Archival Science (2003) 3: 379–399 Ó Springer 2005

DOI 10.1007/s10502-004-3420-4

Archival Science in Germany – Traditions, Developments and

Perspectives

NILS BRUEBACH
Archives School, Bismarckstr. 32, Marburg 35037, Germany (E-mail: bruebach@
mailer.uni-marburg.de)

In this article it will be attempted to outline of the development the

archivist’s professional science in a middle-European country which
has, being a part of the old traditional Europe and due to his history,
more than one archival tradition until today. Of course it is possible to
concentrate only on some aspects. It is the author’s aim to offer an
outline of the archival system, the leading principles and some glances
into today’s methodological developments, concentrating on appraisal,
description and access and electronic archiving since these fields show
the most fruitful and perhaps the most interesting results. Developments
in other fields, e.g. archival law, had to be left aside. The author also
refrained from giving footnotes reflecting a debate or position men-
tioned in this text. This has good reasons: firstly it showed to be
impossible to include all articles, papers, books which needed to become
included at first glance, and secondly there are two excellent web-based
sources which allow research in the variety of thinking in German
archival science: the bibliography on archival science (Biografie zum
Archivwesen) published online by Marburg Archives School and the
bibliographies on various fields of archival work published by the State
Archives Directorate of Baden-Wuerttemberg offering also older
archival literature.1 Thus, footnotes will concentrate on web-based
1
The ‘‘Bibliogafie zum Archivwesen’’ can be found at: www.uni-marburg.de/archivschule/.
Click at the link. ‘‘Bibliografien’’ in the site-map. You have different options for research, there is
an introduction in English which explains the research options. Bibliographies on Appraisal
(Überlieferungsbildung), Arrangement and Description (Archivische Ordnung und Erschliessung),
restoration and conservation (Bestandserhaltung), reprography (Reprografie) and electronic
records management (EDV und Bülrokommunikation) can be found at: www.lad-bw.de/fr-
frag.htm. The first textbooks on archival science had been published in the 1930s, including Adolf
Brennecke’s Archivkunde, edited by Wolfgang Leesch an published in 1953 for the first time post
mortem. In both German states Brennecke found successors. Johannes Papritz Archivwissens-
chaft (4 vols.) was published by the Marburg Archives School in 1976. Gerhard Enders, lecturer
for archival science at Potsdam, published his Archivverwaltungslehre in 1961, covering archival
management. Botho Brachmann, professor for archival science at the Humboldt-Univer-
sität at Berlin concentrated his publications mostly on records management issues. Brachmann’s
380 NILS BRUEBACH

resources on topics mentioned in the text. At last, a word on language is

necessary. At some places in this text it is inevitable to bother the reader
with German terminology since some terms have no English equivalent
and need explanations.2

Federalism as a Chance: Germany’s Archival Structure

The federal structure of today 15 states – each responsible for the

organisation of that particular state’s archival system is enriched by
more than 2.700 municipal and county archives, university archives,
business archives and others. Looking back in history the territorial
structure is even more fragmented, creating an archival system not easy
to cope with by those looking for simple-minded rationales and ‘‘fast-
food’’ solutions. Thus Germany’s archival system is offering a broad
variety of both easy and complex archival strategies and a methodo-
logical richness for the archival task. ‘‘On top’’ is the Federal Archives
(Bundesarchiv) with its different sections which are partially located at
different stations. Like in the United States it took quite a while before
the legislator found it necessary to draw the fonds of central institutions
together. The so-called ‘‘Reichsarchiv’’ as one predecessor of today’s
‘‘Bundesarchiv’’ was founded in 1921 by a Cabinett’s decision, 50 years
after the independent states had been crafted together by Bismarck’s

(Footnote1 Continued)
Archivwesen der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Theorie und Praxis. Von einem Auto-
renkollektiv unter Leitung von Botho Brachmann (Berlin 1984) sets the scope of East Germany’s
archival science in the 1980s. The gap between archival science and modern diplomatics has been
closed by Heinrich Otto Meissner’s Aktenkunde der Neuzeit and his Archivalienkunde as early as
1936. Friedrich Beck’s and Eckhard Hennig’s Die archivalischen Quellen from 1993 follows a more
systematic approach, covering all types of archival materials. Among the current top authors in
German archival science are Angelika Menne-Haritz with publications on archival terminology,
information technology in archives and electronic records management, Robert Kretzschmar and
Juergen Treffeisen on appraisal, Peter Milller, Rainer Bruening and the author on description,
Thekla Kluttig, Frank Bischoff an Michael Wettengel on electronic archives, Rainer Polley and
Bodo Uhl on archival law, Hartmut Weber, Bernd Kappelhoff and Juergen-Rainer Wolf on
archival management and Karsten Uhde on archival education and internet technology in archives.
Two national journals on archival science are published currently: Der Archivar since 1947 appears
four times a year, the Archivalische Zeitschrift on a yearly basis. Different archival authorities of
the states have their publications as well, among them the Werkhefte form Baden-Wuerrttemberg
and those from the state archives authority of Saxony. Some have their own newsletters and
journals as well, the Archivpflege in Westfalen and Lippe being the most prominent. Among the
assocations of archives of certain branches the assocation of archivists of companies and economic
institution publish Archive und Wirtschaft. Archivists in church archives, archives of broadcasting
institutions, in parlamentary institutions and others have their journals as well.
2
A current terminology list with definitions in German an translations can be accessed online at:
http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/mennehar/ datiii/ engterm.html.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 381

policy of unification. Its first task was to collect the records of the
Imperial War Administration and military records from troops dis-
armed at the end of Word War I. This does not mean that there is no
archival tradition on a central level before the early 20s. But until 1806 it
was the Central State and Privy Archives of the Habsburg Monarchy at
Vienna (Haus-Hof- und Staatsarchiv) taking the responsibility for
keeping the records of the Holy Roman Empire, due to the fact that
from 1439 to 1806 a Habsburg Prince was elected Emporer.3 In the 19th
century, especially after 1866 Bismarck’s Prussia was acting as ‘‘Chief
Executive’’ of the Empire. Thus the Prussian Privy State Archives hold
the records giving evidence about the Imperial policy and administra-
tion until the end of World War I.
Changes in the organisation of archives, the structure of the archival
system and the archival methodology are in Germany in the last
200 years in a lot of cases reflecting major changes in the system of
states and administrative reforms combined with innovations in busi-
ness-processes. This is an experience Germany shares the other parts of
Old Europe: as the French Revolution gave birth to the ‘‘archival hu-
man rights’’, i.e. archives to be accessed and used as an add-on to their
old custodial functions, the period of administrative reforms during the
first two decades of the 19th century created an efficient archival
organisation at least on the state’s levels where archival work was no
longer craftsmanship but following that time’s principles of good gov-
ernance. This was the ground on which two working principles could
emerge from which are accepted around the world today: these are of
course the principle of provenance with its roots in France, the
Netherlands and Germany and the concept of evidence deriving from
the documentary context maintained and reflected by the record system
the document within its context is a part of.
The division of Germany after World War II interrupted in the
communist eastern part this tradition. The existing state archives came
under the uniform rule of the archives administration of the GDR’s
ministry of the interior, loosing their independence in methodology.
But still today, 15 years after the reunification, on both the federal
and the level of the states the situation in the former East and West
Germanies, GDR and FRG before the reunification, is not the same. In
day-to-day’s work the archives in the East-German states are service-
centres allowing to examine a communist system abandonned via the
records left. In particular the archives of the former GDR-Ministry of
State Security (Stasi) with its own archival system has to be mentioned

3
Only in the 1740s a Bavarian Prince broke this row.
382 NILS BRUEBACH

here. Processes of reorganising the archival system as part of function-

based reforms started in eastern states (Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt) but
have reached their western counterparts recently (i.e. North-Rhine-
Westfalia). Today the states of Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Ham-
burg, Saarland and Schlewig-Holstein have only one state-archive, the
other ten federal states have their own archival system with between two
(Rhineland-Palatine) and nine (Bavaria) state-archives having respon-
sibilities for current records but going back to old territorial archives.4
The re-organization of this rich but sometimes complicate archival
system is combined with a thorough rethinking of archival functions
and the implementation of new IT-based managerial instruments. A
paradigm-shift becomes visible: instead of top-quality holdings archives
focus more and more on top-quality services and added-value-strategies
for their customers. Archives are on the move in today’s Germany – the
question to ask is: what is the role of archival science in these devel-
opments and what perspectives can already be foreseen for future
developments?

Traditions and Working-Principles: The Emergence of Archival Science

and its Emancipation as a Discipline

Like in other European countries the development of archival science as

an independent field of study is closely connected to the development of
the archives schools starting in the 19th century. The term
‘‘Archivwissenschaft’’ (archival science) occurs for the first time as the
title of a small book on archival description published in 1806, but for
the most of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century it was under
question within the profession whether archival science was a real sci-
ence, a supplementary subject to the historic sciences or pure crafts-
manship. A first improvement was achieved when the curriculum of the
first Marburg Archives School in 1894 included a subject called ‘‘Ar-
chivkunde’’. The classes were taught by an archival professional, the
director of the Marburg State Archives and concentrated on description
and arrangement; it already included the discussion of the principle of
provenance, which had been introduced as working-principle in Prussian
Privy State Archives at Berlin 13 years before and had already begun its
calm triumph course through Germany’s archives. This is an interesting

4
A detailed overview also containig adresses from Municipial, University and Business Archives
in Verband deutscher Archivarinnen und Archivare Archive in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
österreich und der Schweiz. 17th (ed.), (Muenster, 2002).
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 383

fact, mostly overseen by archival scientists: before the principle of

provenance gained its theoretical explanations by Muller, Feith and
Fruin in the Netherlands it was already followed in day-to-day’s work
by archivists in France (since the 1840s) and Germany (since the 1880s).
The reason why these three countries for the first time thought in the
dimensions of ‘‘respect de fonds’’ and original order is quite simple:
these three countries were – together with Italy – reorganised in their
administrations during the Napoleonic era. The archival results of this
reorganisation of administration and territories is in all three countries
today’s archival structure and the need to arrange and to describe the
abandoned archives of dissolved states and their administrations. This
led to a complete new thinking about archives. The former perspective
of coherence between records management and archives closely linked
to a certain governmental institution (Behoerdenarchive) became dis-
solved. Instead archivists had to cope with a lot of different fonds in
their archives, everyone related to a different territory and/or adminis-
tration and found in a different state of order, arranged and described in
a variety of systems. They became aware that there is no such thing as a
general system to arrange, that the best system of arrangement is that
which can be derived from the records themselves. Here lies the essence
of what has been called ‘‘registraturbeginsel’’ by the three Dutch
founding-fathers. The principle of provenance was already there before
it was formulated as an archival paradigm. The archivists of the 19th
century recognised very rapidly that this principle comprised both the
protection of the origin of the records and the protection of the logical
system of their contexts. For the first time a system was found that
allowed the arrangement of records which were seen not as given set of
autonomous documents but as an entity with an internal logical struc-
ture made up by the interrelatedness of its elements. This gave new
meaning to the concept of evidence which was already centuries old at
that time. Suddenly evidence was not something to make proof by
analysing a single charter with the methods of diplomatics using the
elements of the ‘‘discrimen veri ac falsi’’ and testifying unbroken
archival custody.
Evidence now was seen as given by the sequence and interrelatedness
of elements in a record and records as elements of a fonds – elements
deriving from business-processes and connected to context and structure
and made authentic by provenance. Indeed, this change of methods
stood at the beginning of the development of archival science as an
independent subject and as a science in the modern sense of the word. It
is not accidental that debates about methods and strategies in appraisal,
about description and access and laws related to archives and archiving
384 NILS BRUEBACH

firstly attached to the term ‘‘Kulturgutschutzrecht’’ (laws on the pres-

ervation of cultural heritage) started at the beginning of the 20th cen-
tury after the methodology of this new emerging science had shifted to
an analytical approach. This methodological paradigm-shift is the most
important result of the definition of provenance as an intellectual con-
cept out of debates between archival professionals a 100 years ago. This
debate – which to some extent was a European affair – was promoted by
domestic discussions and the translations of the ‘‘Handleiding’’ of
Muller, Feith and Fruin. The German translation appeared in 1905 an
Italian in 1908 and a French version in 1910. The discussion about how
to use the new concept of provenance and the endeavour of its potential
already raised questions of today’s interest, e.g. the discussion between
Georg Winter from Berlin and Karl Gustav Weybull from lund/Sweden
is both related to the principle of provenance as an instrument for the
‘‘production’’ of desriptive results and arrangement but one can read
their papers also as a debate about research-strategies and user-de-
mands and archivist capacities to fulfil them in the best way possible.
The climax of this fruitful debate from a German perspective was the
development of Adolf Brenneckes ‘‘Freies Provenienzprinzip’’.5 This
took place in the 1930s, also Brennecke’s thoughts were published after
his too early death by Wolfgang Leesch in 1954.6 His ideas were elab-
orated for his classes in archival science at the Institute for Archivals
Science at the Privy State Archives at Berlin, the successor of the first
Marburg Archives School mentioned above. Other participants in the
debate on provenance in the 30s came from Italy, Denmark and Esto-
nia. Interestingly Jenkinson in his famous Manual just summarised the
Dutch approach; at that time the discussions about provenance seems to
be a continental European affair. What were the results? Mainly that
there is no simple approach to provenance.
It was seen as an analytical instrument relevant for all archival tasks
and as a concept comprising a variety of interpretations and offering a
choice of practical solutions and options for implementation – the
original custodial idea of the ‘‘registraturbeginsel’’ being just one.
Provenance as a working principle meant no longer reconstruction of an
older pre-archival order but developing instruments for arrangement

5
The term ‘‘freies Provenienzprinzip’’ cannot be translated without changing the meaning,
which is not simply reconstructing a given pre-archival structure or respecting the origin of records
but analysing functional and business contexts of related records (Sachgemeinschaften) and
develop a system for arrangement based on the analytical results.
6
The library of Marburg Archives School holds an earlier version of Brennecke’s book which is
probably the script for his lectures in the 1930s and which was used by Leesch for preparing the
book post mortem.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 385

and description that allowed access form a user’s perspective. After

World War II the role of the archive schools for the development of
archival science increased. The Berlin Institute was refounded at Mar-
burg in 1949 and got its GDR-counterpart at Potsdam in 1950. Both of
the two archives schools had their eminent thinkers offering different
approaches to archival sciences and adding new ideas to it. At Marburg
it was Johannes Papritz who developed the instruments of structure
analysis focussing strongly on investigating in historical and contem-
porary records management systems and their developments, function
based records creation and archival cooperation with records creating
institutions. His second focus was on description and arrangement
which according to his strategy must be based on a careful analysis of
what we would call today the record system as a whole and must be
equivalent to the different classes and groups of records. He is the au-
thor of the first archival descriptive standard published as early as 1954.
Papritz had strong international contacts and was studying closely the
archival systems world-wide, thus fostering a comparative approach in
archival science.7 His resumée of 30 years of research and teaching in
archival science were published 1976 under the simple title ‘‘Archiv-
wissenschaft’’ as a 1.526-pages ‘‘opus magnum,’’ reflecting the state of
the art in our subject at that time. Papritz writings are still worth
reading as they reflect a view on archives and their functions which has
similarities to the records-continuum approach.
Papritz counterpart at Potsdam was Heinrich Otto Meisner who had
published a book on modern diplomatics (Aktenkunde) for the purpose
of users of archives as early as 1935. Meisner offers a document-based
approach with a system for classifying early modern documents in their
administrative context. Thus he transferred the methodology of medi-
eval diplomatics developed for classes of charters to other types of
documents. Meisner saw archives as different types and classes of
documents, his focus on context and structure was not as clear as
Papritz’s and Brennecke’s approach. More important are Meisner’s
contributions on the fields of archival terminology and appraisal. To-
gether with Wolfgang Leesch from West-Germany Meisner compiled
the first archival terminology nation-wide accepted. It was published in
1961. This is one example for fruitful dialogue between archivists from
the two Germanies which was possible until the Berlin wall was erected.
Other Colleagues of Meisner were Gerhard Enders and Botho Brach-

7
See e.g. Papritz’s scientific personal records, which are kept by Marburg Archives School. The
online-finding-aid is accessible at http://www.midosa.del/beispiele/index.html.
386 NILS BRUEBACH

mann, their fields being archives management and records

management.8 When in 1967 archival education in the GDR was
transferred to the Department of History in the Humboldt–University
at Berlin Brachmann became professor for archival science. This
transfer broke also with the strategy of post-graduate education of
archivists and replaced it by a graduate course – although the scope and
content of classes taught remained nearly the same. This structure was
abolished after the German reunification – since then Marburg and the
Bavarian Archives School at Munich are the only institutions for post-
graduate archival education in Germany, on the graduate level there is
since 1993 the Department of Information Science in the University for
Applied Science at Potsdam, which offers an integrated education. This
is a complete new approach with no example in both the former GDR
and the former FRG.
Since the 1990s, after German reunification debates and developments
in archival science concentrated mainly on three fields of interest:
appraisal, the archiving of electronic records and description and access.
The cornerstones of these debates are sketched in the following
paragraphs.

Tradition and Innovation: Archival Education and Current Approaches to

Archival Science

In today’s Germany three archives schools compete in the market and

are an important forum for academic debates in the fields of archival
science. The successor of the former GDR-Fachschule for Archival
Science is the Faculty on Information Science in the University of
Applied Science at Potsdam. Three courses on archival services, library
services and general information management are offered. The syllabus
of the three courses include integrated classes covering methodological
aspects of relevance for all and specialised classes for each field.
Founded in 1949 as the successor of Brennecke’s and Meissner’s Berlin
Institute of Archival Science, The Marburg Archives School is the
largest of the three education centres for professional archivists in
Germany. It is an independent institution but has a close liasion with
the Marburg University and the Marburg State Archives, since the first
professional training-programme for archivists at Marburg was estab-
lished in 1894.
8
The principal studies by these authors are quoted in footnote 1 above. See also: Hermann
Rumschöttel: ‘‘The development of Archival Science as a Scholarly Discipline,’’ Archival Science
1(2) (2001): 143–155.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 387

In its course-programme, three types of courses are offered: graduate

Courses, finishing with the degree ‘‘Diplom-Archivar/in FH’’, Post-
graduate Courses and a continuating and professional-In-Service-
Training Program me (eligible for everyone, who works as an archivist).
The organisation of the training at Marburg is based a twofold struc-
ture. Internships right on from the start of the program secure the
amount of practice and experience in combination with classroom
teaching conducted by professional academic teachers and archivists
specialised in certain fields of archival science. The structure of the
Archives School, as an organisation funded by the archive administra-
tion of the states with their directors sitting in our board of trustees,
accompanied by the chairperson of Germany’s professional archival
organisations secures the integration of new requirements, tendencies
and developments both in theory and practise. It greatly improves also
job perspectives for graduates.9
Research is an integrated part of the Marburg-typ education,
including cooperative research-projects with external partners, e.g. with
the Federal Archives and archival authorities of the federal states. A
national conference is organised on a yearly basis. The periodiacls
published in two or three volumes a year include best practise guide-
lines, conference results and post-graduate thesises. Though being the
institution with a long tradition, Marburg initiated most of current
debates in archival science and set the scene with innovative results in
the fields of e-records management, description and the archivist’s
eletronic workbench for representation of descriptive results.
The Munich Archives School is connected to the Bavarian State
Archives Authority, its structure follows the Marburg model, concen-
trating on educating archivists for Bavaria only. However, being the
smallest it is the oldest: the first courses were taught in 1825.

A glance on the Archival Cat-Walk: The Development of Appraisal

Models

A professional discussion about this key function is more or less

100 years old. It was in 1905 when Georg Hille on a conference of
scientific archivists presented first thoughts about appraisal methods.
Since then the discussion until the early 1990s swung between two poles
one can find also in other countries: function-based appraisal versus

9
See Angelika Menne-Haritz, ‘‘Archival Qualification in Marburg: A Comprehensive Concept,
VI European Conference on Archives: Archives between past and future,’’ (Florenz, 30.5–26.2001).
388 NILS BRUEBACH

content-based appraisal. A few highlights still influential in appraisal

concepts or appraisal theory shall be highlighted. It was as early as 1936
that first thoughts about an appraisal policy and the transparency of
appraisal decisions were made. Astonishingly it was in the State of
Prussia where Heinrich-Otto Meisner invented what he called the
‘‘Motivenberichte’’ – archivists had to report about their appraisal
decisions, their strategies and motivations for transfer of records into
one of Prussia’s state archives. The aim was to achieve a general ap-
praisal strategy mandatory to be applied for all Prussian state archives,
based on a thorough and detailed functional analysis of all agencies of
the administration and special appraisal strategies applicable to a
groups of records-creators and/or records groups. Ernst Posner and
others who emigrated to the US might have transferred some of these
thoughts into the North-American archival tradition, especially the
newly founded Federal Archives in the US. Obviously the Schellen-
bergian approach in North-American appraisal which became influen-
tial since the mid-1950s included some of the original ideas going back
on Meisner.10
After WW II astonishingly, the discussion about appraisal methods
and strategies was an East/West dialog. The archivists in the GDR re-
acted to the so-called Sante-Rohr-model, suggesting for the first time a
two step macro/micro – approach by designing the ‘‘Grundsaetze der
Wertermittlung’’ (Guidelines to determine permanent value), the first in
a row of content-oriented appraisal instruments developed during the
1970 and 1980s. 1972 was the year when Hans Booms firstly published
his suggestions about a documentation-plan initiating a discussion about
this instrument on a national and since its publication in ‘‘Archivaria’’ in
1992 on an international level. Interestingly his ideas did not come into
practice in the German Federal Archives whose director was Booms.
This institution developed an approach based on the analysis of func-
tions and the degree functions and competencies are represented in the
records related called ‘‘Federfuehrungsmodell’’. It was in the in the states
archives and the archival directorate of the GDR where the first docu-
mentation-plans based on Boom’s thoughts where developed and
implemented. Recently, Robert Kretzschmar, director of the Main State
Archives at Stuttgart and a leading expert on appraisal in the German
archival community suggested to use documentation-plans as a planning
instrument and for prospective macro-appraisal. However, the test of the
practicability of these ideas is still ahead. The old GDR-documentation-
plans are obsolete for today’s appraisal practice, their role is to act as

10
Angelika Menne-Haritz, ‘‘Framework and Aims of Appraisal’’, Janus (2) (1997): S. 8–17.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 389

reference for what has been appraised by what means and methods in the
past. The early 1990ties were a period in which the discussion about
appraisal in German archival science was strongly influenced by the
rediscovery of Schellenberg’s approach. Schellenberg’s book ‘‘Modern
Archives’’ had been translated already in German in 1956 but this
translation did not influence the discussion in any way. It was the new
translation of the guidelines Schellenberg wrote for the staff of NARA,
presented by Angelika Menne-Haritz in 1991 mainly for teaching-rea-
sons that functioned like an initial blow. The two positions in the debate
– appraisal mainly based on functional means or on a purely content-
based approach which dominated the discussion so far came to their
showdown. They were interpreted as incommensurable entities in a
dichothonomous sense – an astonishing fact taking into account
Schellenberg’s original position. Another topic is the coherence between
archival theory and archival practise which became clearly visible
throughout the discussions and confrontations between the leading fig-
ures. It was clear that any appraisal instrument without a clear and solid
base in archival theory would be obsolete in the future. A third line came
from the international discussion on appraisal methods. Initiatives like
the PIVOT-project in the Netherlands and French experience with the
system of the ‘‘missions des archives’’ were carefully studied. This third
aspect is very important, since it survived the ‘‘showdown’’ between the
two approaches. As shown above one of the leading and most fruitful
principles in Old Europe’s archival science – cross-border-thinking and a
drive to study and compare a variety of approaches and methods instead
of ‘‘unilateralism’’ both in methodological and instrumental means –
showed up again in this phase of the national debate. The showdown
between the positions took place during two conferences at Werder (near
Potsdam) in 1991 and at Marburg in 1994. What became visible when the
dust settled? To describe the results of this fruitful catharsis means to
describe the current positions in appraisal theory and practise in
Germany.
As in other countries appraisal is shaped around the macro and the
micro aspect. In today’s appraisal practice it means that so-called
appraisal-models (Bewertungsmodelle) are the top-level strategy.
Appraisal-models can work in a horizontal and a vertical approach.
They are function-based and in a first step you analyse the functions of a
whole administrative area with all institutions involved in the hierarchy
in the carrying-out of a certain function. The aim is preserve the record
from that institution where the conduct of business in carrying out the
function has led to the most dense and informative records. Since this
approach is function-based it can be applied prospective and thus allows
390 NILS BRUEBACH

a coherent appraisal of records regardless of the form in which they are

preserved. Its brother is the Dutch PIVOT-concept. The difference to
PIVOT is that the appraisal-models include a second step in which you
check a sample of records in regard of their actual archival values. E.g.
you might use the results of a functional analysis and a records classi-
fication to identify those records groups of that institution identified as
that were functions are ‘‘condensed’’ suggested for transfer to an ar-
chives and in a second step one will check whether the prospective
thoughts were right by analysing sample records. This approach has two
advantages: it allows prospective appraisal and eliminates the need
every single record. General decisions for whole record-groups assigned
permanent value and others assigned for shredding are an integral part
of this method. It is clear that the best results can be achieved if the
records-system of the records-creating organisations is in a good
condition; thus, these appraisal-models foster a coherent view towards
records-management. This is something they have in common with the
Swiss method of ‘‘Priorisierung’’.11

The Shift of Paradigms: From the Archivist’s Descriptive Workbench to

User Oriented Access Systems

The period under discussion here is characterised by two factors. Firstly

descriptive standards have been developed which influenced archival
methods tremendously.
And secondly, computerisation and the design and implementation
of instruments for gaining access to archives online at different levels of
descriptions. Is the first topic nothing special – beside the fact that one
can again find parallel developments in the two Germanies until
reunification and that this time the parallel developments look like the
race to the moon – achievements in the second area follow their own
path, compared with the international discussion and practice. Encoded
archival description (EAD) has not that momentum and weight in the
German national discussion and archival practice that it has on an
international level. Online-finding-aids embedded in archival content-
management-systems follow a different strategy.12

11
The current debates can be followed vie the web-based, ‘‘Forum Bewertung’’ at www.forum-
bewertung.de, examples for appraisal-models can be downloaded at: /www.lad-bw.de/fr-frag.htm.
See also: Angelika Menne-Haritz, ‘‘Access – the Reformulation of an Archival Paradigme’’,
Archival Science 1(1) (2000): 57–82.
12
Nils Brübach, ‘‘Normierung, Erscwießung und die Präsentation von Erschließungsergebnis-
sen,’’ Arbido, Heft 5(2004): S49–51, (Bern, 2004).
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 391

The period from 1950 on made it necessary for archivists in both

German states to describe fonds newly transferred from pre-war insti-
tutions or re-describe allocated fonds and archives. It became clear very
soon that due to the resources and capacities available only standardi-
sation of description could lead to results in a reasonable time. This led
to the development of parallel national descriptive standards in the
former GDR and in West-Germany. From the beginning these stan-
dards were archival standards, library standards had been examined an
found unfit for archival purposes in the 1930s. The West-German
development was driven forward in close cooperation with Marburg
Archives School. As early as 1954 Johannes Papritz published the first
descriptive standard which had been tested during practical courses in
classroom. He was the first to stress the managerial benefits of
descriptive standards as the possibility of cooperative work with
coherent results, clear and effective planning of descriptive programmes
with a controlled workflow, producing transparency of the descriptive
process with improved access. This productive view played a central role
in the discussion. The parallel developments in the GDR followed a
similar pattern. In 1954 the Central State Archives published its
descriptive standard, followed by the State archives at Schwerin and
Potsdam in 1956 and 1958. These documents became amalgamated into
the ‘‘Rules for Arrangement and Description’’ published in 1964 for
mandatory use in all archives of the former East-Germany. Both the
East-German and the West-German documents were context-standard
with strong content-related elements. Five descriptive levels were fore-
seen: Archives, fonds, structure, file, and item with assigned descriptive
elements and implementation-rules both general and on the element
level. Both standards became extensively adopted both in East and West
and made proof their value by their usability in archival descriptive
practise. They were really working instruments for the archival work-
bench and were used as teaching-tools. During the 1970s they became
amended by material-oriented and fonds-type oriented standards, e.g.
charters, maps and audiovisual collections. Both documents follow a
bottom-up approach for the workflow of arrangement and description,
describing an archives through describing its elements. The result of the
archivist’s work and the standard access-instrument foreseen in both
standards are the finding-aid (Findbuch) and the repository-guide
(Bestaendeuebersicht) containing all the typical elements as frontmatter,
institutional history with provenance information, archivist’s notes
describing the archival processing of the material, the title-list, indexes
etc. One element is special: instead of a container list one may find in
archival catalogues from Great Britain or North America finding-aids
392 NILS BRUEBACH

in Germany are always structured by a logical system e.g. classification

reflecting the original business-processes and functions the records
derived from.13 Another important fact is that the repository-guide as
an overview over the holdings of an archives reflects again a prove-
nance-based structure formed by phases of administrative history and
broader fields of administrative functions.
IT-technology started its way into descriptive practise in the 1980s
and Database systems in Archives became implemented. Designed on
purpose from the beginning they were based on the existing standards.
Two approaches were taken by implementing either centralised systems
using mainframe-computers or PC-based systems. The finding-aid and
the repository-guide as traditional results of archival description and
access kept their value as access instruments. In the early 1990s a survey
revealed that more than 20 different solutions – four large-scale data-
bases on maineframe-maschines and a variety of on-purpose developed
or customized databases were in use. Estimations about the content
stored in these databases run as high as 3.5 million descriptive units.
When the potential of the internet as information-base about archives
and their holdings and as instrument for online-research using the po-
tential of markup-languages became clear during the mid-1990s it was
out of doubt than any relevant solution had to take into account the
existing computer-based information sources. As such, any instrument
for online-access to finding-aids had to have the capacity to include the
information stored in the data-bases mentioned. In 1997 Archives
School in cooperation with the State Archives Directorate of Baden-
Wurttemberg and funded by the National Research Fund (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft) developed the first prototype of the
MIDOSA-ONLINE software-package with the capacity to generate
online-finding-aids literally on the press of a button. MIDOSA-
ONLINE was developed on the basis of a description software used
since 1983 in the state archives of Baden-Wurttemberg. It was an aim
that even archivists with only basic knowledge in use of computers
should be able to create their online-finding-aids and that the result
should be readable with standard browser software. At that time this
meant the exclusion of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) as a way
to realise the goals, since EAD was SGML-based, needed special
browser software and the archivist needed to know the tags quite well to
achieve results. The solution offered by the prototype was a HTML-
representation of descriptive results created, maintained and stored in a

13
Examples at: www.midosa.de. There are both a German an English version free to download.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 393

rational databank and the distinction between input-module, storage

module, output and representation modules. However, the development
of EAD and its potential was examined further and today MIDOSA
offers the option to export to the EAD-DTD automatically without
manual tagging or re-keying. Today’s version (Midosa-online and
Midosa-XML) of this product is developed in cooperation between
Archives School, the Federal Archives and the State Archives Direc-
torate of Baden Wurttemberg in the PARSIFAL-partnership. The latest
version is completely XML-based, offers a variety of tools for import
and export of various formats and a build-in XML-editor allowing to
edit online-finding-aids and online-repository-guides.14 But Midosa is
just one solution. Others can be found e.g. in the three state archives of
Hesse where HADIS offer a centralised SQL-based solution.15 HADIS
is an example for a consequent and successful conversion of datasets
from a first-generation centralised database. Online-access to archives of
persons and families stored in all German archives is offered by a
database maintained by the Federal Archives.16
The latest developments go into a twofold direction. One line of will
lead to archival expert-systems offering computer-support for all
archival working-fields and the capacity to collect, combine and inte-
grate information from these working-fields.17 The other field of
research and development is retro-conversion of analogue type-written
or printed finding-aids by using intelligent computer-software with the
capacity of OCR and automatic layout-analysis.18

Prometheus Unbound: Towards Electronic Records Management and

Electronic Archives

The 1920s had been a period of change and modernisation where to large
extent foundation for the traditional record-management-systems were
laid. The system of registries was undergoing a process of deep changes
during these years in what was called ‘‘Bureaureform’’, the reform of the

14
Examples of MIDOSA’s capacities can be found at www.lad-bw.de/sixcms/list.
php?page=seite_hp_allgemeines&id=2172&ladbw=1843 and at www.bundesarchiv.del/besta-
ende/findbuecher.php
15
HADIS offers information about more than 270 archives and allows research in theirs cat-
alogues. More information at /www.archive.hessen.de/index.cfm?id=3.
16
See at: /www.bundesarchiv.de/bestaende/nach/aesse/einfueh.php.
17
The concept of VERA at: http:/www.archive.nrw.de/dok/vera.
18
See at: www.archive.nrw .de/dok/retrokonversion0l/projektbeschreibung.pdf
394 NILS BRUEBACH

offices.19 The formerly strong position of the registry became under-

mined. It was no longer valued as all important and was seen as inflexible
and too expensive. Especially, its strong position in controlling the
conduct of business was judged as incompatible with the new role of a
democratic administration. Combined with the industrialisation of the
offices, and the common use of new filing techniques and communica-
tional devices, the functions of the registries were reduced to a minimum.
However, the differentiation of registries’ primary functions and ar-
chives’ secondary functions remained. The work of the registry became
more closely related to the administrative work on subjects. Instead of
big centralised registries, normally one for each ministry or agency,
registries were installed in different branches or at an office level. During
this period of reorganising, the records management system in Ger-
many’s public administration standardisation was approached as well.
The ‘‘Guidelines for the Registries in the Ministries’’ (Registraturrich-
tlinie) were first published in 1926. These defined key elements for proper
and coherent records management which still can be found in the
Guidelines for the Registries of today’s German Federal Government.
Standardisation was seen as the core-element to ensure management in
the diversified registries was based on common regulations. Beside this, a
well-developed system of filing plans for whole administrative areas was
set up to ensure a divided but nevertheless coherent records management
regime. Archivists were involved in the design-process of these filing
plans as well as in the development of new disposition schedules and
retention periods. They were well aware of the emerging gap between the
registries and their own field. Close consultations between archivists and
organisational functionaries were the archivists’ initiative to close it.
After World War II, the governments of both the Federal Republic
and the German Democratic Republic (GDR, East-Germany) returned
to the developments and achievements of the 1920s, which had been
abandoned during the anti-modern, fascist Hitler regime. In 1954 the
Guidelines mentioned above became implemented again. The newly
emerging gap between the diversified system of registries and the ar-
chives was bridged in both German states by the establishment of a
third institution ‘‘in-between’’, the record-centres or ‘‘limbos’’. Their
functions became closely related to both the other institutions. From the
registries, records with on-going retention periods were transferred and
could be re-transferred if the creating organisations should need them
again. Record centres prepared and managed appraisal and disposal

19
Nils Bruebach, ‘‘One Way to Tame the Paper Tiger: Records Management and Archives in
Germany’’, The Records Management Bulletin 95, February 2000.
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 395

after the retention periods expired. The advantage was, and still is, that
the records from the diversified registries could be managed in a cen-
tralised manner and filed according to filing plans for whole branches of
the public administration. New concepts of appraisal, based on the
principle of provenance and the analysis of functions became adoptable.
The establishment of record centres started in the former GDR as early
as 1952 and in 1956 in the Federal Republic. However, the idea of the
record centre was very popular in other countries as well. But, unlike
England, in Germany it was the archivists who took the initiative and
became responsible for the installation and management of the record
centres (Zwischenarchive).
Today’s situation is determined by the regulations of the archival
laws both on the Federal level and the level of the States. The devel-
opment of archival laws in Germany during the 1980 and 1990s can be
seen as a reflex to the strict rules for access to public records related to
privacy established by the Federal Data Protection Law, published in
1976.
But besides guaranteeing a general access to public records after
30 years, or even shorter periods in certain circumstances, the archival
laws define the position of archives and archivists’ fields of responsi-
bilities in a modern democracy. One of archives most significant func-
tions in a democracy is that they render control of decision-making
processes as well as their results. Another is the function of archives as
collective memory, as cultural institutions. Archives allow those who
created the records to forget, but as a controlled process and not as
amnesia. And they allow those who want to remember to follow up the
traces of time. They guarantee permanent access for every citizen.
The archival laws also define the relationship between archives and
the registries, due to the traditions described above. Archives advise
registries on records management and participate in coordinating
retention periods and disposition schedules, organising transfer of
records with continuing value and appraisal. The latter is one of Ger-
man archives’ core functions: the archival laws make it crystal-clear that
for every decision whether to keep and transfer or to destroy records
must be approved by the archivists, even in the registries. A proper
appraisal and an organised transfer process can only be conducted with
a thorough knowledge about the records management systems in the
archival field. The common appraisal strategies applied in German ar-
chives are based on a functional approach and aim to allow insights into
both the results and the decision-making processes.
Provenance is the framework and ground principle on which
appraisal is based. The distinction between the primary functions of
396 NILS BRUEBACH

records as instruments in decision-making processes in administrations

and their secondary functions to allow insights into the results and the
way these have been achieved after the records are not longer needed by
the records creating organisations is vital for a coherent records man-
agement regime in the digital age as well. Both analogue and electronic
records shall not be designed to fulfil archival needs from the beginning
as this interferes with their primary function. They become dysfunc-
tional if administrations are not free to use them in ways they need.
Their function as working instruments must be kept intact. Both ana-
logue and electronic registries should solely support the functionality of
records within an organisation. They should provide a supportive
organisation for records management and the functional capacity to
assist and organise records in a manner that serves the administrative
needs best. Records manager should be distinct from archivist. They are
not merely extended arms of archiving with the duty to fulfil their goals
and functions in a different field.
One of the advantages of this functional approach is that it can be
applied to every kind of record, regardless of its physical format, media
and logical structure. However, there are strategic fields that impact on
both records managers and archivists, fields, where cooperation is useful
and necessary. Securing authenticity and integrity should be commonly
undertaken by them, as well as measures securing the fixity and lon-
gevity of electronic records. Moreover, requirements for electronic re-
cords to ensure functionality and access in both areas could be
commonly applied. Decisions related to the role paper will still play in
an electronic environment have to be taken. Registries and archives in
the future will contain less paper, but they will not be paperless. To
avoid both electronic and analogue quicksand administrations and
private organisations should decide where the creation and maintenance
of electronic records or paper records is appropriate and guarantees the
functionality required at its best. Archivists may act as observers and
consultants and advise records-managers in undertaking this risk-based
decision. Two elements might influence that process: the legal envi-
ronment as a framework and the appropriateness of the records as
working instruments in decision-making-processes.

Thinking for Centuries to Come

The autonomous functions of archivists in an electronic environment is

the age-old one of securing access over time. They have the responsi-
bility to undertake measures which guarantee the usability and
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 397

evidential functions the records once had. This is not just a technical
matter of conversion, migration or emulation combined with encapsu-
lation. Applying appropriate technics can ensure the physical access but
not the logical access. And this one, the system of interrelations of each
record’s elements which in an electronic environment are not ‘‘intrinsic’’
like in the paper world, is overall important. Fixity, authenticity, in-
tergrety and interrelatedness ensure the evidence of an electronic record.
The principle of provenance becomes a framework and a valuable
planning instrument for the design and organisation of electronic
recordkeeping systems and electronic archives.
When paper as writing-material became accepted and widely used
the use of written information increased. Together with new forms and
functions of records this caused a process of rapid change that formed
both registries and archives in their time and appropriate functions.
This innovation created a functionary context which is relevant until
today. The use of new forms of written information in a new structure
was fostered. One has to be no profit to forsee that the ongoing digital
revolution has similar effects. Archives proofed themselves fit for a
flexible response. They will be capable of a similar reaction to the
ongoing electronic revolution, if they recognise that this time no one can
wait until the dust has settled. Since 2002 the successor of the
‘‘Guidelines for the Registries in the Ministries’’ has finished the para-
digm-shift which had started back in the early 1990s: Electronic records
are now the regular form of records and paper records are the exception.
Another aspect is that international records management standard ISO
15489 stood godfather for the principles laid down in the ‘‘guidelines’’.20
However, this is just one story of successful cooperation between ar-
chives and administrations about records management. The day-to-day
situation does not look that bright elsewhere. And: Any standard has to
proof its value by being implemented and used in day-to-day’s practise.
Activities of archives in Germany concentrate as elsewhere on two
tasks.21 Programmes to cooperate with administrations in the field of
electronic records management have been initiated since 1996. One
result is DOMEA, which stands for Document Management and
Electronic Archiving22 It was developed under the guidance of the
Federal Archives, is accepted as a national standard and comprises all

20
The ‘‘Guidelines’’ can be downloaded at: http://www.bmi.bund.de/Annex/de_7684/Richtli-
nie_fuer_das_Bearbeiten_und_Verwalten_von_Schriftgut_in_Bu ndesministerien. pdf.
21
An overview over recent discussion at: http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/lverwaltung/archivver-
waltung
22
An outline at: http://www.bmi.bund.de/dokumente/Artikel/ix_19219.htm.
398 NILS BRUEBACH

elements of electronic document and records management including

guidelines for the transfer of electronic records to archives for per-
manent preservation, preservation guidelines and principles as such are
not part of DOMEA. Strategies, development activities for concrete
solutions and programmes for the implementation of prototype infra-
structures for the long term preservation of records from electronic
systems are starting now.23 The strategies followed in these projects are
those of cooperation – firstly on an international, especially European
level, secondly of cooperation with between different categories of
stakeholders and thirdly with administrations.24 Thus, concepts fol-
lowing a shared infrastructure/shared-custodianship – approach are
realised in a couple of federal states, e.g. Lower-Saxony. Expertise and
concepts for independent electronic archiving within the existing
archival structure has the Federal Archives, where since the early 1990s
databases from former GDR-administrations have been made acces-
sible. The state archives of Baden-Wuerttemberg will follow this
approach, too. Solutions from large-scale projects in cooperation with
other stakeholders point towards the development and testing of
large-scale, complex and persistent infrastructures fit to cope with
future tasks.
The role of archival science in the developments described is to act
as mediator on the levels of concepts and methods. Archival science
build bridges between national and international approaches and
solutions and is acting as the interlectual testbed for the possibilities of
transfer from achievements in one country to another. This again is a
call for multilateralism in archival thinking and a view on archival
science as a comparative discipline, founded on equal partnerships.
This role is not limited to the field described in this article, where the
areas of access-instruments and earchiving may serve as examples. The
discipline’s role as mediator is also important for a fruitful dialogue
between conceptual thinking and planning and the archivist’s practical
workbench. It should be assured that both basic and empiric research
are possible and accepted and that the methodological background of
archival work has a solid theoretical basis. Especially a professional
education clearly identifying archival professional needs has a key role
to achieve this goal of strategic importance. And, at last, archival
science is the mediator between the knowledge and information

23
The outline of a national initiative in cooperation with libraries is described at: http://www.
dl-forum. de/Foren/Langzeitverfuegharkeit/vorhabenbeschreibung.html.
24
http://www.archisig.de/
 ARCHIVAL SCIENCE IN GERMANY 399

offering concepts, methods and strategies to fullfil modern societies’s

needs for information from about administrative systems and thus
helping to secure freedom of information as a democratic right of the
citizen.