Archives
Archives and archival studies have an increasingly high profile within anthropology. The term gets used to cover several different fields: in theory it is used to talk about how governments control their populations, including by controlling what sort of history gets written (Derrida 1995 cited under Key Monographs), and generalizing from this, also by controlling how the population thinks about the past and future and about political alternatives (see Foucault 2002 cited under Key Monographs). At a more specific level, one focused more on particulars, archives have become the focus of research in historical anthropology and memory (though the parallel between archives and memory is itself questionable). See the separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Memory.” Studies are now being undertaken of how archives are created and how archivists do their work on the basis of parallels with museum studies. See the separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Museum Anthropology.” Digital archives enable new forms of research, although some and perhaps even most of the conceptual issues around them as archives are in fact the same as for analogue archives, and the digital exponents (who no longer warrant being called pioneers) risk ignoring important precedents and having to relearn the same lessons as their predecessors. The term “archives” can identify the repositories of material (buildings, suites of rooms, or a web address) and the materials contained therein. There is often slippage between these two senses, and some authors pit them against each other. Professional archivists usually discuss “an archives”: the word is plural (because one building/website contains many files). By contrast, theorists who use the idea of records in an extended (metaphorical) sense, following Foucault 2002 and Derrida 1995 (both cited under Key Monographs), discuss the singular “archive,” often with a definite article, so we have “the archive” and sometimes even “the Archive.”