Stuff I Learned At Work Today

Today at work, I learned the following things about the National Archives in the 1940s: archivists had to count the amount of records they gave researchers; in 1941 property passes were first issued; and upon exiting, archivists were required to check researcher’s notes for accuracy.

Originally, reference room staff was required to count the amount of records they gave researchers and check that there was the same number of records upon return. Considering how much time this would have wasted, I’m not shocked that this practice is no longer in place. Staff would spend a considerable amount of their day counting records. It would also seriously limit the amount of records a researcher could go through. So I think we are all glad this practice has ceased.

In 1941, property passes were first issued to researchers. Apparently, things like books needed a pass back in the day. These property passes were used similar to coat checks. I remember when they got rid of property passes (roughly two years ago) and I was both relieved and frightened. I know they were a hassle, but at least they prevented property theft. And I had no idea property passes had been around for so long.

But the thing I find craziest is that archivists were required to check notes for accuracy. Needless to say, this is basically the opposite of what archivists are supposed to do today. But as a person who has been paid to prove other historians wrong, if this much detail had been paid attention to in archives over the years, there would be a lot less controversy in history. But it would also explain why so many early archivists were trained as historians and not librarians. They believed that it was necessary to understand the content of the records. I still think this is true, even though I know that no archivist could possibly know the content of all the records within their archives. Knowledge of the records creates an ease of access for researchers. But I won’t get into the generalist vs specialist debate today, especially because we all know what the current researcher views are about the topic.

As a conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I learned all of this at work today. I didn’t actually read the records that contained this information; they were read to me by my supervisor. So if any of it is wrong, I apologize.

Things I Would Like To Point Out Pt. 5

This past week, NARA launched its Citizen Archivist Dashboard. The dashboard is NARA’s newest foray into the digital world. While this is a great way to do digital and engage the public at the same time, I’m a little concerned with the name. I get the whole Citizen Archivist thing, but it’s not the easiest thing for lay people to understand. But as far as the term “dashboard” is concerned, I don’t get it. It is a database that anyone can work on. Usually we find dashboards in cars. Not a lot of people can work on them. Just saying.

Archivists vs. Historians

Today I read “The Archive(s) Is a Foreign Country: Historians, Archivists and the Changing Archival Landscape” by Terry Cook. Cook, a Canadian archivist, sought to explain why there is so much distance between archivists and historians. He argued that historians do not understand how much archivists influence and control history. Obviously this can be applied to the National Archives in the United States and around the world. But Cook basically ignores the historian’s perspective.
For one thing, the two professions are separate professions for a reason. Without archival training, the historian has no knowledge of how archives evolve over time. This is very similar to how archivists do not need to know historiography. It is simply not part of their profession. Historians and archivists have different professions because they do different things.
Cook also failed to realize that historians’ time in the archive is often limited due to time and financial restraints. I consider myself lucky that I can spend so much time in the National Archives. But most researchers do not have this luxury. Last week, I overheard a researcher say she was a doctoral student doing research for her dissertation on Civil War camps. She only researched at the National Archives for two days. This researcher, like many others, did not have the time to explore all avenues of research. Reference archivists know what is often requested and only tell researchers about the most popular records related to their research. In this way, they continue to control what becomes history. Often, having a large amount of time to research, experience researching, and the willingness to look everywhere can yield results that are not controlled by an archivist. But few have this opportunity.
Cook needed to realize that archival work is not one-sided. While historians are not trained to understand the archivists’ craft, historians can choose to impact history by expanding their research.

Things I Would Like To Point Out Pt. 4

I would like to point out that 49 years ago today, the Constitution and the Declaration made it to the archives. Yes, that's right, it wasn't always in the rotunda.

Things I Would Like To Point Out Pt. 3

Yesterday, there was a user meeting at the National Archives in College Park. Although I didn’t attend, I still heard all of the terrible ideas that came up during the meeting. My primary concern is that they want researchers to mail in requests a few days before they come in to do research. Wow! I didn’t realize I live in the year 1940! There is no reason why it is necessary to further delay the pulling process unless they plan on getting rid of the pull staff. While this works for large agencies and possibly vets, it is not at all what any researcher wants. It’s hard enough to wait for pull times. I hate to reiterate the fact that the archives are supposed to be there for the researcher as a service. Now they want us to pay postage to pull records! Am I going to have to send a telegraph when staff gives me the wrong box? And wait a fortnight for the correct box to arrive?

The History of the Future of the National Archives and How Accurate Predictions Can Be

Recently, I read an article entitled “The Future of the Archival Profession” by T. R. Schellenberg, published in 1959. He wrote

“One of the future developments that I see is a more rational, a more orderly, and a more enlightened policy of accessioning and a freer interchange of copies of documents among documentary repositories. The function of an archival institution, I believe, is not one of collecting and hoarding research materials, but one of serving the needs of scholars and other users; and these needs can be best served by having documentary resources preserved in the places to which they pertain and where they are most likely to be used. It is not the function of an archivist to complicate the problems of research by dispersing research resources; it is his function to bring them together.”

As a researcher in the twenty first century, I have a few opinions on this matter. First off, I have a hard time saying that the working in the archives is anywhere near rational. The National Archives is a bureaucracy. I have seen plenty of archivists not chose the rational choice in matters because they did not want to get into trouble. They did not chose based on what is the current archival standard. The hoops that I have had to jump through in order to get a few documents are just proof that the National Archives can be a little irrational.

Secondly, the free interchange of copies of records is a great idea. That is what the citizen archivist dashboard will be all about. Unfortunately, I think that the National Archives may simultaneously be restricting this by charging for copies of material. I am aware that copiers and scanners cost a fortune and require a lot of money to keep them going. But putting costs on copies only restricts access to materials. In an open access age, charging for copies just should not happen. Archives need funding to survive, but charging for copies goes against the initiative of open access at the National Archives (and realistically, charging for copies cannot pay the bills of such a large institution.) There are not guarantees that we will be allowed to use our own scanners and cameras in the future, so this is something that every researcher should be worried about.

Third, the National Archives should be here to serve the researcher. But I wonder if archives employees hide behind preservation instead of supporting research. I know records need to be preserved. I know records are in danger of deterioration. The conservation department at the National Archives tries to preserve, but it is woefully understaffed and underfunded. Often times, the researcher is restricted for preservation reasons when realistically, preservation may never happen for a particular record. So what is the point? The researchers are not being paid to preserve. While researchers should not actively try to destroy records, we are not the ones who should be responsible for them. The National Archives is responsible for the preservation of records. In the end, the researcher is not supported in their endeavors because the massive hurdle of preservation may be in the way.

In conclusion, although Schellenberg had high hopes, not a whole lot has actually been achieved.

Cool Photo

http://todaysdocument.tumblr.com/post/12239082707/dated-november-2-1934-this-photograph-shows

The new opa record:

http://research.archives.gov/description/2637539

Things I Would Like To Point Out Pt. 2

Recently I read “Business History Resources in the National Archives” by Meyer H. Fishbein. This article was a great overview of the resources available to business historians at the National Archives. It basically described the business related records available in most of the major record groups. Published in 1964, Fishbein thoroughly explained what was in the records thru World War II.
Considering that World War II records had only been created twenty years earlier, I was borderline surprised that some of these records had been processed. While I am aware that not everything could be sent to the archives for various security reasons, there was still processed material available in the 1960s. It is now 2011 and I do not research anything past World War II because things are so rarely available and often unprocessed. I think this article is a great example of the great speed in which archivists processed records in the early years. I cannot give one reason why this occurred. It probably was a combination of vigor and funding.
The full house at the National Archives in Washington, DC on Friday is proof that there is a definite demand for records. I guess that these days, it’s a lot harder to meet the demand.

Metal Boxes

I hate the metal boxes that the archives stopped using decades ago. Whenever I touch a metal box, I feel as if I just got tetanus. And its not exactly easy to keep track of files when they are piled on top of each other. I know that it can't be easy for archivists to stack dented metal boxes. I would like to know why any of these boxes still exist at such a major institution. They've re boxed many torn Hollinger boxes, so why not replace metal boxes?

Things I Would Like To Point Out Pt. 1

*I am writing this blog entry not as an extended blog entry but just as one thing that I noticed recently and would like to point out*
Today, I read another R.D.W. Connor work on the National Archives. I have to admit that I have been reading his works a lot lately. I admire his writing style because he had a wonderful habit of incorporating historical writing with his discussions of everything archival.
Today, I read his article “FDR Visits the National Archives” (published in 1949.) This article is typical of his style. He explained how he became the first Archivist of the United States (all thanks to some Photostats of Revolutionary War Navy records that he gave to FDR) and how FDR had been the driving force of the archival movement in the United States. I would just like to point out that a decade earlier, Connor argued that the archival movement in the United States predated FDR. Just look at how the death of a president affects historical thought. Obviously Connor could not be objective like other historians of his time period claimed to be.

Commies! And Other Threats

Today I read an interesting article by R.D.W. Connor. For those of you who do not know, Roosevelt appointed Connor to be the first Archivist of the United States. In March of 1936 the Minnesota Historical Society Press published his article entitled, “Our National Archives.” Connor’s article originated as an address that he presented to the historical society earlier in 1936. From a historiographical point of view, I love this article. It not only showed how different the definition of “archive” was in the 1930s, but it also showed how ingrained the fear of communists and anarchists had become.
I am one of those young people who do not remember the Cold War (however I do have the misfortune of knowing one too many commies.) I find it fascinating how people found communism so terrifying in the 1920s and 1930s, especially since we now know that it does not work so well. Connors began his article explaining that if we wanted the freedoms of a democratic society, we needed an archive. He argued that the preservation of records will always be necessary for a functioning, truthful government (3).Connors alluded to the fact that there would be an awful lot of confusion if records did not exist. He used the example of an earthquake in Nicaragua in 1931 to prove his point (2). The earthquake (and the fire that resulted) destroyed most of Nicaragua’s records (3). We now know that an earthquake will probably not destroy our nation’s records, but I still think that Connors made a good point. Without records, mistruths and disorder will prosper. To mainstream society in 1936, Communism had become a scary mistruth and anarchists threatened disorder. Not everyone could understand the importance of preserving records for historical needs. But they could all understand the threat of Communism and anarchy. Connor showed that a threat to records had become a threat to the democratic liberties of all. I believe that this is a pretty typical statement of the period especially since it would easily have the support of the majority in this country in the 1930s.
Now, I know that anarchy kind of fizzled after this period, but I know that the fear of communism only increased after this period (especially after World War II.) Communism became the main reason why our civil liberties were threatened because a communist government eliminated many of the things that we considered to be liberties. Therefore, communism became a pretty good excuse for maintaining an archive. But I have to wonder what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in the late 1980s. Did our needs for an archive change? Certainly, by the 1990s, the majority of Americans did not feel that their civil liberties could potentially be threatened by a few rouge commies that may have not given up hope. Without fear, can an archive survive?
I have fear. I do not think that the commies are going to take over, or that any terrorist organizations are going to take over either. I fear for the records because few other people do. I feel as if we take our civil liberties for granted these days since we have basically eliminated any major threats. Without the threat of our civil liberties, the only other purpose of an archive is to store information. And while the National Archives gives access to information to many different researchers and agencies every day, the average American may not see this as an important task. However, I do but I also realize that not everyone cares about records. Without the threat of losing our civil liberties, the National Archives has little to connect itself to the general public besides genealogy (which is not something that the majority of Americans care about on a daily basis.)
I cannot point out any clear solutions to this problem. But I can point out that the solution will routed in the way in which we define archives. The definition of the term “archive” has evolved due to the purpose in which archives serve. Today, we consider archives to be a place where records are stored, preserved, and made accessible to the public. Connor’s article showed that this has not always been the case. He argued that the main purpose of an archive was to store and preserve records (13). In that sense, the American archival movement really gained momentum in the 1880s when, after inquiries, Congress realized that the depository system of the late nineteenth century failed (13-14). Connors found a whole lot of archival history in the early depository setting that current archival historian would consider being storage settings and not archival settings. I found it interesting how Connor used the word “depository” over the word “repository.” Today we consider archives to be repositories because they repurpose old documents. In 1936, the National Archives had just opened, and although researchers had used the facilities in the first year, Connors had not yet experienced the flood of researchers that would come in the following years who would turn his depository into a repository.
But without hindsight, it is understandable why Connors would have used the word depository. As Archivist of the United States, Connor combined the contents of over 250 different storage facilities in the National Archives building (7). He also contented with the results of deplorable storage conditions. Early archivists found empty liquor bottles and a dead cat mixed in with federal records (8). The National Archives in 1936 was not at the stage in which it could have been receiving researchers.
These are some of the many insights which I discovered after reading this article. Connor’s work is chock full of interesting tidbits which I am certain I will use in the future in my assessment of the National Archives

* Please note: All citations are to the following article:
Connor, R.D.W. “Our National Archives” in Minnesota History 17 (1936) 1-19.

An Update on the Teeth

So there isn't much else to say about the teeth I found. They are the plaster cast of Albert McCall, who tried to enlist in the army in 1906. For reasons unknown, he had a metal plate put in his lower jaw and a bunch of fake teeth. Since he could not "masticate meat except the choicest cuts" the army wouldn't take him. He tried to fight this decision and failed. That's pretty much it other than the fact that there are now better photos.





In news related to the archives and this blog, they've refurnished 203 west. Apparently, one day we will also have a reasonable amount of electrical outlets. This will mean that the floor will be ripped up since all of the useable outlets are currently in the floor. I can only wonder what the replacement floor will look like and if they will feel obligated to replace it with similar flooring.

I Foundzit in da Archivez!

I'm going to explain why some of NARA's outreach programs just don't suit me. My main excuse is that I'm just too cool. Today, I was going thru a box when I found a smaller box. I obviously had to open the box. So I did, and I was temporarily horrified. I found teeth!!!! In shock, I immediately brought it to the attention of the staff.
I soon realized that it was not a human body part; I found the plaster cast of the inside of a guy's mouth. As it turns out, the teeth had been part of a file related to a painter who tried to enlist in 1906 but had too much work done on his lower jaw to eat meat. Therefore, he could not be accepted into the service.
Currently, the National Archives has a competition called I Found It In The National Archives. Its usually some new user who found their great great grandparent's record and wrote in to say how neat it was. NARA usually post the finds on their NARAtions blog. I would just like to point out that a) this is a total copy of SAA's I Found it in the Archives competition that ended a while back and b) I clearly find cooler stuff all the time! What's cooler: grandpa's record or his teeth?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Last week, I was very rudely reprimanded by a NARA employee in the research room. I respect the fact that NARA has rules regarding the treatment of their records. Any institution, especially an institution the size of NARA, should have rules. I know that it is the staff’s responsibility to enforce these rules and I listen to them and respect them if I have been doing something wrong.
But honestly, I cannot deal when staff members are rude to me. Honestly, the way in which I was treated last week made me cry. I know that I’m quiet and that I look like I’m barely legal so I don’t command the respect of some of my peers. But I’ve been researching for years; the least I expect is professional behavior. I’ve been to many institutions that can’t afford to pay a single employee but manage to do a professional job. A salary is no excuse for impolite behavior.
I would just like to remind everyone that NARA is here because of researchers like me: researchers who need a large amount of records on a regular basis and who use these records for the promotion of the historical profession. If I didn’t have the need, NARA wouldn’t exist. You see, NARA wasn’t just started because the government needed to dump its records somewhere. The government formed NARA because researchers like J. Franklin Jameson needed a centralized repository for federal records.
If you’ve read any early works on American history, you know that they are rife with inaccuracies. This is often because in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries archival institutions did not exist in the United States. Historians simply did not have a place to go to find the records they needed. For government records, researchers would have to go to the specific agency where a document was created to obtain it. These different agencies did not give open access to their records. I have seen, multiple times, correspondence from the early twentieth century in files at NARA where clerks claimed they could not find the file a researcher was looking for. Clearly, the file existed because I found this correspondence within the requested file. The clerks just didn’t feel like trying to find it in the messy, dark storage rooms where the files were improperly kept. Clearly, this method didn’t work.
So as the historical profession grew, historians began to ask Congress to help them out. First, the Library of Congress got its act together. Then the idea of a national archive became popular. The idea of a national repository of government records wasn’t new. Pretty much all of Europe already had them. In the early nineteenth century lawmakers in the United States had thought about creating an archive, but it stalled. That is, until historians pushed for it. So in 1930 Congress finally passed a bill to create the federal repository and in 1934 it became its own independent agency.
Many early archivists had been historians. The first two Archivists of the United States, Robert D.W. Connor and Solon J. Buck, had both previously held historical positions. These two AOTUSes were instrumental in the formation and early development of NARA. Clearly, the agency would not have survived without those who needed to research inside it.
So remember, this agency (and all of the jobs it creates) would not exist without people like me!

Did you feel that earthquake? The Archives did!

Today, an earthquake that hit the East coast measured 5.8 on the Richter scale. I was up in the research room at A1 when it happened, and trust me, the whole building shook. One of the first questions I heard after the shaking stopped was "Is the building supposed to shake like that? It's an archive; it should be earthquake proof."
Well guess what??? A1isn't designed for earthquakes. In the late 1920s/early 1930s John Russell Pope (the unpaid architect of the National Archives building) did not have the foresight to plan for and earthquake since they so rarely happen in this area. Now, before you start hating on Pope, his design is still revolutionary. The Archives was the first federal building with full air conditioning!
In my secondary source research, I can only find one real description of the architecture of the building. This description is part of the National Register listing for the property. Last updated in 1971, it states,

"The National Archives, designed in the Neo-Classical manner by John Russell Pope and part of the Federal Triangle, is located on a hexagonal track bounded By Constitution Avenue, 7th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and 9th Street; the main entrance faces south on Constitution. The building was constructed in two stages s ground was broken for the building in 1931, and the exterior was completed by 1935; an interior extention which filled the inner court was begun in 1935 and completed in 1937. The steel- framed structure is of limestone with a base of Jilford granite. It measures approximately 330 feet(east to west) by 206 feet (north to south) and is 160 feet high, containing five stories (21 tiers). Large pumps were built beneath the structure to safeguard the foundations from flooding by the Old Tiber Creek, whose bed runs under the building.
The Archives Building has been described as a building within a building. The outer structure with its Corinthian columns and porticos enclose the inner core which rises above it in the form of a monumental attic. At grade level, the basement story is treated as a podium composed of several courses of Milford granite fronted by a smooth wall forming a moat that surrounds the building. The main facade is entered through a flight of steps flanked by two large granite pedestals surmounted by figures of "Heritage" and "Guardianship "_ by James- 'Earle Fraser. The stairs lead to a portico containing a double row of 8 Corinthian columns which projects 20 feet from the facade. On the main facade, on either side of this projecting portico, is a row of 5 Corinthian columns. The columns are 53 feet high and support an entablature (containing a frieze with the inscription ARCHIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) on which rests a pediment with figures also created by Fraser. Here is depicted the transfer of the documents of history to the recorder of the Archives. At the ends of the pediment are griffins, guardians of the Archives.
A paved terrace flanked by pedestals holding seated figures representing the “Past" and the "Future" leads to the ground level entrance on the Pennsylvania Avenue facade. This doorway is flanked by two high relief figures representing "Guardians of the Portal" and were created by Robert Aitken as were the pedestal figures. Above the entrance is a colonnade of 8 Corinthian columns supporting a pediment. The colonnade is flanked by five similar columns recessed about five feet. The pedimental figures by Adolph Weinman portray "Density" flanked on the left by the "Arts of Peace" and the "Song of Achievement" and on the right by the "Arts of War" and the "Romance of History." The pediment is terminated by two griffins.
On the east and west facades are colonnades, each with 10 Corinthian columns supporting a full entablature. The corners of the building are of solid masonry balancing the openness of the colonnades and giving stability to the building.
Rising above the colonnade is a solid mass broken by an ornamental frieze containing 13 medallions emblematic of the Departments of Government whose archives are stored in this building. This wall terminates in a cornice of ornamented cresting and above this, but recessed several feet, the building terminates in a plain cornice.
The Constitution Avenue entrance leads into a foyer on the main floor. Directly behind this is the exhibition hall in the form of half-rotunda which is separated from the foyer by a low flight of steps and a metal screen. The hall, with its coffered half dome rising 75 feet, contains a shrine which displays the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in specially designed heat and light resistant and air-conditioned bronze exhibit cases which can be lowered into a bomb proof vault. Flanking the shrine are two large murals depicting the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution" by muralist Barry Faulkner. The north portion of the building is occupied by administrative offices including three large conference rooms, a cataloging unit, projection room, main conference room and theater. The storage space is located in 21 tiers protected from natural light, with specially regulated humidity, and an elaborate burglar alarm system."


In my next archive post, I'll discuss how this architectural description should impact the current renovations.