Musings on definition of "permanent" in an archives:

 

All of the efforts that we put into acquiring, preserving, cataloging,
and making available rare and unique manuscript materials (Civil War
letters, early newspapers, diaries, papers of Senators, Governors, and
the like) are actually with the background of "permanent" in mind.
I've found that "permanent" is a better term than "eternity" as in "Yes,
we plan on keeping these Civil War letters for eternity."   Or "Yes, we
need these low humidity systems for eternity."    But I've also found
that the word "permanent" makes leaders cringe, too, especially if there
is the myth of always "newer" information.   As in "We'll keep these
Civil War letters until some better ones show up." Or "Aren't those
older maps obsolete?"   

 

So I've found that the term "long-term" works a lot better.    "We're
saving these records for the long term."

No one ever asks me to define long term which of course is eternity.

 

No one ever seems to question how little American history we'd have if
the archives in Spain, France, and England had not kept records for
several centuries.    We know considerable information about the
American Revolution due to voluminous English record-keeping and
retention, including the debates in Parliament, the letters of King
George . . . and the exploration of the Americas by Columbus.   But
somehow the idea of keeping a fraction of Enron records for another
century makes folks cringe.

I'm sure at the time, the British also felt this little rebellious group
of folks would soon fold back into the motherland and the "revolt" would
hardly be worth retaining the records, too.

 

Dean

 

Dean DeBolt

University Librarian, Special Collections

John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida

11000 University Parkway

Pensacola, FL  32514-5750

850-474-2213

[log in to unmask]

 


List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance