Introduction

1The present work uses as a central axis the concepts of representation and provenance for the redefinition of records and access. In this scope, this study adds knowledge to the theoretical intersections between Archival Science and Knowledge Organization, specifically concerning its epistemological dimension. In this regard, Guimarães warns us that “the epistemological dimension of knowledge organization presents the challenge of highlighting the different theoretical and methodological currents (schools of thought in KO) and their intersections, which leads to two interesting perspectives: the consolidation of the KO as a domain of knowledge and the configuration of inter- and transdisciplinary investigative spaces presented to it” (Guimarães, 2017 : 91).

2The paper aims to demonstrate that the organization of knowledge in archives, when it includes the processes of arrangement, understanding and dissemination, expands access to documents, as it can offer society diverse connections with cultures and histories. To support this idea, the following forms of representation in archives will be explored: the documentary type (type of document represents the activity that gives rise to the creation of record understood as part of a production context), the arrangement (the first representation of an archive and which expresses the bond among records) and the description (which represents the arrangement, the archival context and provides a variety of access tools.

3The understanding of representation for the purposes of this paper encompasses Yeo’s ideas (2007), for whom, in general terms, records are persistent representations of the activities that gave rise to them. Representation is traditionally associated with information retrieval and consequently with access to documents, information and knowledge. It is also associated with the process itself or with its products. Based on these concepts, we can say that archives represent their respective creators, just as the documents represent the businesses, interests, routines, among others, carried out throughout the creator’s life. In this way, the organization knowledge about the different processes that involve both the principle of provenance and the representation (of the creator and the archive) allows us to reframe archives in society over time. And this occurs in the corporate world as well as in private life. We are not only talking about those that make transactions possible, but also those that have a private and intimate urgency. To follow this path we need to understand representation in the archival scenario.

4Here we analyzed two types of documents using the methodology developed by Oliveira (2009), which revealed the persistent representation of the archival document, its genesis and its archival context.

Types of Archival representation

5Yakel defines archival representation “as a fluid, evolving, and socially constructed practice. Representation refers to both the processes of arrangement (respecting or disrespecting order) and description, such as the creation of access tools (guides, inventories, finding aids, bibliographic records) or systems (card catalogues, bibliographic databases, EAD databases) resulting from those activities. It is clear how the creation of surrogates relates to representation. Yet, archival arrangement is also a representational act” (Yakel, 2003 : 02).

6Archives are made up of authentic and organically produced records in their own archival context. Yeo proposes a definition for the term that translates crucial points for understanding the characteristics of the archival document: “[...] as persistent representations of activities, created by participants or observers of those activities or by their authorized proxies” (Yeo, 2007 : 342). Ketelaar says that “Archives are unique because of their provenance, but they are constructs. So are memories and identities, which are imagined, constructed, maintained and transferred within social frameworks. In those processes, archives may play a critical role, as touchstones and mostly in conjunction with other artifacts which are considered to be ‘as archives’” (Ketelaar, 2015 ).

7The documental genesis translates the act that gives rise to the record and that ultimately represents it. The record is not the act itself, but the most accurate representation of it. But once the motivation for its creation is over, it is the document itself that will continue to represent it; even if it gains other functionalities in the eyes of society, the very first representation will persist in time. Archival documents are used as evidence, such as connections between institutions and individuals, and can activate our individual or collective memory. Archives gather these documents. If we do not keep our social references (what we are, where we came from, what we did, who we were connected to), how can we know Who we are?

8The creator is the central element for understanding all connections among documents and accumulation context. The meaning of this understanding lies in the principle of provenance, which according to the Glossary of The InterPARES Project, consists of the “relationships between records and the organizations or individuals that created, accumulated and/or maintained and used them in the conduct of personal or corporate activity” (Duranti, Preston, 2008 : 37). The process of identifying the creator and the context of the records maintenance while in the creator’s custody provides the necessary information of the bonds between activities and actions to be connected, as well as their representation in the documentary form. After that, it is possible to elaborate the architecture of the fonds, the first archival representation of an archive: the arrangement. Eastwood states that “the essence of archival arrangement is the identification of the natural accumulations of archival documents or records which take shape during the process of their generation” (Eastwood, 2000 : 94). We emphasize that such representation, when possible, should incorporate the original order, that is, the order given by the creator themselves, or we may say, the representation of themselves through the records produced or maintened by them.

9Creators keep documents in a daily basis according to their need for information in general, as a remembrance and to use as evidence of some act or fact. No archive gathers everything about somebody or about any organization. It is always just a part of it. But it should be a part that can represent the whole. Just as the record that is not the act or fact itself is both a representation for and evidence of it.

10As archivists we should try to identify how the creator organized their documents because it tells us about its functionality. The understanding of those processes are relevant to the arrangement, which has ultimately to represent the creator´s life in all their social functions through time. And that applies to personal, family and organizational/institutional archives.

11We consider archival description the second representation associated with archival workflow, whose elaboration is based on a complex research work. According to Oliveira, “The development of research in archival description has as main objectives to make apparent the relationship between the context of document production and the documents themselves, in addition to understanding the archives as a whole. This is a typical research activity – which involves full knowledge not only of the context in which the archives are produced, or of the archival bonds, but also of the social, cultural and political contexts in which the archive is produced” (Oliveira, 2012 : 15).

12At the end, the description represents not only the arrangement, but the architecture of connections that are identified during the research. One of its purposes is to favor access to documents in a contextualized way. The basis of this process is to establish communication with the user by offering the knowledge archivists amassed about the documents and the related contexts.

13In arrangement, the vertical and horizontal connections among documents become clear, and during description, archivists make them understandable. “Each level of the arrangement represents a set of documents under the same production bond, which in a hierarchical way relates to the archival fonds object of study, and yet, each level of relationship occupies a "place" in the fonds production process itself. The representation is an artificial mechanism created by the archivist with the intent to produce the most faithful representation possible of the set of documents that make up the archive. Although the relationships between documents are normally represented in a vertical, hierarchical way from the highest level to the smallest part of the representation, the documents do have a horizontal and transversal bond connected to the levels of representation. These relationships, horizontal and transversal, imperceptible in the representation of the arrangement, can and should be retrieved in the second representation of the archives prepared by the archivist, the archival description, indicating the dynamism and uniqueness of the existence of the creator” (Oliveira, 2013 : 39).

14Description will produce the processes to guarantee access. Some of its results are the content that will be used in databases that can even allow the download of document proxis. Our users expect a more straightforward retrieve system from archival services. It is thus necessary to create bridges of communication between what the user is looking for and what the collections offer. The construction of these bridges also takes place through analysis of the type of document, which “is the documentary form assumed according to the activity that generated it, its fixation is complex and punctual” (Belloto, 2002 : 91).

15Hjørland and Kyllesbech understand title as “the most concise statement of a document’s content [...]. However, because the title is a name, it is the author’s decision as to how informative it will be, and what kind of information is given priority” (Hjørland; Kyllesbech, 2001 : 264-265). This concept can be applied to archives, reinforcing the importance of defining types of documents to retrieve information.

16Titles are the closest representation of the documentary genesis and offer a concise statement of the “what and why” of the record. Considering that users’ research method primarily involves the world wide web, using types of documents as access points can provide more precise results to their queries. About the gain provided by such access points, Zang commented that “As more and more primary resources are made available online, digital archival content representation in the form of multiple access points is likely to gain momentum. As a result, multiple access points may become a major tool for users to achieve content access to archival materials stored in digital form” (Zang, 2012 : 63).

17Because of this closer connection with the genesis of the record, types of documents offer the chance of a closer connection between the fonds and the user. Individual memory and collective memory become one for the user. To demonstrate that, we selected two types of documents whose elaboration dates back to the 19th century, in the historical period of transition between the Monarchy and the Republic in Brazil; namely, the Letter of Money Request (Fig. 1) and the Daily Epistolary News (Fig. 2); and applied the typological analysis model developed by Oliveira (2009), which is structured in 10 fields: kind, activity, type, date, location, recipient, activity (-ies) and reason that originated the document, specific typical characteristics and standard elements. Through typological analysis, the original function and those acquired over time were highlighted.

18The analysis also involved: 1-the identification of the relationship between the document and the creator, favoring the need to represent a certain act or event and the context of production; 2-the expansion of document uses by users of different profiles recognizing the historical value of what is portrayed from the contextualization research; and 3-providing the resignification of documents beyond their original instrumental function.

19We analyzed the two types of documents (Letter of Money Request and Daily Epistolary News) and their typical characteristics. They are part of one of the most complex groups of documents found in archives: correspondance, especially letters. This rich group encompasses love letters, business letters, goodbye letters and many other types.

20The chosen letters are part of a family collection – the Barbosa de Oliveira Family. The collection is divided in series and both documents can be found in the Lacombe Family Series. The series consists of a set of documents from a wealthy Brazilian family that brings together records of the way of life, business transactions, affective and professional relationships of the family, carried out in the 19th and 20th centuries. For the purpose of this research, we worked with the concepts constructed in the Project Projeto Tipologia Documental na Família Barbosa de Oliveira.

21According to Oliveira (2015), the concept of a Letter of Request consists of the following: “Letter in which a person requests a certain thing from someone. It can be authorization, aid, employment, dismissal, help to accomplish something, financial help, to intercede on behalf of someone, among others”. And the concept of daily epistolary news is understood as: “Epistolary news with the objective of reporting routine facts in a systematic way, that is, different facts are reported with a regular periodicity, if not daily”.

22What do we expect to see when we read a letter? What is a letter? A letter is a “Written message sent by a person to another. The letter must contain the place, topical and chronological date, recipient’s name without forgetting the form of treatment, text, farewell and signature. In the case of an official letter, number, letterhead and address. It can be handwritten or printed (…)” (Oliveira; Oliveira, 2017 : 7). The beginning and the farewell tell us if the signatory and the addressee share a formal or an intimate relationship.

23We can see that the document in Fig. 1 was produced to seal a financial transaction (activity), a loan in French currency, of small amount, documented in the letter and in the voucher that was cited as enclosed. The July 1st of 1883 (the date of the letter) indicates that the terms of the transaction, the documents used, were acceptable at the time to guarantee that the individual lending the amount would be repaid. It is important to emphasize that the people involved (R.J. Vinsman Benjamin and Domingos Lourenço Lacombe) were close family members. Even so, the act was formalized. Compared to our days, the transaction was simple. However, the registration was still required.

24Figure 2. Daily Epistolary News

25The document in Fig. 2 is part of a group of systematic correspondence between Isabel Jacobina Lacombe and her mother, Francisca Augusta Barbosa de Oliveira, which records events in the family’s daily life. The epistolar news is a “Written message in the format of a letter where different facts that occurred are narrated” (Oliveira; Oliveira, 2017 : 28). There was no WhatsApp at the time, nor social media, but personal papers produced in the past allow us to learn that people did write to beloved ones routinely when they were apart.

26Identifying types of documents in a contextualized approach allows us to understand precisely the archival context and the creator of the fonds. It does not consist of a unitary identification disassociated from its producer, but an approach that expands access to the document, since it breaks down its typical characteristics while characterizing the core of its production, the activity that originated it. Using the knowledge produced from the study of types of documents in a fonds expands the communication channels with the user as it allows a greater approximation between what is being researched and what is contained in the archive. Without a doubt, it reduces research time and unnecessary use of documents.

Conclusion

27Although documents are persistent representations of acts, facts, events, ideas and feelings, they are used to validate the actions that give rise to them. This ability will be retained no matter what new possible meanings the documents may acquire after fulfilling their original function.

28Therefore, we can say that it is through the organization of knowledge about archives, considering all the processes necessary for their organization, understanding and dissemination, that it will be possible to ensure a chance for society to recognize and identify itself in the diversity of cultures and their history. Archival documents allow different meanings and acquire other representations from the moment of their genesis.

29Arrangement and description are fundamental archival functions for the understanding of archives. They offer the big picture, security, control, turn the connections among documents and their genesis visible, make archival context accessible.

30On the other hand, types of documents are the most accurate representation of the origin of the record itself. Identifying types correctly allows us to fully understand the record’s production context. It also subsidizes the understanding of social, cultural and historical contexts, which favors the expansion of the use of the document beyond its primary use.

31We cannot predict what users will be looking for in 100 years’ time. Therefore, thinking about ensuring the possibility of understanding our past in the future, the more accurate we are in making archives comprehensible in the present, the better we will be at providing a chance for new narratives to arise based on archival documents.