• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.80
• /
• pp.43-88
• /
• 2024

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is a relatively quiet latecomer to the traditional archives of the Western world. Although the United States lacks a long history of organized public records·archives management, it has developed a modern system optimized for the American historical context. This system focuses on the systematic management and preservation of the vast amount of modern records produced and collected during the tumultuous 20th century. As a result, NARA has established a modern archival system that is optimized for the American historical context. The U.S. public records·archives management system is based on the principle that records·archives are the property of the American people and belong to the public. This concept originated during the British colonial era when records were used to safeguard the rights of the colonies as self-governing citizens. For Americans, records and archives have long been a symbol of the nation's identity, serving as a means of protecting individual freedoms, rights, and democracy throughout the country's history. It is natural, therefore, that American life and history should be documented, and that the recorded past should be managed and preserved for the nation's present and future. The public records·archives management system in the United States is the result of a convergence of theories, practices, lessons learned, and ideas that have been shaped by the country's history, philosophies, and values about records, and its unique experience with records management. This paper traces the origins of records and archives in the United States in a historical context to understand the organic relationship between American life and records. It examines the process of forming a modern public records management system that is both uniquely American and universal to the American context without falling into the two forms of traditions that reflect the uniqueness of American history.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2021

This study traced the origin and transformation of word library linked with archives in the ancient Near East, and Greece and Rome. First, the word library has two origins. One is derived from the Latin bibliothēkē from the ancient Greek βιβλιοθήκη. The first trace is Pollux's Onomasticon in the second half of the 2nd century, and if considered as a set of literature texts, it is Lipsius's De Bibliothecis Syntagma in 1602. The other was established as an library in the early 14th century after Latin libraria (or librarium) was translated into Old French librairie (or librarie). The word library was coined by Chaucer in 1374. Second, the clay tablet repository that existed in the ancient Near East is close to an archive, but the official name is unknown. However, the Ashurbanipal clay tablet archive is far from the principle of respect for original order and origins emphasized by the archivists, so it is not a royal archive, but a prototype of the royal library. And the official name of the Library of Alexandria was 'Βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας', and then it was changed to 'ALEXANDRINA BYBLIOTHECE'. Third, In ancient Greece and Rome, archives and libraries were separated. Greece libraries were at the level of a small libraries attached to gymnasiums, and had few independent titles. The names of the Roman libraries often attached to the public baths were mixed with βιβλιοθήκη and Bibliotheca. Finally, the ancient library was succeeded to the cathedral bibliothek, and was transformed into 'bayt al-hikmah' in the Islamic Empire. In Japan, China, and Korea, Japanese-Chinese word library was accepted at the end of the 19th century, but there are many issues that require follow-up research.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.23
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2010

Finding aids are tools which facilitate to locate and understand archives and records. Traditionally there are two types of archival finding aids: vertical and horizontal. Vertical finding aids such as inventories have multi-level descriptions based on provenance, while horizontal ones such as catalogs and index are tools to guide to the vertical finding aids based on the subject. In the web environment, traditional finding aids are evolving into more dynamic forms. Respecting the principles of provenance and original order, vertical finding aids are changing to multi-entity structures with development of ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF) and ISDF as standards for describing each entity. However, vertical finding aids can be too difficult, complicated, and boring for many users, who are accustomed to the easy and exciting searching tools in the internet world. Complementing them, new types of finding aids are appearing to provide easy, interesting, and extensive access channels. This study investigates the development and limitation of vertical finding aids, and the recent trend of evolving new finding aids complementing the vertical ones. The study finds three new trends of finding aid development. They are (i) mixture, (ii) integration, and (iii) openness. In recent days, certain finding aids are mixed with stories and others provide integrated searches for the collections of various heritage institutions. There are cases for experimenting user participation in the development of finding aids using Web 2.0 applications. These new types of finding aids can also cause some problems such as decontextualised description and prejudices, especially in the case of mixed finding aids and quality control of user contributed annotations and comments. To solve these problems, the present paper suggests to strengthen the infrastructure of vertical finding aids and to connect them with various new ones and to facilitate interactions with users of finding aids. It is hoped that the present paper will provide impetus for archives including the National Archives of Korea to set up and evaluate the development strategies for archival finding aids.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.179-210
• /
• 2017

By redefining the concept of history, my colleagues and I have reformed our department in terms of curriculum and faculty members. This paper is a report of some of the conclusions that we have obtained from this procedure. Despite a long relationship, two disciplines do not seem to match or complement each other in the Korean education system. We believe that this is due to the fact that the Department of Korean History has focused on "national history (NH)." By conferring a privilege on NH, persons, families, societies, regions, and others were removed from NH. To make matters worse, a biased view that history is just an interpretation has prevailed, and the empiricism of history was weakened, which brought about an indifference in keeping records and archives. In East Asia, "history" means both modern history and archives. The concern about the authenticity of records did not come from H. Jenkinson or L. Duranti, and not even from the electronic environment or the Public Records Act of 1998. Key concepts such as records, documents-archives, manuscripts, authenticity, compilation-appraisal, arrangement, and description are different from their signifiant but are same or similar to their $signifi{\acute{e}}$. In case of "provenance" and "original order," they are used in education and practice in the traditional archives. History includes the recording, archiving, and the story or historiography of an event. In this context, the Department of Korean History should contain a more archives-oriented curriculum and select an archival-trained faculty. On the other hand, the department has accumulated long-term experience with appraisal and description of records; thus, archival science should absorb the criticism of the material. History will be shaken without the help of archives, while archives will lose their root without history. We are at the point in which we need to be reminded why we want to be a historian or an archivist, and for this, the more colleagues, the better.