Kluge proposed a strategy for the determination of the sig n i f i c a n c e of records creators. He re i t e r a t e d that the informational content of the records was dependent on the j u r i s d i c t i o n and 2 0 8 competencies of the records creators . He introduced the concept of an appraisal p r o f i l e which took into account the uniqueness of archival j u r i s d i c t i o n s . He explained that the purpose of sele c t i n g records having permanent value was to secure a documentation about the nation which was comprehensive i n content, and each f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n was to f u l f i l l i t s part i n t h i s general archival mission. The p r o f i l e of an archival j u r i s d i c t i o n was comprised of i t s economic, c u l t u r a l , 2 0 7 Kluge, 1967,51. 2 0 8 Ibid., 48. 105 2 0 9 s o c i a l , and educational structures . Kluge pointed out that the p r o f i l e would pose the question of which s o c i e t a l phenomena, processes, objects, and persons must be documented 2 1 0. He believed that the answer would lead to the appropriate records creators. He stated that i t was a misunderstanding of the appraisal p r i n c i p l e s to base the s e l e c t i o n of records creators s o l e l y on t h e i r status within the organizational structure of the state, and on t h e i r s o c i e t a l functions. He c r i t i c i z e d the pattern l i s t s (Musterlisten) of records creators as being too general. Individual records creators s t i l l needed to be selected from the general domains encompassed by the pattern l i s t s . Such s e l e c t i o n was usually c a r r i e d out according to the s p e c i f i c composition of each archival j u r i s d i c t i o n . In creating a defined documentation p r o f i l e d i s t i n c t for each archival j u r i s d i c t i o n , the p o t e n t i a l for duplication of documentation within each a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n would be greatly reduced. Kluge thought that such p r o f i l e should also consider the documentation work c a r r i e d out by other organizations i n the same j u r i s d i c t i o n , namely l i b r a r i e s and museums. He argued that, for example, future h i s t o r i c a l research into the evolution of technology would 106 u t i l i z e s c i e n t i f i c publications and descriptive records (that i s , reports and plans), rather than the records themselves. Kluge's ideas regarding a documentation p r o f i l e were an expression of the contemporary documentation movement seen elsewhere i n the western world (see Chapter Four). These concepts remained however without consequences i n East Germany u n t i l the 1980s. Kluge also proposed a d i f f e r e n t approach to appraising records themselves which was aimed to sim p l i f y s e l e c t i o n . He stressed that i t was the i n d i v i d u a l record units which r e f l e c t e d h i s t o r i c a l fact. He went on to analyze the rel a t i o n s h i p between source and fact, and i d e n t i f i e d two forms of sources on the basis of such rel a t i o n s , which he termed " r e f l e c t i o n s " 2 1 1 : 1. sources which r e f l e c t one or more aspects of a fact; and 2. sources which are characterized by empirical or t h e o r e t i c a l abstractions of such facts . The f i r s t form was exemplified by records from f e u d a l i s t and c a p i t a l i s t times, that i s , pre-1945. The second form was t y p i c a l of records of the S o c i a l i s t Period, that i s , post-1945, 1 Ibid, 50. 107 and i t was the most important i n East Germany. Kluge believed that, as the development of communist society was understood better, more s c i e n t i f i c terms would enter the sources. He used the a t t r i b u t e " s c i e n t i f i c " to mean "enlightened about the purposes and goals of communist philosophy": because of the s c i e n t i f i c q u a l i t y of the records creators' work, the resultant abstractions and summaries would have been more complete, deep, and true. For appraisal purposes, i t was s i g n i f i c a n t that the abstractions themselves contained h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s . Therefore, the q u a l i t y of a n a l y t i c a l abstractions was s u f f i c i e n t to make the sources valuable for l a t e r h i s t o r i c a l research; consequently, large groups of sources made up of unabstracted records did not need to be preserved i n d e f i n i t e l y i n a r c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s 2 1 2 . L.Enders, i n her discussion of appraisal, argued s t r i c t l y from an economic point of view. She believed that the high s o c i e t a l s i gnificance of a records creator did not imply that such creator would necessarily produce records worthy of archival preservation. Rather, i t was important to provide evidence of the existence and a c t i v i t i e s of records c r e a t o r s 2 1 3 . 2 1 2 Ibid, 51. 2 1 3 Lieselott Enders, "Zum System der Bewertung," Archivmitteilungen 18 (1968): 183. 108 This evidence did not have to come from a records creator's own records. She doubted that the e x i s t i n g appraisal p r i n c i p l e s were s u f f i c i e n t to reduce the records volume to a l e v e l that allowed for timely arrangement and description i n the f i n a l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n 2 1 4 . She feared also that the ultimate user would be inundated with records and would look for al t e r n a t i v e sources of information. Concurring with Kluge, Enders suggested that published information material, such as summary reports, s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, etc. could s u f f i c e to provide the necessary information and could replace large volumes of records. Moreover, the publishing a c t i v i t i e s of the records creators themselves would provide s u f f i c i e n t documentation of t h e i r s o c i e t a l a c t i v i t i e s and t h i s would render the archival preservation of many of t h e i r records unnecessary. In agreement with G.Enders, she emphasized that the decision about sel e c t i o n or destruction of records was not a process determined by a standard inherent i n records, but rather depended on the judgment of the a r c h i v i s t 2 1 5 . L.Enders concluded that appraisal had to be assisted by two controls, one quantitative, and one q u a l i t a t i v e . Quantitative control was provided by set t i n g a c q u i s i t i o n quotas for each a r c h i v a l 2 1 4 Ibid. 2 1 5 Ibid., 191. 109 i n s t i t u t i o n , thereby allowing for better planning i n regard to resources and archival work. Qualitative control was based on the use of records for research: the denser the informational content of archival documents preserved by arc h i v a l 2 X 6 i n s t i t u t i o n s , the more a t t r a c t i v e they were to users The contributions by B.Brachmann to the se l e c t i o n of records creators were replete with p o l i t i c a l overtones. Also, Brachmann's papers were characterized by a heavy use of terminology derived from information and documentation sciences, which had been firml y integrated into East German archival terminology i n the l a t e r 1970s 2 1 7. Brachmann, r e i t e r a t i n g state objectives for the planning period 1971-1975, stressed the id e o l o g i c a l role of the s o c i a l sciences, of which 2 X 8 archival science was part . This role was to improve further the p o l i t i c a l education of the c i t i z e n s . The purpose of archival information appraisal, i n the context of the o v e r a l l s o c i e t a l information and documentation, was to determine the so c i e t a l requirements for information. A stronger coordination with other information centres, such as l i b r a r i e s , was 1U1U. 2 1 7 Leesch, 1984(b), 499. 2 1 8 Botho Brachmann, "Zum System der Informationsbewertung in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik," Archivmitteilungen 19 (1969): 93. 110 necessary to reduce the redundancy of both records and excessive information c a p a c i t i e s 2 1 9 . Brachmann stressed that the s e l e c t i o n of records for preservation ought to concentrate more on those records creators which had the most important information for documenting the p o l i t i c a l development of society. He proposed to place far more emphasis on preserving the records of the state. In p a r t i c u l a r , the d i r e c t i v e s and documents of the r u l i n g party provided the best information. Further, the application of Marxism-Leninism had to be anchored more d e f i n i t e l y i n the 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s 2 2 0 . Brachmann urged for t h e i r thorough review so that the ranking of information sources could favour Marxist-Leninist source materials. In t h i s context, he emphatically quoted from the appraisal program of the USSR, which l i s t e d the (published) works of Lenin at the top 2 2 1. East German a r c h i v i s t s had laboured extensively at developing appraisal tools, and yet found them less e f f i c i e n t than hoped for. A new appraisal method was devised which was to simplify the process of s e l e c t i n g records creators. 2 1 9 Ibid., 94. 2 2 0 Ibid., 96. 2 2 1 Ibid. I l l Frequent restructuring within the o v e r a l l state administration had made the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of records creators d i f f i c u l t . The implementation of a framework-system {Rahmensystematik) i n 1974 was an attempt to mitigate the s i t u a t i o n 2 2 2 . The framework-system represented a generalization of the pattern l i s t s , and was to constitute the f i r s t stage i n the appraisal of records creators. Pattern l i s t s of records creators had only been created for a few selected areas, such as transportation and health care 2 2 3. The framework-system, on the other hand, showed the entire s t r u c t u r a l and h i e r a r c h i c a l organization of a l l records creators i n the state, and thus could keep account of stru c t u r a l changes more e a s i l y . In order to simplify the selec t i o n process, record creators were grouped into types across a l l s o c i e t a l areas, such as a l l educational and research bodies. The categorization of records creators was to favour a clearer segregation between worthy and unworthy, that i s , between Category One and Three respectively. Category Two was to be used very s p a r i n g l y 2 2 4 . The framework-system consisted of three parts, namely 2 2 5 : Lieselott Enders, "Theorie und Praxis im Bewertungsprozess am Beispiel neuer Bewertungshilfen," Archivmitteilungen 23 (1973): 206-210. 2 2 3 Grohmann, 39. 2 2 4 Enders, L., 1973, 206, 208. 2 2 5 Botho Brachmann, "Theorie, Instrumentarien und Praxis der Bewertung in der ehemaligen DDR und deren kritisches Bedenken," Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 111. 112 a. a l i s t of a l l records creators; b. a l i s t of record creators grouped into types {Nomenklatur); and c. a summary of records creators of Category One. Based on t h i s framework-system, each f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n i d e n t i f i e d the records creators of Category One located within i t s t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , and described them i n i t s own , . . 226 l i s t s The framework-system was complemented by new records schedules for records creators of Category One. As discussed e a r l i e r , records creators of a l l three categories were to prepare records schedules designating and scheduling a l l of t h e i r records. A r c h i v i s t s , within both the agency and the f i n a l archives, s t i l l had to separate the worthy from the unworthy, because, even for Category One records creators, only a small portion of t h e i r records were selected for f i n a l preservation. This process was accelerated by emphasizing p o s i t i v e s e l e c t i o n . Since the mid-1970s, archival i n s t i t u t i o n s worked on spe c i a l i z e d archives indexes (Archivgutverzeichnisse) which only l i s t e d those records that were p o t e n t i a l l y worthy of Enders, L , 1973,207. 113 preservation 2 2 7. They served as guide for further designating records within the conventional records schedules 2 2 8. Conversely, negative selection, that i s , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of records for destruction, was improved by the creation of generalized framework-indexes for the s i m p l i f i e d destruction of cert a i n record forms. These were to be applied by the agency archives without requiring further permission from the competent f i n a l a rchival i n s t i t u t i o n 2 2 9 . Stage I I I . Development of Content-Based Appraisal In the 1970s, an i d e o l o g i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n for a rchival work became more pronounced than i n previous discussions. This may i n part be explained as an e f f e c t of Booms' c r i t i c a l analysis of East Germany's archival world view i n his 1971 conference presentation. In fact, a textbook on the East German archival system i n preparation during that time abounded with i d e o l o g i c a l c r i t i c i s m of West German a r c h i v i s t s , 23 0 e s p e c i a l l y of Booms . This book i d e n t i f i e d the following p r i n c i p l e s as the foundation of archival work i n general and appraisal i n p a r t i c u l a r : 2 2 7 Enders, L., 1992, 38. 2 2 8 Leesch, 1984 (b), 501. 229 Grohmann, 40. 2 3 0 Brachmann, 1984. 114 1. the p r i n c i p l e s of " p a r t i a l i t y " (that i s , conforming to the party line) and " o b j e c t i v i t y " (that i s , conforming to the objectives of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy); 2. the p r i n c i p l e of h i s t o r i c a l approach; and . 231 3. the p r i n c i p l e s of universalism and complexity The declared purpose of the p r i n c i p l e s was to ensure that the ideo l o g i c a l orientation of East German a r c h i v i s t s could be seen i n maximum contrast with that of West German a r c h i v i s t s 2 3 2 . On a less polemic and more concrete l e v e l , renewed discussions began among East German a r c h i v i s t s i n the late 1970s on the value of records and the effectiveness of e x i s t i n g appraisal methods. In p a r t i c u l a r , the contributions of the ar c h i v i s t s Kluge and L.Enders were once again instrumental. L.Enders and Kluge contended that the main question of appraisal regarding the content of records and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e had not been answered by the appraisal p r i n c i p l e s of 1965 and by the resultant appraisal t o o l s 2 3 3 . They f e l t that a r c h i v i s t s were s t i l l dependent on an i n t u i t i o n (Fingerspitzengefuhl) that was i n the end the resu l t of experience and of knowledge of 2 3 1 Ibid, 225-228. 2 3 2 Ibid, 173. 2 3 3 Lieselott Enders and R. Kluge, "Stand und Aufgaben der Bewertung archivalischer Information," Archivmitteilungen 27 (1977): 13-19, discussed in Herbert Papendieck, "Das Territorialprofil-methodischer Ansatz zur Bewertung," Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 123-124. 115 history, from which value standards were developed and appraisal decisions made. Paying t r i b u t e to p o l i t i c a l requirements, the two authors also reemphasized that appraisal rested on the id e o l o g i c a l o b l i g a t i o n to supply information i n support of society's class struggle. Thus, i n the future, the information demand of society ought to be the measure for appraising archival information 2 3 4. The solution to the problem, as proposed by L.Enders and Kluge, was the creation of a documentation p r o f i l e , as a content-conceptual basis for appraisal and a c q u i s i t i o n 2 3 5 . Following these recommendations, a r c h i v i s t s s h i f t e d t h e i r attention to sele c t i n g the general s o c i e t a l phenomena, processes, events, and persons that were worth documenting. A l l appraisal tools i n combination were to inform the choice of the h i s t o r i c a l facts that were to be documented, with the 236 records capable of doing so and relevant records creators The creation of a framework-documentation p r o f i l e and of documentation p r o f i l e s for the f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n s , Lieselott Enders and R.Kluge, 1977, discussed in Menne-Haritz, 1991, 103. Lieselott Enders and R.Kluge, 1977, discussed in Papendieck, 124. Brachmann, 1984, 263. 116 formed i n the 1980s the l a s t stage i n the development of East Germany's appraisal system. The notion of a documentation p r o f i l e was not e n t i r e l y new to East German a r c h i v i s t s . The previously discussed 1967 a r t i c l e by Kluge had i n fact discussed a s i m i l a r instrument. Kluge had formulated a documentation p r o f i l e which aimed at documenting the s o c i a l phenomena s p e c i f i c to each ar c h i v a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . This p r o f i l e was to function as a guide i n sele c t i n g records creators of sig n i f i c a n c e i n the competent j u r i s d i c t i o n s . But Kluge's version of the p r o f i l e did not o f f i c i a l l y become part of the appraisal tools when i t was proposed i n 1967, although, the notion of t e r r i t o r i a l differences among archival i n s t i t u t i o n s was p a r t l y addressed within the context of j u r i s d i c t i o n - s p e c i f i c record creator indexes (pattern l i s t s ) . However, at the time, the necessity for an abstraction of Kluge's t e r r i t o r i a l documentation p r o f i l e to transform i t into a state wide documentation plan had not yet been f e l t . L.Enders and Kluge were the leading a r c h i v i s t s i n the development of the documentation p r o f i l e s i n East Germany. In 117 1979, Kluge provided the d e f i n i t i o n and scope of the documentation p r o f i l e as the whole of the h i s t o r i c a l facts which were to be documented by means of records preservation. He explained that, with the help of the documentation p r o f i l e , further events and processes could be selected which were worthy documenting because of t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e 2 3 7 . The f i r s t step was the creation of the framework-documentation p r o f i l e . It was intended to provide a common guide for the subsequent creation of documentation p r o f i l e s for f i n a l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n . The framework-documentation p r o f i l e was structured chronologically and by s o c i e t a l domains. Chronologically, i t was divided into the o f f i c i a l periods of state history, as designated by government (these were at the time: 1945-1949, 1949-1961, 1961-1971, and 1971-1981). For each period, the p r o f i l e was further subdivided into fourteen 23 8 parts by subject or theme complexes, as follows : 1. p o l i t i c a l organization of society; 2. protection of state and society; 3. industry and construction; 4. trades and services; 2 3 7 Reinhard Kluge, "Das Dokumentationsprofil-Schliissel zur positiven Auswahl von Dokumenten als Archivgut," quoted in Lieselott Enders, "Stand und Probleme der Ausarbeitung des Rahmendokumentationsprofils der staatlichen Archive der DDR," Archivmitteilungen 32 (1982): 173. 118 5. agriculture, forestry, and food production; 6. environmental protection and water works; 7. domestic and foreign trade; 8. transportation, post, and communications; 9. finances and prices; 10. education; 11. culture; 12. youth p o l i t i c s and sports; 13. s o c i a l p o l i t i c s and health care; and 14. foreign p o l i t i c s and international r e l a t i o n s . Within each of these d i v i s i o n s , a further grouping into sub-areas and topics occurred. For each chronological period, a b r i e f summary of prevalent s o c i e t a l trends was provided. The subject and theme complexes were accompanied by references to relevant state l e g i s l a t i o n , and p o l i c i e s . L.Enders asserted that the content description was not simply an enumeration of h i s t o r i c a l facts, but rather a conceptual description of major h i s t o r i c a l developments. She gave a few examples, such as the establishment of the "dictatorship of the p r o l e t a r i a t " , and the " r e a l i z a t i o n of the 119 leading role of the working c l a s s " 2 3 9 . Other examples included "increase i n book reading as habit", "securing of the unity of science and s o c i a l i s t ideology", "establishment of workers' forces against provocation", and "new stage i n s o c i a l i s t c u l t u r a l revolution towards the formation of a u n i v e r s a l l y evolved s o c i a l i s t p e r s o n a l i t y " 2 4 0 . L.Enders, responding to c r i t i c i s m by East German colleagues, stated that the events and processes i d e n t i f i e d i n the documentation p r o f i l e had a c t u a l l y been used before, but they had not been fi x e d on paper. The formalized documentation p r o f i l e merely l i s t e d what every a r c h i v i s t had applied, namely a s o l i d h i s t o r i c a l knowledge, an understanding of the t e r r i t o r i a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of the respective archival i n s t i t u t i o n , and a recognition of the documentary poten t i a l of the respective records. L.Enders noted that the p r o f i l e would be most useful for a r c h i v i s t s who were inexperienced i n conducting h i s t o r i c a l research. This p a r t i c u l a r comment s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed the concerns, voiced by other a r c h i v i s t s as well, that the a r c h i v i s t s ' d i r e c t 2 3 9 Ibid., 174. 2 4 0 Angelika Menne-Haritz, "Das Provenienzprinzip-ein Bewertungssurrogat?," Der Archivar 47 (1994): 240, footnote 35, quoted from the 1984 framework-documentation profile. 120 involvement with h i s t o r i c a l research had suffered, due to the s t r i c t ' d i v i s i o n of archival work and to lack of h i s t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g 2 4 1 . L.Enders reaffirmed her conviction that a r c h i v i s t s generally ought to be hist o r i a n s . On the same grounds, she considered documentation p r o f i l e s valuable tools for f a c i l i t a t i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l access i n the context of the arrangement and description process. However, she emphasized that the documentation p r o f i l e would not r e l i e v e a r c h i v i s t s from deciding which records constituted the optimal documentary sources for h i s t o r i c a l research. L.Enders concluded with the admonition that documentation p r o f i l e s were only tools which would aid a r c h i v i s t s i n the creative, s c i e n t i f i c appraisal 242 process The 1984 framework-documentation p r o f i l e formed the basis for creating the documentation p r o f i l e s for i n d i v i d u a l f i n a l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n s . The rela t i o n s h i p between national history and regional and l o c a l history had not been discussed i n the context of the preparation of the documentation p r o f i l e s . Some of the major regional archives attempted to compensate for t h i s bias by advocating the preparation of 2 4 1 Enders, L . , 1982, 174. 121 t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e s 2 4 3 . They c a l l e d upon the 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s , which had s p e c i f i e d that t e r r i t o r i a l uniqueness and d i v e r s i t y ought to be considered. A t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e was to contain a description of a given t e r r i t o r y i n terras of economic and geographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and for a given period of time. A r c h i v i s t s lobbied successfully to make sure that these p r o f i l e s had precedence over the documentation f o c i prescribed by the frame-work documentation p r o f i l e . By the l a t e 1980s, the documentation p r o f i l e s of f i n a l a r c h i val i n s t i t u t i o n s consisted of the following three components 2 4 4 : 1. the national framework-documentation p r o f i l e ; 2. the documentation p r o f i l e with regional f o c a l points derived from the f i r s t component above; and 3. the t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e , which conceptually preceded the second component. East Germany's documentation p r o f i l e bears s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s to Booms' documentation plan, as noted by the West German a r c h i v i s t B.Uhl 2 4 5. The development of the documentation p r o f i l e s i n the 1980s was received with severe c r i t i c i s m i n 2 4 3 Papendieck, 124. 2 4 4 Ibid. 2 4 5 Uhl, 1990, 534. 122 West Germany246 . The issues were r e v i s i t e d by both sides a f t e r the collapse of East Germany i n 1989, as w i l l be discussed i n Chapter Six. 2 4 6 Angelika Menne-Haritz, "Indizierung oder konventionelle Verzeichnung?," Der Archivar 38 (1985): 411-412. 123 CHAPTER SIX: APPRAISAL THEORY IN GERMANY AFTER 1989 During the tumultuous period following the collapse of the East German cent r a l i z e d government i n 1989, East Germany began a process of p o l i t i c a l democratization and opening of society to pluralism. The revolutionary renewal of East Germany's society, as i t was termed, expressed i t s e l f through an interim government and free elections. Economic and p o l i t i c a l considerations, however, favoured a r e u n i f i c a t i o n with West Germany, which occurred i n October of 1990 2 4 7. The s t r u c t u r a l integration of former East German ar c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s did not require any major modification of the basic organization of the government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s of the former West Germany. Five new provinces were added to the federation, namely: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg (including B e r l i n ) , Saxony-Anhalt (Sachsen-Anhalt), Thuringia (Thuringen), and Saxony {Sachsen) . The borders of the new provinces coincided with those demarking the short l i v e d provinces that existed i n East Germany u n t i l 1952. The 2 4 7 For a chronology and media discussion of the events see Ode to Freedom , 2nd edition (Frankfurt: Ullstein Verlag, 1990), 120-135.; and Der Spiegel Spezial, No. 2 (Hamburg: Spiegel Verlag, 1990), 3-145. 124 s t r u c t u r a l adjustments i n the archival administration i n these provinces, as well as archival l e g i s l a t i o n , followed the West German model 2 4 8 . With r e u n i f i c a t i o n , the State Archival Fonds of the former East Germany was e f f e c t i v e l y dissolved. Repatriation claims of private property, businesses, and re a l estate r e l i e d to a great extent on archival documents, and thus required the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of many archives r e l a t i n g to former owners of industry and other private ventures for leg a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n Germany's court system. Sim i l a r l y , many records of East Germany's government agencies were confiscated for investigations of human rights v i o l a t i o n s . In 1989, the year preceding r e u n i f i c a t i o n , East German a r c h i v i s t s began a thorough c r i t i c a l analysis of the arc h i v a l system. Of p a r t i c u l a r significance was a report by the vice-d i r e c t o r of East Germany's state archives administration, Kluge, delivered to the interim East German government i n December of 1989 2 4 9. In his function as spokesperson for East 2 4 8 Hoffmann, Appendix 4, 617-621. 2 4 9 Reinhard Kluge, "Probleme und Aufgaben des staatlichen Archivwesens in der revolutionaren Erneuerung der Gesellschaft der DDR," Archivmitteilungen 40 (1990): 5-8. 125 German a r c h i v i s t s , Kluge stated that c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n had to begin with the reasons for the negative public opinion of archival i n s t i t u t i o n s within East German society. The p r i n c i p a l reason was considered to be the prescribed world view and the di s t o r t e d research perspective that ignored h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y . If h i s t o r i c a l research could conduct an honest analysis of r e a l i t y , then archival i n s t i t u t i o n s , as providers • 2 5 0 of h i s t o r i c a l sources, would become more credible as well In t h i s context, he stressed that archival i n s t i t u t i o n s had to do t h e i r share by preventing the uncontrolled destruction of records, a phenomenon which was t y p i c a l of revolutionary changes 2 5 1. Kluge expressed the need for an independent professional society of a r c h i v i s t s which would further enhance the development of professional ethos, and provide a forum for archival d i s c u s s i o n s 2 5 2. He went on to c r i t i c i z e the present system by stat i n g that the overpowering centralism and a p r o l i f e r a t e d bureaucracy had resulted i n i n e f f e c t i v e leadership i n many areas of archival work. In accordance with the recent separation of state and r u l i n g party, a democratization of leadership structures was needed which would give greater decision making powers to the heads and directors of a r c h i v a l Ibid., 5. 2 5 1 Ibid., 6. 126 i n s t i t u t i o n s 2 5 3 . Kluge stressed that some aspects of a c e n t r a l l y directed archives system should be maintained, as a continuing management of the reformed State Archival Fonds required uniformly organized archival i n s t i t u t i o n s , and an adherence to uniform professional methods and standards across a l l a r c h i v al i n s t i t u t i o n s . He conceded, however, that archival appraisal i n p a r t i c u l a r had to undergo reforms, as the method according to which i t had been c a r r i e d out i n the past had resulted i n a p o l i t i c a l l y biased documentation of government a c t i v i t i e s . Evidence of t h i s narrow view of h i s t o r y was found i n the appraisal tools themselves, and the resultant a r c h i v a l holdings 2 5 4. These wide-sweeping reforms were i n i t i a t e d and p a r t i a l l y implemented a f t e r the collapse of the East German government and before r e u n i f i c a t i o n . After the r e u n i f i c a t i o n of West and East Germany i n 1990, appraisal theory and methods became the focal point of attention for German a r c h i v i s t s of both sides. As discussed i n Chapter Four, the debate on appraisal theory and methods had been i n i t i a t e d i n West Germany with the p u b l i c a t i o n of the 252 Ibid., 7. Ibid., 5 and 8. Ibid., 6. 127 F e s t s c h r i f t for Booms, which preceded the collapse of East Germany by a few months. With the p o l i t i c a l collapse of East Germany, the debate received an added stimulus. S i g n i f i c a n t progress was made when East and West German a r c h i v i s t s convened for the f i r s t time with the intent of assessing the status of appraisal methodology. In 1991, a conference was held i n the former East-Berlin, due to the i n i t i a t i v e of the directors of the three German centres for archival education: the formerly West German archives schools i n Munich and Marburg, and the formerly East German archival science section at the Humboldt University of Be r l i n . The purpose of th i s conference was to f i n d some agreement on the d e f i n i t i o n of new directions for arc h i v a l appraisal i n Germany255 . Some of the discussions, and p a r t i c u l a r l y the papers presented, were fraught with tensions 2 5 6. The contributions ranged from descriptive surveys of the p r a c t i c a l problems encountered over time i n the implementation of appraisal methods to analyses of fundamental th e o r e t i c a l ideas. 2 5 5 "Archivarische Bewertung in Deutschland-Bilanzen und Perspektiven". Conference 6.-8. March 1991, Humboldt University Berlin. Papers and discussions printed in Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 101-130. 2 5 6 Lieselott Enders, "Herausforderung und Aufrechter Gang-Ein Wort zur Bewertung," Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 125-126; and Angelika Menne-Haritz, 1991, 103-104. 128 The issue of defining appraisal strategies for the reduction of the unprecedented volumes of records generated and maintained by the defunct East German state administration was addressed primarily by East German a r c h i v i s t s . In t h i s context, they made attempts to salvage the usable components from the former East German appraisal methods. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Papendieck, among a few other East German colleagues, advocated the continuing use of t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e s prepared by regional archives i n the appraisal of records under the new p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e s had been created from a regional perspective, and thus disregarded l a r g e l y the prescribed state doctrine so strongly r e f l e c t e d i n the national frame-work documentation p r o f i l e s 2 5 7 . As the t e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l e s had been designed for a s p e c i f i c period of time, adjustments would have to be made to r e f l e c t the most recent developments 2 5 8. The necessary research should make use of the coverage of events i n the printed press, as had been done extensively i n the past. In that regard, East German a r c h i v i s t s had followed Booms' suggestion as explained i n his documentation plan of 1971. Papendieck, 124. 129 A major point of contention between East and West German a r c h i v i s t s was constituted by East Germany's documentation p r o f i l e s . The West German a r c h i v i s t B.Uhl, i n a f i r s t comparison of East and West German appraisal theory and methods in early 1990, had commented on the s i m i l a r i t i e s of Booms' 1971 documentation plan and East Germany's documentation p r o f i l e 2 5 9 . He observed that both plan and p r o f i l e , although emerging from d i f f e r e n t philosophical stand points, e s s e n t i a l l y arrived at the same r e s u l t . Both merely provided a framework that had to be concretely f i l l e d i n for each administrative l e v e l . Ultimately, Uhl asserted, both plans documented what was already known, that i s , what had been selected a priori as . . 2 6 0 important At the 1991 conference, the issue of documentation strategies received much attention. L.Enders i d e n t i f i e d the nature of the disagreement as r e l a t i n g mainly to two aspects: the design of the strategies' content, and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i n 2 6 1 practice . She defended the intention and app l i c a t i o n of the documentation p r o f i l e s as general guidelines, i n p a r t i c u l a r for 2 5 9 Uhl, 1990, 534. 2 6 0 Ibid. 2 6 1 Enders, L , 1991, 126. 130 the East German a r c h i v i s t s who had suffered from a chronic deficiency i n h i s t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g . She stressed that the appraisal of records of the defunct East German state administration had to take into account that the state had de facto determined the development of society. As the state controlled the a c t i v i t i e s of a l l records creators, i t s influence was ine v i t a b l y r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r records. Enders stated that an a r c h i v i s t trained i n the former West Germany and using an " i d e o l o g i c a l l y cleansed" documentation p r o f i l e would lack the contextual knowledge necessary for conducting the appraisal of East German records 2 6 2 . She rejected an e a r l i e r statement made by the West German a r c h i v i s t A.Menne-Haritz, di r e c t o r of the Archives School i n Marburg, that the documentation p r o f i l e s were merely "motivated to document known facts which would ask the question why records ought to be preserved i n the f i r s t p l a c e " 2 6 3 . L.Enders explained that the opposite was the case, and that "the appropriate u t i l i z a t i o n of documentation p r o f i l e s provided a quantity of records which enabled researchers to analyze causes, context, forces and 2 6 2 Ibid. 2 6 3 Menne-Haritz, 1985,411. 131 counter-forces, and course and resu l t s of h i s t o r i c a l „ 264 processes" The East German a r c h i v i s t B.Brachmann rejected the use of documentation p r o f i l e s on conceptual grounds. He r e c a l l e d the attempts made by East German a r c h i v i s t s to i d e n t i f y the future information needs of h i s t o r i c a l research which were thought to constitute the basis for appraisal. These e f f o r t s had f a i l e d , according to Brachmann, because of the d i f f i c u l t y of reaching consensus on what contents or pertinence were or would become important. The documentation p r o f i l e s also had focused on abstract content concepts. In the late 1980s, East German a r c h i v i s t s themselves had r e a l i z e d that and, attempting to make the p r o f i l e s more applicable, had reverted to appraising 2 65 records d i r e c t l y by creating new records appraisal schedules Brachmann observed that a higher degree of consensus was reached whenever appraisal was approached with formal, that i s , provenancial, c r i t e r i a recognizing the o r i g i n and function of records creators. He then rejected any p o s s i b i l i t y of a continued use of East German documentation p r o f i l e s as they Enders, L., 1991, 126. Brachmann, 1991, 112. 132 266 were too permeated by ideology . However, as a r c h i v i s t s s t i l l needed to form a documentary heritage, appraisal of records required a p r i o r knowledge about the administrative h i s t o r y of records creators. In t h i s context, Brachmann praised an information handbook of the (West German) federal government, as i t s indexes provided multidimensional access to j u r i s d i c t i o n s , persons, and subject areas of every federal provenance. He wished for the creation of such sources of information i n p a r t i c u l a r for the new provinces, so that a r c h i v i s t s could have a s o l i d basis for appraisal. Although Brachmann's and Kluge's suggested approaches varied considerably, they both took the stance that contextual knowledge was the prerequisite for making appraisal decisions. The West German a r c h i v i s t A.Menne-Haritz offered an approach that went beyond conventional appraisal strategies and was b u i l t on a new i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, as well as on a promotion of appraisal methods advocated i n the United States i n the 1960s by the American a r c h i v i s t Th.Schellenberg. She began her analysis with a thorough examination of the history of archival appraisal 133 26 7 theory and methods i n the reunited Germany . As Menne-Haritz's presentation provided the f i r s t comprehensive analysis of German appraisal theory and methods since Booms' a r t i c l e i n 1971, i t w i l l be described at length. Menne-Haritz noted that, throughout Germany's appraisal history, a l l attempts to e s t a b l i s h value concepts on the basis of philosophical or h i s t o r i c a l c r i t e r i a had not materialized to be of r e a l use i n the appraisal of records. She claimed that Booms, Zimmermann, and Haase had i n the 1970s supported the c r i t e r i o n of the demand for h i s t o r i c a l sources as the f i n a l measure of archival value. This view had led to a r e j e c t i o n of any appraisal method that r e l i e d on provenancial c r i t e r i a , and the a r c h i v i s t s supporting i t came to believe that, i n the f i n a l analysis, pertinence determined the actual a r c h i v a l value of records. Menne-Haritz observed that appraisal practice had nevertheless operated subconsciously on s o l i d foundations, such as the records creators' decision-making competence (Federfuhrung) . She concurred with Uhl's 1990 observation, that the documentation of an agency's a c t i v i t i e s , and with i t , the o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of the appraisal process had p r e v a i l e d 2 6 8 . 2 6 7 Menne-Haritz, 1991, p. 102. 2 6 8 Uhl, 1990, 534-535. 134 Despite t h i s manifested development i n appraisal practice, however - Menne-Haritz explained - the expectation remained i r r e f u t a b l y present that appraisal had to orient i t s e l f towards the demand for sources for h i s t o r i c a l research, i n the widest 2 6 9 sense of the term . The resultant impasse i n the search for a uniform value theory of appraisal stemmed from a more fundamental problem. Menne-Haritz argued that i n West Germany, and i n Germany p r i o r to 1945, the i d e n t i t y of a r c h i v i s t s had been derived from a profession centred on h i s t o r i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , rather than from the theory of an autonomous archival science. Thus, the coming to terms with a s c i e n t i f i c theory of archival management had been denied to German a r c h i v i s t s by the primacy of h i s t o r i c a l research i n archival a c t i v i t i e s 2 7 0 . Although East German archival science had i n theory r i s e n to the rank of an autonomous d i s c i p l i n e , i t had been, i n actual fact an instrument of p o l i t i c s . Yet, East and West Germany shared the same legacy i n that both countries, under d i f f e r e n t pretenses, had made of h i s t o r i c a l research interests the basis for a p p r a i s a l 2 7 1 . 2 6 9 Menne-Haritz, 1991, 102. 2 7 0 Ibid. 2 7 1 Ibid., 103. 135 Menne-Haritz then went on to analyze East Germany's appraisal concepts. She found that they had continuously o s c i l l a t e d between content and context-based approaches without, however, comprehending the contradiction. She demonstrated t h i s by quoting from the East German 1965 appraisal p r i n c i p l e s , according to which, on the one hand, the function of the records creator determined the value of i t s records, and, on the other hand, the objective s i g n i f i c a n c e of s o c i e t a l phenomena was the value c r i t e r i o n for records a p p r a i s a l 2 7 2 . Summing up the debate on the nature of value i n East Germany i n the 196 0s and 1970s (see- Chapter Five), Menne-Haritz stated that t h i s contradiction was never resolved. In f i n a l analysis, appraisal theory had been based on evaluating h i s t o r i c a l facts, as evidenced by the East German documentation p r o f i l e s . Menne-Haritz then proposed an al t e r n a t i v e approach to appraisal theory 2 7 3 . She c a l l e d for a theory of appraisal which was free of f l u c t u a t i n g value concepts. Concurring with the French a r c h i v i s t Bruno Delmas, she proposed a development of archival science from a descriptive to a functional science. 2 7 2 Ibid. 2 7 3 Ibid., 104. 136 She stated that the p r i n c i p l e of provenance ought to form the foundation of such functional archival science, and explained that a functional understanding of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance would mean to analyze the o r i g i n of information i n terms of structure and function. Taking even further the t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l application of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, she stated that the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of functions were not necessarily i d e n t i c a l to the organization of delegated functions. However, as functions and organizational structures had i n fact most often been consistent, an analysis of the o r i g i n of records had repeatedly proven i t s p r a c t i c a l i t y . Yet, the increasing changes i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s necessitated a focus on functional concepts. A functional application of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance allowed one to understand the reasons for the existent d i s t r i b u t i o n of administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . This approach rested on an analysis of functions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e i r context and would not appraise archival information, but actions and processes. Thus, the destruction of records had the purpose of freeing the e s s e n t i a l archival information of the redundant. The term "archival information" i t s e l f required analysis for a better understanding of the appraisal process. Menne-Haritz 137 proposed to define archival information according to three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 2 7 4 : 1. archival information was process generated information; 2. archival information contained verbal and non-verbal components; and 3. archival information consisted of evidence and content. Her discussion of the f i r s t two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s contained elements of diplomatic analysis, that i s , of an analysis of the st r u c t u r a l components of documents. Her elaboration on the t h i r d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c deserves closer attention. It i s i n r e l a t i o n to i t that the conceptual connection with Schellenberg's primary and secondary value categories was made. Menne-Haritz asserted that the meaning of archival work was to bring to l i g h t evidence about the organized processes of administrative a c t i v i t i e s . This provided the framework within which the content of texts received meaning. She contended that records did not r e f l e c t r e a l i t y "as i t was", but the way the records creator had perceived i t and formed i t . Therefore, there was no pure, objective informational content i n administrative records. Rather, t h i s content revealed i t s Ibid., 104-106. 138 meaning, i n an impartial and open manner, when i t was placed i n re l a t i o n to the purposes of the record's creation. As a resul t , contents would be open to a l l possible forms of research interpretation, and a r c h i v i s t s had no need to anticipate a catalogue of possible research i n t e r e s t s . Menne-Haritz argued that elements of a functional approach respecting the evi d e n t i a l nature of records creation could be detected i n e a r l i e r contributions of German a r c h i v i s t s , such as C.Haase and es p e c i a l l y J.Papritz (see Chapter Four). Yet, these elements had not been u t i l i z e d towards a formulation of an appraisal theory. She then explained that Schellenberg's concepts of primary and secondary value had rested on the foundation of a functional understanding of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, and deserved closer consideration 2 7 5. The primary purpose of records was defined by Schellenberg as the purpose for which records were created, namely as instruments i n the coordination and control of a c t i v i t i e s . In addition to the primary purpose, a secondary purpose, could be i d e n t i f i e d . The secondary purpose was to provide evidence about a c t i v i t i e s . Ibid, 106, discussing Theodore Schellenberg, Modern Archives. Principles and Techniques (Chicago. 1956). Trans, and ed. A. Menne-Haritz, Die Bewertung modernen Verwaltungsschriftguts. Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 17 (Marburg, 1990). 139 Thus, records became traces, which were the clearer the better they served t h e i r primary purpose. The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between primary and secondary purpose was not only of use for a r c h i v a l concerns, but served as foundation for any i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the records creator of a c t i v i t y processes. Records without a primary purpose could not acquire a secondary purpose through archival treatment, therefore, a r c h i v i s t s ought to be concerned that records creators use t h e i r records as e f f e c t i v e l y as possible, as t h i s ensures t h e i r e v i d e n t i a l q u a l i t y . From t h i s followed that an analysis of the primary purpose of records i s necessary for t h e i r use for secondary purposes. Thus, archival appraisal was intended to examine records i n terms of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l for the conveyance of evidence and information. Menne-Haritz emphasized that the p o t e n t i a l informational content of the records, that i s , t h e i r capacity of being evidence, as opposed to content understood as answer to a question was reason for preservation or destruction. As appraisal for preservation was impartial, i t enhanced the e v i d e n t i a l q u a l i t y of records. Echoing Brenneke's stance on the subject, Menne-Haritz stated that the combination of appraisal, arrangement and description gave an a r c h i v a l body i t s f i n a l form by bringing out i t s inherent structure. 140 Menne-Haritz' s conclusion was that a r c h i v a l value theory-was redundant, as the archival value of records was not measurable humanly or p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y . It simply needed to be determined whether c e r t a i n records had e v i d e n t i a l quality, and thus whether they were q u a l i f i e d for secondary purposes. Menne-Haritz extended her p o s i t i o n to the appraisal of ele c t r o n i c records 2 7 6. She commented that modern software systems for the various administrative a c t i v i t i e s often ignored the requirements of the primary purpose of records. This s i t u a t i o n threatened the a b i l i t y to assess the use of records for secondary purposes, and ultimately the records e v i d e n t i a l q u a l i t y as a rchival sources. She then made an appeal to a r c h i v i s t s to benefit from a closer association with information sciences and administrative sciences 2 7 7. The discussions following Menne-Haritz's presentation included a noteworthy commentary by Booms. His remarks provided a f i n a l assessment of his 1971 documentation plan. Booms responded primarily to Menne-Haritz's c r i t i q u e of his apparent denial of provenance as an important factor i n appraisal. He i n s i s t e d that, as an h i s t o r i a n , he knew of the 2 7 6 Menne-Haritz, 1991, 107. 141 importance of the context of records creation, and had always recognized the lack of usefulness of records organized according to pertinence for the benefit of researchers for whose i n q u i r i e s they had not been compiled. He admitted that his explanations may have not been s u f f i c i e n t l y precise i n the past, and stated that he c l e a r l y supported provenance oriented appraisal. In t h i s context, he took the opportunity to distance himself c a t e g o r i c a l l y from his own 1971 documentation plan. Booms said that his plan merely intended to e s t a b l i s h relationships between h i s t o r i c a l processes and the times i n which records creation occurred, not to construct complex value concepts as ideologies do. The plan was "a c h i l d of i t s time", when planning euphoria had been spurred by predictions about uncontrollable volumes of information 2 7 8. At the conference of the Association of Canadian A r c h i v i s t s , late, i n the same year (1991), Booms noted that East German a r c h i v i s t s had recently admitted to have based t h e i r documentation p r o f i l e on his plan: by renaming i t " p r o f i l e " they did not have to acknowledge i t s . 279 o r i g i n Hans Booms, Commentary in the Conference Discussions at the 1991 Conference, 127 and 129. 2 7 9 Hans Booms, "Uberlieferungsbildung: keeping archives as a social and political activity," Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-92): 29. 142 The next step i n the appraisal debate i n Germany was represented by the contributions of Menne-Haritz and Uhl i n 1993 and 1994 respectively. At the International Conference of Ar c h i v i s t s held i n Stockholm i n 1993 and devoted to appraisal theory and the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, Menne-Haritz gave a paper which elaborated on her support for Schellenberg's methods. She saw i n Schellenberg's concepts a resurrection of useful German concepts from the 1930s. She had found s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s between Schellenberg's appraisal methods and concepts and those developed by the German a r c h i v i s t A.Brenneke i n the 1930s. She suggested that the i n t e l l e c t u a l connection between the two had been made by the German a r c h i v i s t E.Posner. Posner, who was Brenneke's substitute i n the d i r e c t i o n of the Prussian State Archives i n B e r l i n , upon his immigration i n 1939 to the United States, exported German theory and practice to the New World 2 8 0 . According to Menne-Haritz, Brenneke's free provenance p r i n c i p l e ( f r e i e Provenienzprinzip) provided the foundation of Schellenberg's primary and secondary value 2 8 1. A summary of Brenneke's main arguments, as presented by Menne-Haritz, w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e her b e l i e f . 2 8 0 Menne-Haritz, 1994, 248. See also Wolfgang A. Mommsen , "Ernst Posner, Mittler zwischen deutschem und amerikanischen Archivwesen," Der Archivar 20 (1967): 217-230; and Rodney A. Ross, "Ernst Posner: the bridge between the Old World and the New," American Archivist 44 (1981): 304-312. 2 8 1 Menne-Haritz, 1994, 245. 143 Brenneke had expanded on the organically interpreted p r i n c i p l e of provenance as i t had been introduced by the Dutch a r c h i v i s t s Muller, Feith, and Fruin i n 1898 2 8 2. Brenneke believed that the free p r i n c i p l e of provenance presented, i n addition to i t s three conventionally described c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or uses (principle of in t e r n a l order, p r i n c i p l e of external order, and p r i n c i p l e of h i s t o r i c a l research), a fourth 2 83 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . He defined i t as the a b i l i t y of an arc h i v a l 2 84 body to reveal a community of purposes (Sachgemeinschaft) as i t s constituent records represented the outcome of a common administrative a c t i v i t y 2 8 5 . His understanding of an archives' community of purposes was more than a bond or re l a t i o n s h i p . Rather, the community of purposes was created through the common purpose of the objectives and actions of the agency which produced the records. This q u a l i t a t i v e difference between a community of purposes and a re l a t i o n s h i p of purposes defined the distinc t i v e n e s s of archives with respect to, for example, l i b r a r y materials. For Brenneke, an analysis of t h i s community of purposes was aimed at representing i t through 2 8 2 Muller, S., J.A. Feith and R. Fruin, Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (NewYork: H.W. Wilson Company, 1968) 2 8 3 Brenneke, 88-92. 2 8 4 The German term "Sache" is best understood as "purpose", "matter", "affair". A translation of the term with "subject" could be misunderstood to imply a content oriented meaning of "topic". 2 8 5 Brenneke, 22. 144 archival arrangement and description. He believed that a body of records was to be understood as "an organism" which had undergone a process of growth. Yet, ref u t i n g the Dutch inter p r e t a t i o n of provenance, he argued that natural growth had not necessarily resulted i n a perfect organism as end r e s u l t . Thus, Brenneke stated that the goal was to shape a body of records, which f u l f i l l e d the conditions of organic growth, into a form which would bring out that organic growth, even i f t h i s form had not existed before 2 8 6 . Brenneke had not concerned himself with appraisal as a d i s t i n c t a r c h i val a c t i v i t y : rather, he considered i t to be a measure of arrangement, which aimed at freeing a body of records from the redundant and bringing out the e s s e n t i a l 2 8 7 . Menne-Haritz asserted that an understanding of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance i n Brenneke's terms strongly suggested i t s use i n appraisal. The p r i n c i p l e implied two purposes. The f i r s t purpose was to make clear the context of records creation. The second purpose was to turn those records whose contextual creation had been established into an archives. Thus, the secondary purpose of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance was 145 fundamentally d i f f e r e n t from i t s primary purpose, as i t aimed at providing evidence of the f i r s t purpose. The p r i n c i p l e of provenance described functional purposes, which were un i v e r s a l l y v a l i d and, although established within the context of archival arrangement, were transferable to appraisal. This meant that t h i s p r i n c i p l e had the same objective of arrangement, namely, to make clear the "community of purposes" of records and to show t h e i r organic growth. Further, as arrangement made evident the various connections i n records c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , appraisal determined which records constituted the necessary connections for a representation of contexts. R e v i s i t i n g her e a r l i e r elaboration, Menne-Haritz concluded that appraisal removed redundancy, which blocked the view of the . . -, 288 e s s e n t i a l Menne-Haritz believed that Schellenberg's methods were a consistent application of the free p r i n c i p l e of provenance to a p p r a i s a l 2 8 9 . She observed that his methods were based on the assumption that archival i n s t i t u t i o n s existed because the value of records had a double nature: primary, for the creating agency i t s e l f , and secondary for other agencies and private 2 8 8 Menne-Haritz, 1994, 247. 2 8 9 Ibid., 248. 146 u s e r s 2 9 0 . Schellenberg's two values defined two kinds of purposes, one for the creating agency, and the other for archival i n s t i t u t i o n s . Menne-Haritz was p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n Schellenberg's explanations of secondary value, which was divided into two aspects: the e v i d e n t i a l value, understood as answers to questions r e l a t i n g to the a c t i v i t i e s , functions, and competencies of creating agencies within an organizational hierarchy, and the informational value, understood as answers to questions r e l a t i n g to the persons, things and events the records talked about. A key issue for Menne-Haritz was Schellenberg's use of the term "evidence". In fact, the term had r a r e l y been used i n German.archival l i t e r a t u r e . When Menne-Haritz edited an e a r l i e r t r a n s l a t i o n of Schellenberg's main work from 1956, she 291 introduced the term into German archival terminology . She believed that the term "evidence" i n Germany had been misinterpreted and mistranslated to mean "proof" i n the l e g a l sense of the word, while i t expressed something i n records that did not require proof, but was i n e v i t a b l y present, thus evident. Evidence was therefore what could be found i n between 1 Menne-Haritz, 1990, 17-20. 147 the l i n e s , and not necessarily i n textual information about the a c t i v i t i e s , competencies, and procedures of creating agencies. Only a f t e r an analysis of the ev i d e n t i a l values, an evaluation of informational values could be attempted. Menne-Haritz concluded by sta t i n g her surprise that German a r c h i v i s t s . West and East a l i k e , had ignored Schellenberg's contribution, although i t had been available i n t r a n s l a t i o n since the early 1960s. It appears that Menne-Haritz's and Brenneke's ideas have come f u l l c i r c l e as both consider appraisal to be an extension of archival arrangement and description, where the p r i n c i p l e of provenance i s the fundamental t o o l . Menne-Haritz's emphasis and reexamination of the merits of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance for appraisal may be stated to be an attempt to f i n d a value free appraisal approach. Her arguments ought to be seen i n l i g h t of the f a i l e d attempts i n Germany's appraisal h i s t o r y to solve the problem through value concepts derived from h i s t o r i c a l research expectations. Thus, Schellenberg's seemingly objective approach based on the analysis of the purpose and the context of records creation f i t Menne-Haritz's. focus. 148 The contribution of Uhl occurred within the context of a second German conference on appraisal which took place i n 1994 at the Archives School i n Marburg. The discussions addressed a broader spectrum of issues surrounding appraisal. Moreover, i t has to be kept i n mind - as a former East German a r c h i v i s t points out - that, beginning i n 1991, also the concept of 2 92 o b j e c t i v i t y had entered the debate on appraisal . At t h i s second conference consideration was given to a number of areas impinging on appraisal, such as archival education, recent archival l e g i s l a t i o n at the federal and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s , and archival terminology. In his paper, Uhl continued the investigations begun by Menne-Haritz into the merits of Schellenberg's methods. In agreement with her position, he asserted that the provenance oriented appraisal approach, as supported by Schellenberg, had never been a r t i c u l a t e d into a theory i n Germany293 . Uhl, having conducted a survey of German arc h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e aimed at i d e n t i f y i n g attempts to base appraisal predominantly on provenance, drew p a r t i c u l a r attention to a 2 9 2 Grohmann, 37. 2 9 3 Uhl, 1994,31. 149 paper written by A.Zechel i n 1965 2 9 4. Zechel's e f f o r t to formulate a theory for appraisal had been intended as a cr i t i q u e of Zimmermann's reliance upon the demand for h i s t o r i c a l sources as a guide to sele c t i o n (see Chapter Four). Zechel's aim was to overcome the hopelessness which had previously paralyzed the search for a value recognition that was not prim a r i l y concerned with the demand of h i s t o r i a n s 2 9 5 . Zechel commented that, whenever the a r c h i v i s t "crossed paths" with a hi s t o r i a n , i t was because the a r c h i v i s t had l e f t his/her path, and moved into the "marsh route" of the h i s t o r i a n . If one understood archival thinking as an autonomous function of the human mind, then there had to be a separate way to arc h i v a l value recognition. Thus, appraisal of arc h i v a l value might come into contact with the value theory of the hi s t o r i a n , but must not be determined by i t 2 9 6 . Zechel did not ref e r s p e c i f i c a l l y to Brenneke, but he took up Brenneke's core concept, that i s , the idea that i t was not the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the a r c h i v i s t to preserve records according to the hist o r i a n s ' wishes. Rather, preservation had 2 9 4 Ibid., 32-34. 2 9 5 Artur Zechel, "Werttheorie und Kassation," Der Archivar 8 (1965): 6. 2 9 6 Ibid., 8. 150 to occur i n such a way that i t was consistent with the inherent practice of appraisal had for a long time, that i s , since the assertion of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance, r e s i s t e d h i s t o r i c a l value p r i n c i p l e s , and that the science of arrangement had had a 2 9 8 stimulating and regulating e f f e c t on appraisal . Further, Zechel supported an appraisal approach which would analyze a body of records i n i t s entirety, rather than focus on the "espe c i a l l y important" or "assumed important" for h i s t o r i a n s . He believed that a method which considered the special and the 2 9 9 t y p i c a l i n unison would be h i s t o r i c a l l y the most true Concurring with Papritz's approach, Zechel suggested that a value theory be developed that consider the h o l i s t i c composition of a body of records, and c r i t e r i a be i d e n t i f i e d that are applicable i n assessing the e n t i r e t y of a body of records. • Although Zechel had recognized the importance of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance i n appraisal, and the q u a l i t y of evidence as an o b j e c t i f i a b l e appraisal category, his essence i n records 2 9 7 Zechel commented that, fortunately, the 297 Ibid., 9. Ibid., 10. Ibid., 14. 298 299 151 contribution was not appreciated at the time. Uhl observed that the reasons for the lack of interest i n Zechel's ideas, as well as Papritz's and Brenneke's, were the same that were at the o r i g i n of the ignorance of Schellenberg's contribution, which also rested on a functional i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e of provenance. Since German a r c h i v i s t s by and large had been fixed on concepts centred on the documentary content of records and on the demand for sources by historians, Zechel's approach had met deep incomprehension 3 0 0. In summary, the debate on appraisal theory and methods since Germany's r e u n i f i c a t i o n has generally rejected a l l the appraisal approaches focused on the informational content of records and the value theories derived from h i s t o r i c a l considerations. The f a i l i n g of the documentation strategies of East Germany was i n part the resu l t of i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l constraints. However, s i m i l a r content-based •appraisal strategies proposed i n West Germany over time were rejected because of conceptual flaws. Whether such r e j e c t i o n was p a r t l y due to the desire to maintain the distance from an undesirable p o l i t i c a l past w i l l become clearer over time. What Uhl, 1994,31. 152 has emerged so far i s a support of formal appraisal c r i t e r i a based on an analysis of a records creator's a c t i v i t i e s and of the contextual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of records determined by t h e i r circumstances of creation. In the renewed and intense debate, German a r c h i v i s t s have made use of international contributions to a r c h ival science. In t h e i r search for guidance, an examination of past contributions, both domestic and international, seemed to o f f e r the most valuable food for thought and stimulus for a constructive debate. 153 CONCLUSION This thesis has surveyed German ar c h i v a l h i s t o r y for the period 1945 u n t i l present. Much of the information i t has provided was previously only available i n the German language. The exposition has focused on a description of the development of government archival organization and l e g i s l a t i o n as well as of archival appraisal theory and methods i n both East and West Germany. It has been shown how the differences i n the organization and l e g i s l a t i o n of government ar c h i v a l i n s t i t u t i o n s between the two Germanys were a d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of the two d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l systems. West German government archival i n s t i t u t i o n s were organized according to f e d e r a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s , while East German archival i n s t i t u t i o n s were structured by l e g i s l a t i o n into a very r i g i d uniform system. Lack of central authority and lack of regional support by sponsoring governments can be i d e n t i f i e d as the main short-coming i n the archival development of the former West Germany, where the archival i n i t i a t i v e regarding the formulation of l e g i s l a t i o n for basic archival functions derived mainly from concerned a r c h i v i s t s themselves. In contrast, a r c h i v a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and competencies i n East Germany were 154 i n i t i a t e d and regulated by the state. S i m i l a r l y , archival objectives, such as the development of ar c h i v a l appraisal theory and methods were defined and supported by central authority. It follows that the approach to appraisal theory and methods was la r g e l y affected by state ideology. Yet, the interest of the state i n archival i n s t i t u t i o n s made possible the concerted work of a r c h i v i s t s on the problem of appraisal. In contrast, West German a r c h i v i s t s were required to f i n d solutions to appraisal problems within t h e i r own professional support groups, as government sponsors i n general showed i n s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t . Thus, while East German a r c h i v i s t s focused immediately on the problems of modern records appraisal which, because of id e o l o g i c a l interests, found strong state support, West German a r c h i v i s t s did not recognize t h i s problem u n t i l much l a t e r . The s i g n i f i c a n t i d e o l o g i c a l differences between the two Germanys hampered d i r e c t professional sharing of ar c h i v a l appraisal concepts during much of the period of t h e i r separation. Nevertheless, the contributions of numerous West German a r c h i v i s t s to appraisal theory and method found acceptance i n East Germany. The r e u n i f i c a t i o n of the two 155 Germanys i n 1990 resulted i n the collapse of East German archival organization and l e g i s l a t i o n . Subsequent meetings of a r c h i v i s t s from the former two countries provided stimulating discussions on various approaches to appraisal that are worthy of consideration by a r c h i v i s t s of other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . East Germany i s an excellent example for those who wish to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of documentation strategies. West Germany, having been free of i d e o l o g i c a l constraints, i s instead a very i n t e r e s t i n g case study for those who wish to examine the evolution of archival thinking. In conclusion, the archival experiences of East and West Germany present a very valuable subject of study i n archival i n t e l l e c t u a l history, one that needs further exploration and analysis, and one that can be u s e f u l l y compared with the experiences of other countries, e s p e c i a l l y Canada and the United States. 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY Banning, Willem. Karl Marx. Leben. Lehre und Bedeutung. Munchen und Hamburg: Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag, 1966. Boberach, Heinz. "Dokumentation im Archiv." Der Archivar 16 (1963) : 209-218. Booms, Hans. "Grenzen und Gliederung z e i t g e s c h i c h t l i c h e r Dokumentation i n staatlichen Archiven." Der Archivar 19 (1966): 31-45. Booms, Hans. "Gesellschaftsordnung und fjberlieferungsbildung: Zur Problematik archivischer Quellenbewertung." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 68 (1972): 1-49. Booms, Hans. "Die Archivgesetzgebung i n der Bundesrepublik Deutschland." Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique 57 (1986): 69-81. Booms, Hans. "Society and the formation of a documentary heritage: issues i n the appraisal of archival sources." ed. and trans. H. Joldersma and R. Klumpenhouwer. Archivaria 24 (1987): 69-107. Booms, Hans, "fjberlieferungsbildung: Keeping archives as a s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . " A rchivaria 33 (1991/92): 28-33 . Brachmann, Botho. "Zum System der Informationsbewertung i n der DDR." Archivmitteilungen 19 (1969): 93-101. Brachmann, Botho. Archivwesen der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Theorie und Praxis. (East-)Berlin: VEB Verlag deutscher Archivwissenschaft, 1984. Brachmann, Botho. "Theorie, Instrumentarien und Praxis der Bewertung i n der ehemaligen DDR und deren k r i t i s c h e s Bedenken." Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 109-114. Brenneke, Adolf. Archivkunde. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Geschichte des europaischen Archivwesens. ed. Wolfgang Leesch. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1953 (reprint 1988). 157 Biittner, S i e g f r i e d . "Ressortprinzip und fjberlief erungsprinzip. " In Aus der Arbeit der Archive. Schriften des Bundesarchivs, No. 36, F e s t s c h r i f t fur Hans Booms, ed. F r i e d r i c h P. Kahlenberg, 153-161. Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1989. Cook, Terry. "Mind over matter: towards a new theory of archival appraisal". In The Archival Imagination, Essays i n Honour of Hugh Taylor, ed. Barbara Craig, 38-70. Ottawa: ACA, 1992. Der Spiegel Spezial. "162 Tage deutsche Geschichte, das halbe Jahr der gewaltlosen Revolution." No. 2. Hamburg: Spiegel Verlag, 1990. Diederich, Toni. "Registraturgut i n Kommunalverwaltungen." Der Archivar 25 (1972): 39-42. Eckart, Hans W-ilhelm. "Auswahlverfahren und Bewertungskriterien im Archiv des Stadtstaates Hamburg." Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 117-123. Eder-Stein, Irmtraut, and. Gerhard Johann. "Das Bundesarchiv -Zwischenarchiv. Aufgaben, Funktion und Unterbringung." Der Archivar 32 (1979): 291-300. Enders, Gerhart. Archivverwaltungslehre. (East-) B e r l i n : VEB Deutscher Verlag fur Wissenschaften, 1968. Enders, L i e s e l o t t . "Zum System der Bewertung." Archivmitteilungen 18 (1968): 182-191. Enders, L i e s e l o t t . "Theorie und Praxis im Bewertungsprozess am B e i s p i e l neuer Bewertungshilfen." Archivmitteilungen 6 (1973): 206-210. Enders, L i e s e l o t t . "Stand und Probleme der Ausarbeitung des Rahmen-Dokumentationsprofils der staatlichen Archive der DDR." Archivmitteilungen 5 (1982): 173-175. Enders, L i e s e l o t t . "Herausforderung und Aufrechter Gang - ein Wort zur Bewertung." Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 125-126 . 158 Enders, L i e s e l o t t . "Schriftsgutbewertung im Archivwesen der ehemaligen DDR." Der Archivar 45 (1992): 36-39. Franz, Eckhart G. "Archiv und Archivfunktion innerhalb des Gesamtbereichs Information und Dokumentation." Der Archivar 29 (1976): 31-44. Franz, Eckhart G. Einftihrung i n die Archivkunde. 3rd. e d i t i o n . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. Granier, Gerhard. "Die archivarische Bewertung von Dokumentationsgut - eine ungeloste Aufgabe." Der Archivar 27 (1974): 231-240. Grohmann, Ingrid. "Bewertungskataloge i n der ehemaligen DDR." In Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung. Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 21, ed. Andrea Wettmann, 37-46. Marburg, 1994. Haase, C a r l . "Kassation - eine fjberlebensfrage fur die Archive." Der Archivar 26 (1973): 395-400. Haase, C a r l . "Studien zum Kassationsproblem." Der Archivar 2 8 (1975) : 405-418. Haase, C a r l . "Studien zum Kassationsproblem." Der Archivar 29 (1976) : 65-75 and 183-196. Hoffmann, Heinz. Behordliche Schriftgutverwaltung. Schriften des Bundesarchivs, No 43. Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1993. Kahlenberg, F r i e d r i c h P. "Das Zwischenarchiv des Bundesarchivs - I n s t i t u t i o n zwischen Behorde und Archiv." Der Archivar 21 (1968) : 39-42. Kahlenberg, F r i e d r i c h P. "Aufgaben und Probleme der Zusammenarbeit von Archiven verschiedener Verwaltungsstufen und Dokumentationsbereiche i n Bewertungsfragen." Der Archivar 25 (1972): 57-70. 159 Kahlenberg, F r i e d r i c h P. Deutsche Archive i n West und Ost. Zur Entwicklung des staatlichen Archivwesens s e i t 1945. Mannheimer Schriften zur P o l i t i k und Zeitgeschichte, No. 4. Diisseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1972. Kluge, Reinhard. "Zukiinftige Aufgaben i n Forschung und Praxis der Wertermittlung." Archivmitteilungen 17 (1967): 47-52. Kluge, Reinhard. "Probleme und Aufgaben des sta a t l i c h e n Archivwesens i n der revolutionaren Erneuerung der Gesellschaft der DDR." Archivmitteilungen 40 (1990): 5-8. Klumpenhouwer, Richard. Concepts of values i n the ar c h i v a l appraisal l i t e r a t u r e : an h i s t o r i c a l and c r i t i c a l analysis. Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Zur Entwicklung des mitteldeutschen Archivwesens." Der Archivar 18 (1965): 345-372. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Das deutsche Archivwesen. Ein informatorischer Uberblick." Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique XLI (1970): 429-458. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Entwicklungstendenzen im Archivwesen der DDR." Der Archivar 25 (1972): 149-170. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Neuorganisation des Archivwesens i n der DDR." Der Archivar 29 (1976): 391-394. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Das deutsche Archivwesen s e i t 1945, Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Deutsche Demokratische Republik." Archives et Bibliotheques de Belgique LV (1984): 112-153. Leesch, Wolfgang. "Das Archivwesen der DDR s e i t 1971." Der Archivar 3 7 (1984): 495-510. Meinert, Hermann. "Von archivischer Kunst und Verantwortung." Der Archivar 9 (1956): 281-286. Meinert, Hermann. "Zur Problematik des modernen Archivwesens aus der Sicht eines Stadtarchivars." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 54 (1958): 97-102. 160 Meisner, Heinrich O. "Schutz und Pflege des s t a a t l i c h e n Archivguts unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Kassationsproblems." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 45 (1939): 34-51. Meisner, Heinrich 0., and Wolfgang Leesch. "Grundziige einer deutschen Archivterminologie." Archivmitteilungen 10 (1960) : 134-152 . Menne-Haritz, Angelika. "Indizierung oder konventionelle Verzeichnung. fjberlegungen vor der Einfiihrung eines EDV Systems i n einem Archiv." Der Archivar 38 (1985) : 407-414 . Menne-Haritz, Angelika. "Anforderungen der Bewertungspraxis an die archivische Theorie." Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 101-109. Menne-Haritz, Angelika. Schliisselbegriffe der Archivterminologie. Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 20. Marburg, 1992. Menne-Haritz, Angelika. "Das Provenienzprinzip - ein Bewertungssurrogat? Neue Fragen einer alten Diskussion." Der Archivar 47 (1994): 229-252. Merker, Otto. "Zur Bildung archivischer fjberlieferung. Unvorgreifliche praktische Gedanken aus Landessicht." In Aus der Arbeit der Archive. Schriften des Bundesarchivs, No. 36, F e s t s c h r i f t fur Hans Booms, ed. F r i e d r i c h P. Kahlenberg, 142-152. Boppard am Rhein: Harold Boldt Verlag, 1989. Mommsen, Wolfgang A. "Ernst Posner, M i t t l e r zwischen deutschem und amerikanischen Archivwesen." Der Archivar 2 0 (1967): 217-230. Muller, Giinter. "Fragen der Wertermittlung und Kassation." Archivmitteilungen 14 (1964): 192-197. Muller, S., J.A. Feith and R. Fruin. Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives. New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1968. 161 Ode to Freedom. Frankfurt: U l l s t e i n Verlag GmbH, 1990. Ottnad, Bernd. "Dokumentation - insbesondere z e i t g e s c h i c h t l i c h e r Sammlungen - aus der Sicht der Staatsarchive." Der Archivar 17 (1964): 67-76. Ottnad, Bernd. "Registraturgut einer Landesregierung und i h r e r Landesverwaltung." Der Archivar 25 (1972): 27-40. Papendieck, Herbert. "Das T e r r i t o r i a l p r o f i l - methodischer Ansatz zur Bewertung." Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 123-125. Papritz, Johannes. "Zum Massenproblem der Archive." Der Archivar 17 (1964): 214-220. Papritz, Johannes. "Methodik der archivischen Auslese und Kassation bei zwei Strukturtypen der Massenakten." Der Archivar 17 (1965): 117-132. P o l l e r t , Susanne and Matthias Herrmann. "Archivarische Bewertung i n Deutschland - Bilanzen und Perspektiven". Conference Discussion Report i n B e r l i n Conference Proceedings. Archivmitteilungen 41 (1991): 127-130. Rohr, Wilhelm. "Zur Problematik des modernen Aktenwesens." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 54 (1958): 74-89. Ross, Rodney A. "Ernst Posner: The bridge between the Old World and the New." American A r c h i v i s t 44 (1981): 304-312. Sante, Georg-Wilhelm. "Behorden - Akten - Archive: a l t e Technik und neue Strategie." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 54 (1958)': 90-96. Schafer, Volker. "Universitatsarchive." Der Archivar 37 (1984) : 449-452. Schellenberg, Theodore R. Modern Archives, P r i n c i p l e s and Techniques. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Schellenberg, Theodore R. "Die Bewertung modernen Verwaltungsschrifttguts". Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 17, ed. and trans. Angelika Menne-Haritz, 1990. 162 Schetlich, E. "Zur Terminologie der marxistisch-leninistischen Archivwissenschaft i n der DDR." Archivmitteilungen 20 (1970) : 61-66. Schetlich, E. "Zur Terminologie der marxistisch-leninistischen Archivwissenschaft i n der DDR." Archivmitteilungen 23 (1973): 71-73, 113-115, 149-153. Schreckenbach, H.-J. "Stand der Informationsbewertung i n k a p i t a l i s t i s c h e n Landern." Archivmitteilungen 19 (1969): 179-182. Uhl, Bodo. "Der Wandel i n der archivischen Bewertungsdiskussion." Der Archivar 43 (1990): 529-538. Uhl, Bodo. "Die Geschichte der Bewertungsdiskussion." In Bilanz und Perspektiven archivischer Bewertung. Veroffentlichungen der Archivschule Marburg-Institut fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 21, ed. Andrea Wettmann, 11-36. Marburg, 1994. Walne, Peter, ed. Dictionary of Archival Terminology. ICA Handbooks Series, Vol. 3. Munich: K.G. Saur, 1984. Wolff, F r i t z . "Die wissenschaftliche Archivarsausbildung an der Archivschule Marburg als postuniversitarer Ausbildungsgang." In Wissenschaftliche Archivarsausbildung i n Europa. Veroffentlichung der Archivschule Marburg-In s t i t u t fur Archivwissenschaft, No. 14, ed. Wilhelm A. Eckhardt, 107-113. Marburg, 1989. Zechel, Artur. "Werttheorie und Kassation." Der Archivar 8 (1965): 1-16. Zimmermann, F r i t z W. "Wesen und Ermittlung des Archivwertes. Zur Theorie einer archivischen Wertlehre." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 54 (1958): 103-122. Zimmermann, F r i t z W. "Theorie und Praxis der archivischen Wertlehre." Archivalische Z e i t s c h r i f t 75 (1979): 263-280. 163 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087115/manifest

Comment

Related Items