Scholarly and professional communication in archives: archival traditions and languages

The differences between archival traditions have hindered communication between archival practitioners and scholars from different countries and traditions and have impacted on the success of international recordkeeping projects. Some of the concepts that underpin the current archival literature in English are difficult to translate, one of the reasons being that many other languages do not have a word for the concept of ‘records’. Even within the Anglophone professional community, concepts and terms differ (likewise in the French-, Germanand Spanish-speaking world and other language spheres). Records Continuum concepts, which have influenced the development of the international Records Management standard ISO 15489, are generally misunderstood outside of Australia. On the other hand, very little literature is available in English about archival theories and practices in non-Anglophone countries. More research is needed on the impact of language and culture on recordkeeping traditions and practices. In this special issue of Archives & Manuscripts, we are seeking to develop our knowledge base by bringing together authors that represent different archival traditions and practices. This issue covers important aspects of the archival traditions in France, Italy, Slovenia, Finland, Iceland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Japan, and through the discussion of translations of the Universal Declaration on Archives, it brings insights from as far afield as the Dutch Caribbean Islands, the Philippines, China, Iran, Israel and the Arab world. In addition to these, contributions from Germany, Spain, Denmark and Canada were planned for this issue. However, due to increased workloads in the COVID-19 pandemic, the contributors were not able to submit their pieces. From the very first relationships archivists endeavoured across political and cultural borders, coping with differences between archival traditions has been a major challenge. One of the schemes to facilitate communication between archival practitioners and scholars from different countries and traditions was (and still is) the creation of glossaries and dictionaries. These tools, more often than not, are also used to standardise terminologies and practices and thereby contribute to further professionalisation. Such standardisation and professionalisation was the ambition of Dutch archivists Muller, Feith and Fruin who composed the Manual for the arrangement and description of archives (1898). Not only in chapter 6 ‘on the conventional use of certain terms and signs’, but throughout the book the authors strived to standardisation and uniformity in the arrangement and description of archives. Shortly after the publication of the Manual the first translation appeared: a German edition translated by Hans Kaiser, and closely supervised by the Dutch trio. The translation into another language and into another archival tradition led to many, especially terminological questions. Some professional Dutch terms remained untranslated; for others an adequate translation could hardly be found. In his foreword Wilhelm Wiegand ARCHIVES AND MANUSCRIPTS 2021, VOL. 49, NOS. 1–2, 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2021.1919043