The
Archives as a Historical Source
Special
Case on National Archives
by
Mehmet Emin Saydut
110611017
Submitted to Erdem Kabadayı
HIST 502
İstanbul Bilgi University
2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Part 1. INTRODUCTION to HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DEBATES...................................................................... 4
The Question of
Sources............................................................................................................................................... 4
Part 2. ARCHIVES............................................................................................................................................................... 6
The Question of
Archives.............................................................................................................................................. 6
The History of
Archives................................................................................................................................................. 7
The Question of
Accessing Archives........................................................................................................................... 8
Understanding
Archives............................................................................................................................................... 9
Background of
National Archives............................................................................................................................ 10
Part 3. USING NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN OTTOMAN
HISTORIOGRAPHY................................................ 11
The Question of
Consular Reports........................................................................................................................... 11
Emergence of
Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880-1925........................................... 12
Accusations on
Olson.................................................................................................................................................. 12
Result.............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
WORKS CITED..................................................................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX 1.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Draft Law for a
proposed Autonomy of Kurdistan as Debated in the Grand National Assembly on
Februrary 1922. 18
APPENDIX 2.......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Olson’s
Interpretations on Draft Law 39-41.......................................................................................................... 21
INTRODUCTION
“The past
is both ever present and important to us inhabitants of the twenty-first
century,” says Cox in his book No
Innocent Deposits (3). We position our selves with an understanding of the
past. Our relation with the past is more than the knowledge of the history. The
connection that we build in our minds, with centuries ago, define very much of
our identities. However, do we know what the past is? Do the institutions,
which collect old books, objects, documents, or what ever left from the past,
collect everything?
In most
cases, the documents, or objects, which we provide information and behave them
as they are factual, are constructions of selection and destruction. According
to Cox, “These cultural institutions can’t save everything; in fact, their
professional staffs can’t even examine all the candidates for their collections”
(4).
Paradoxically,
we gave importance to the past, but we cannot save all things that have left
from the past mostly because of scarce resources. Then, how do we can trust a
work of historian. Moreover, how do historians use the sources of the history to
capture a piece of truth about the past?
In fact, in
that circumstances, the work of historians get a more valuable role for our
identities and the way we live. Consequently, true knowledge of how to use
sources, may provide a better understanding for today's world. For the aim of
clarify at least one of the sources, archives, recent historiographical debates
shed lights on the confusion about the issue. The progress of archives in time
can save us from certain and fixed definitions and give an insightful
description what the archives is. As an example, an analysis for National
Archives will help the readers to understand which relics from the past, a
researcher may find in the big collections of documents, manuscripts and maps.
Sometimes, people react to information that historians gave. The case of
Olson's book about the Kurdish Rebellion, may show the level of reactions and
how to avoid from such reactions. At the end, I believe both the writer and
reader of that paper will get a broad sense of using archives and generally
using of sources.
Part 1. INTRODUCTION to HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DEBATES
The
Question of Sources
Postwar
decades were the times of challenges for history writing. According to
Southgate, those challenges were, in two categories: external and internal
challenges (59). From outside of the discipline, there were external challenges
such as, problems of perception, language and philosophy. Problems of
perception simply depend on the fact that the historian is a human. Therefore,
selection of data, the process of meaning, the distinction between facts and
interpretations, re-visions of historians and personal predilections are all
problematical (59-68). Moreover, “linguistic studies have proposed that much of
what we experience as ‘fact’ has been actually fashioned or conditioned by
language” (70). The relation between history and language creates
misrepresentions of “what was in the past”. Southgate asks, “If the whole
representational model of language is rejected, and replaced with its alternative,
what is left?” (74). Then “‘Truth’ becomes an impossibly elusive goal: the best
we can hope for is to impose some meaning on data which, as it is ‘given’,
lacks any meaning at all.” (74). In fact it seems that there is a big question
of “how to use sources?”, in the heart of historiography debates.
Bentley
tries to explain the challenges of historiography as “mood” and starts the
section that is about historiography of post-war decades with “the 1960s
acquired a historiographical mood.” (139). He points that while new words -
'deconstruction'; 'alterity', 'textuality', and many others - were appearing,
historians chose not to use them (141). “The reticence is completely
understandable. Postmodernism has made a major difference to historical
projects now underway but does not yet itself have a historiography (141).
In so far as an historical truth is available
at all, it becomes one whose validity can only apply in relation to the
particular and limited vantage point from which it derives. The past disappears
as an object and turns into a construct which must allow the validity of
alternative constructions which can be tested only by criteria internal to the
cultural and intellectual frameworks that generate them (143).
Bentley,
shows us that, alternative constructions may not be stable, yet historians gave
importance new narratives which are depends on gender, labor etc (144). That
is, historians reshape their way of using sources. In that way, we return our
first argument, the external critics urge historians to redefine “how to use”
sources.
Iggers
states, “Postmodernism had raised important epistemological questions that
radically challenged the possibility of objective knowledge” (139). He
comments, “Historian’s labor is dependent on archival research and, while his
sources do not present themselves in an unambiguous form, they are nevertheless
subject to criteria of reliability” (140). If sources do not present
themselves, how we should present them?
Faroqhi,
tries to answer some of those questions in a manner of Ottoman Historiography
with her book, which is titled as Approaching Ottoman History. She
mentions on some traps that historians shall fall. Some of them are similar
with Southgate’s internal challenges, which are determinism of Marxist approach,
gender issues and postcolonial critics (Southgate 86-106). On the other hand,
Faroqhi describe those challenges as traps, and tell specifically on Ottoman
historiography. For instance, in the beginning her introduction she remarks
that every source has been written by another human, no matter if s/he is
historian, or not. Then, She claim that, nationalistic historiographies (13-4),
orientalist views (15-16), overrepresentation of ruling class and
misrepresentation of some classes (22) can be found in sources and one should
be careful to those traps if s/he does not want to reproduce those traps.
Part 2. ARCHIVES
The
Question of Archives
Maybe the reader will find the title
“The Question of Archives”, as misleading, or unnecessary. However, archives do
not have a clear definition. For example, does special archives such as family
archives count, or not? Some researcher take accounts on travelogues as
archives just s/he has found it in an institution, or take an old historian’s
book as an archive.
A description
such as “The all texts that are in archives of institution” does not help us.
Because the functions of institution, may exclude some materials that should be
considered as archive. For Instance, “In Britain today, the general functions
of a record office might be said to be those of custodianship and storage of
records, which have been selected for permanent preservation, together with the
provision of a public service.” (Craven 7). The function way of Britain
National Archives, has selections for preservation and provision of public
service. Therefore, a historian may not find a document, which archivist has
not preserved, or government does not give permission to public use. To get a
better understanding we should look the history of archives, with some
metaprocesses such as renaissance, and enlightenment. In addition, the
(changing) operation of institutions will help the reader what an archives is.
The aim here is not providing a complete definition of archives, contrarily, to
describe archives for an insightful approach.
The
History of Archives
“In
medieval times, written culture, including the study of history and the
preservation of historical sources,
was concentrated mainly in monasteries” (Valge and Kibal 195). In fact before
18th century it is hard to speak about libraries, archives or
museums. The right term for a bale of materials as books, paper, rare objects,
statues etc. is collection. According to Artun, between the beginning of 15th
century and the end of 16th century, there were rare objects
collections (25-31). Geographical explorations were one of the motives in
popularization for those collections. With the middle of 16th
century, some emperors (like II. Rudolf or Petro) began to collect the biggest
collections that world has ever seen (32-34).
There
is a distinction between encyclopedic museums of renaissances in Amsterdam or
Milan and collections of rare objects. In 16th and 17th
centuries some collections were depend on humanism of renaissances, and objects
were mostly from renaissances artists. Of course, the collections of Medici
family should be counted, too. Artun says, Fredrik Ruysch’s collection
(1638-1731) in Amsterdam, was the last ontological exhibition. However, that
exhibition was in the middle of separation between art and medicine (50).
“The
principle of separating Archives from libraries and museums came from the fact
that archives were organically created from the activities and everyday
operations of institutions, independent of the personal interest or keenness of
some collector.” (Valge and Kibal 195). After French revolution, the principle
of “right to know”, gave the government the responsibility of preservation of
archives. “From the 16th century onwards, many scholars across Europe dedicated
themselves to the systematic collection of the sources of national and
religious history.” (195-6). Governments started to centralize collections. At
the end of the eighteenth century, the whole field of archival theory and
practice in Europe was being completely renovated. With the exceptions of Great
Britain and Russia, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic conquests had
provoked a complete upheaval of all governmental, administrative, and legal
structures throughout Europe (Duchein 16-7).
“The
French law of 7 Messidor Year II (25 June 1794) was indeed ‘revolutionary’,
both in the chronological and institutional meanings of that term, in so much
as it proclaimed for the first time the right of citizens to have access to
public archives.” (17). Furthermore, the debate of “access” starts. Most
countries in Europe, try the same thing. But the issue of “which archives
should be accessible, which are not?” remains untill 20th century.
The
Question of Accessing Archives
Valge
and Kibal classifies restrictions on access in four groups:
1. Protection of personal privacy.
The invasion of personal privacy is protected by prohibiting the use of
documents for a certain period. Unfortunately, the concept of ‘privacy’ has not
been clearly defined (or cannot be defined), and as a result, access varies
considerably from state to state.
2. Protection of state and public
security interests. There is often a lack of clarity about how these
interests are protected, even in democratic countries. Access is restricted to
documents that contain information on national security, on the vital financial
and economic interests of the state, on preserving public order and security,
on investigations and actions associated with criminal activities, as well as
archives or documents that contain financial, economic and political
information or involve commercial negotiations with foreign states. In
democratic countries, access to documents relating to defence is generally
granted 30 – 60 years after the creation of the document. In authoritarian states,
the terms of access to such records are even less transparent. In the Soviet
Union, there was the system of socalled ‘special’ fonds, which meant that
access to material that had been so classified was restricted according to
categories of persons.
3. Protection of the economic
interests of enterprises and individuals. In democratic countries,
including EU member states, there are laws on archives or special laws
(industrial property protection, patent laws, economic espionage laws), which
are generally quite strict in their stipulations, with an average 30 – 60-year
restriction on access.
4. Copyright protection.
Copyright is protected in all democratic countries, and in most non-democratic
countries. The subjects of copyright are generally clearly defined. The most
common restriction period is 70 years from the date of the creation of the
document but all are subject to considerable variation. (194).
By the time of Ranke, who claimed
that all archives should be open for historians, the problem for historians was
accessing to archives. Postwar decades, was the rapid liberalization of access
conditions in western countries (198). That was also, the decades of
questioning of sources and in general, problematizing of historiography. It
seems there is a slight connection between access conditions and the
discussions on historiography.
Understanding
Archives
Foucault suggested that every society created
special spaces, which he called (as a counterpart to imaginary utopias)
heterotopias. According to Foucault, these heterotopias are highly stylized
expressions of the society’s power and social structures. Among the types of
heterotopias discussed by Foucault were cemeteries, prisons, theatres, gardens
and brothels. Museums and libraries, suggested Foucault, were particularly striking
examples of heterotopias (Prescott 32).
According to Prescott, archives are
an example of heterotopias, too (33). Therefore, the way archives operates,
shows social structure of the time. The information that researchers gather from
archives are bundle up with social structure and power. The discourse of the
time, selects, deselects, includes, and excludes what institutions has
documented, what should be preserved and who can access which documents.
The process
of archives includes creation a document, preservation and accessing. Each of
these sub-processes reminds us the question sources, which the beginning of
that paper has mentioned. Because of documentation was at the past, the
discourse, culture, and politics of the time determine the interpretations of
the document. For instance, gender was not an issue until 18th
century, so it will be hard to find many documents about women before that
century. Today, a researcher may found identity cards for all citizens as
documents, but it would be nonsense to try to find any records for all people
in a piece of land. Faroqhi’s warnings on orientalist traps will be on the
official records in Foreign Office documents of British National Archives.
Preservation
is another process, which the discourse, politics and law of the time operates
the selection and de-selection processes. Today, because of the impact of new
technology, archive system transforms itself to digitisable - undigitisable
paradigm. Documentation started to dissolve. Institutions skip documentation
and digitize the information.
The
rapid liberalization period between 1945 and 1990, and technological
improvements solved most of the access questions. However, technological
improvements provide, more demand for powerful control on information, for
nations states and other institutions.
Background
of National Archives
Elizabeth
Shepherd analyzes the history of archives in UK, with three main aspects:
legislations and reports, profession on archives, institutions and archival education.
She states, “A series of government Commissions and Reports from 1800 to 2003
investigated and made recommendations on various aspects of archival activity
and influenced its development” (21). Until 1800s, public records were not
centralized. Most of them were different buildings and cities. The first
Committee was established in 1800 (22). That Committee’s reports focused on
building a center for all records, budget for printing and cataloging. The
first legislation was The Public Record Office Act 1838, which embraced legal
and court records but not the administrative records of government departments
(22-3).
Royal
Commission on Historical Manuscripts is established for private archives in
1869 (23). The British Museum Department of Manuscript was collecting the
documents from dealers, antiquarians or some private hands (gifts). After the
commission has been established, manuscripts has been redirected from museum to
the commission.
After,
“’The Local Government Act 1894’ confirmed county responsibilities for records”
(26), there are many reports on centralization, private rights etc. However,
until 2003 the centralization has not been finished. In 2003, Royal Commision
on Historical manuscript and Public Record Office combined in National Archives.
In that way, all records in Britain have been centralized in one institution,
except birth, death and marriage certificates, military service records from
1920s onwards, parish registers, wills dated after 1858, personal papers and
day to day record of hospitals, schools, companies and business.
Part 3. USING NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN OTTOMAN
HISTORIOGRAPHY
The
Question of Consular Reports
Ochsenwald describes consular
reports tend to be spotty, seldom following up one development over a
period (74). According to him,
most of consuls have language bars, and that affects their scale of
representation. The information that consuls provide, are lack of knowledge
about other towns, and they points only the city, and the ruler class. In fact,
that is still the same warnings from Faroqhi, and it is valid for all sources.
The
problem for a historian is depending just on single archives, and does not
think about the conditions of the period, which s/he is working on. To clarify
that issue, analyzing some books that stress on only consular reports will help
us.
Emergence
of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880-1925
Robert
Olson is a Professor of Middle East History and Politics. He is the writer of Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the
Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880-1925, which is the first academic book on
Sheikh Said rebellion. According to Beck’s book review, the most useful part of
the book is the discussion on effects of developed countries in the area (356).
Moreover, until Olson, there was an underestimation of Kurdish nationalistic
movement in development of Turkish Republic by Turkish scholars. However,
Tucker warns the reader in his book review and says, “One must be careful in
taking British data at face value” (1252). Olson has used secondary sources in
a wide range, but archives depended just on National Archives.
Accusations
on Olson
In
Turkish media, Olson’s book emerged after Abdullah Ocalan (The leader of PKK)
claimed that Grand Turkish National Assembly had accepted autonomy for Kurdish
Territory on 10 Februrary 1922. Ocalan was using Olson’s book as a source.
Olson’s source was a letter from Rumbold who was the British consular in Ankara
at that time. The letter was about a draft law of autonomy for Kurdistan. Olson
found the letter in National Archives from Foreign Office Documents (Appendix
1).
The
discussions have arisen over the internet in forums, newspapers, social media
tools etc. The Google search engine gives 12800 results in Turkish websites for
the code of British archive that Olson have used, which is FO 371/7781. Soner Yalçın wrote in Odatv.com
Curzon’s letter was giving wrong information because at the indicated date, the
day was Friday. His main argument was “On Fridays, there were no meetings in
Assembly”.
Yalçın’s
accusations are in preliminary historical approach. He is oriented in sources,
and has a fetish of document. His approach to history is in a sense of “what
was happened”. Although historiography theories have, new ways after post-war
and correct information are still very important, anymore, no one seeks
absolute truth, or fact. Nevertheless, the question is more than that. Olson
should have checked the information, and approach to the sources in a more
critical way.
The letter
is a summary of draft, received April 3 1922. Main emphasises in letter are on
area, taxes, budget, and language. There is no clear explanation for the
details of communication between Province and Angora. Rumbold do not inform in
detail about military responsibilities of province. He does not mention on
religious aspects of the area, which was a very important issue at that time.
In general, the letter is lack of knowledge that is important for the decade.
Moreover, the letter aims explaining the situation to the London, in the care
of British interests. That is why, the main emphasizes are on economical, and
linguistic issues.
Olson does
not warn the reader about the date was Friday. There are details of meetings as
“Selahaddin Bey voted against the debate of the draft law (39), or “the vast
majority, 373 to 64, “favored the draft law” (40), but there is no a direct
source for those details. In addition, he assumes in his notes to pages 30-41
that British possessed a full copy of draft law. There is no any insight of how
Grand Turkish National Assembly was working during 1922 (Appendix 2).
As a
result, although the accusations of Turkish media writers were very primitive
in historiographical theory, Olson has not take care of using one-way archives.
The traps that he has fall can be summarized as, non-critical approach to the
official records, unnoticed of the discourse, ignorance about the customs of
Turkey.
Result
In that
paper, there is a construction, which is built in a direction of themes that
are histographical debates, the importance of how to use sources, a closer look
to archives, and an example of using foreign archives. That survey did not
aimed to say something new, contrarily the first purpose was a slight fly on
what others said about the issue. Secondly, the paper aimed to put the archives
in a broader context. Finally, a small debate which made on a part of Olson’s
book.
At the end,
some interesting results blinked to us. The correlation between rapid
liberalization on access to documents and emergence of debates on sources in
postwar decades, force the reader to a new approach for Derrida’s famous motto:
“everything is text”. In addition, impact of technological improvements, create
a stress between citizens and nation states, since archives itself is a Foucault’s
heterotopia. All those results focus on immediate expedience, and more care on
using sources.
An archive
is created mostly for practical use in bureaucracy. The writer of the document
does not think that public or specific historians will examine his text. However,
that is not true after 1960s. During 1990s it is more significant that, states
know their all documents will be public approximately in 30 years. For Instance
Rumbold did not think that his letter will be discussed here, but Ingmar
Karlsson, the consular of Sweden in İstanbul retired two years ago, knew his
all writings can be read by anyone, in any instance. The aim, the discourse and
contexts of documents are strictly important. Moreover, the researcher should
always be aware of the internal organization and operation of institutions.
With an insight
of sources, a young historian can successfully overcome Southgate’s challenges,
Bentley’s bad mood, and Faroqhi’s traps. The technology can save him from
loosing in bales of documents. The rest is creation new questions to the elder
question.
WORKS CITED
Artun, Ali. Müze ve Modernlik, Tarih Sahneleri – Sanat Müzeleri 1. İstanbul: İletişim
Yayınları,
2006.
Beck, Lois G. Rev of “Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the
Sheikh Said Rebellion” by
Robert Olson. Ethnohistory.38.3 (1991) 356-8.
Bentley, Michael. Modern Historiography, an Introduction.
London: Routledge, 1999.
Cox, Richar J. No Innocent
Deposits, Forming Archives by Rethinking Appraisal. Maryland:
Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 2004.
Craven, Louise. “From the
Archivist’s Cardigan to the Very Dead Sheep: What are Archives?
What are
Archivists? What do They Do?” What are
Archives? Cultural and
Theoretical Perspectives: A Reader. Edited by Louise Craven. Hampshire:
Ashgate, 2008. 7-30.
Duchein, Michel. “The History of
European Archives and the Development of the Archival
Profession
in Europe.” The American Archivist. 55.1 (1992) 14-25.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. Approaching Ottoman History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,
1999.
Iggers, Georg G. Historiography in the Twentieth Century :
From Scientific Objectivity to the
Postmodern Challenge. London: Wesleyan University Press,
1997.
Olson, Robert. Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion,
1880-1925.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989.
Ochsenwald,
William L. “The Vilayet of Syria, 1901-1914: A Re-Examination of Diplomatic
Documents as Sources” Middle East Journal. 22.1 (1968) 73-87.
Prescott, Andrew. “The Textuality of
the Archives” What are Archives? Cultural
and
Theoretical Perspectives: A Reader. Edited by Louise Craven. Hampshire:
Ashgate,
2008. 31-51.
Shepherd, Elizabeth. Archives and Archivists in 20th Century
England. Hampshire: Ashgate,
2009.
Southgate, Beverley. History: What and Why? Ancient, Modern and
Postmodern
Perspectives. London: Routledge, 1996.
Tucker, William F. Rev of “Emergence of Kurdish
Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion”
by Robert Olson. American Historical
Review. (Oct 1991) 1252-3.
Valge, Jaak and Birgit Kibal.
“Restrictions on Access to Archives and Records in Europe: A
History and
the Current Situation” Journal of the
Society of Archivists. 28.2 (2007)
193-214.
Yalçın, Soner. “Öcalanı Kim
Yanılttı?” Odatv.com. 07 June 2011.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/