scripts, sound recordings, videotapes, photo-
graphs), is that the group will not be commingled
with other groups; each will retain its separate
identity and its provenance will be clearly articu-
lated. These features of archives may be appre-
ciated most vividly by contrasting them with the
practices of most libraries, which tend to interfile
the components of collections according to subject
criteria. Certainly this is true of books, usually
arranged by subject according to a classification
scheme without regard to provenance. Similarly,
libraries that collect photographs for study pur-
poses often interfile them in accordance with sub-
ject criteria or a pre-ordained classification system,
disregarding photographers and provenance. By
contrast, archives do not normally interfile photo-
graphs in this manner because of concern for main-
taining original order and provenance. It should be
noted that many libraries and some archives do not
attempt to identify and record photographers.
Photographs in Archives
Since at least the 1970s, many archivists have spe-
cialized in photographs, and training is available in
university settings and in special workshops. The
Society of American Archivists has sponsored
courses on the management of photographic collec-
tions for many years, but archivists without specia-
lized training are also expected to have at least a
rudimentary knowledge of photographs and their
physical and documentary characteristics in order
to preserve them and make them available for
research purposes effectively.
Margery S. Long of the Society of American
Archivists wrote:
Archivists and historians did not always recognize
photographs as primary source materials. In the forma-
tive years of archives, only written records were
regarded as archival and deserving of preservation. Pic-
torial materials, if they were retained at all, often were
removed from the collections of records and manu-
scripts and assembled in general picture files; the prin-
ciple of provenance was seldom applied to them. Some
archivists designated photographs ‘‘miscellaneous ephe-
mera’’ or ‘‘memorabilia’’ and relegated them to the last
boxes in manuscript and archival collections. Some
photographs were not even noted in finding aids, but
were left in their original location, intermingled with
manuscripts, documents, and correspondence. Since
photographs often had no identifying information writ-
ten on them, such undisturbed positions in archival
collections were fortunate. Often the only clue to iden-
tification for some photographs is their location in files,
reports, or diaries, or their proximity to a letter describ-ing the events or naming the persons shown in the
photographs.
(Ritzenthaler et al.,Archives & Manuscripts: Admin-
istration of Photographic Collections, Revised edition
1999.)Attempts to maintain original order can create
challenges for archivists, especially with photo-
graphs. For example, photographs intimately asso-
ciated with other types of materials ideally may
requireadifferentstandardofcareandstorageenvir-
onment than the associated papers. Photographs are
generally not catalogued individually because they
are part of a group, which can be described at the
collective level in registers and container lists; this
practice, however, implies that the removal of a
photograph from its file location for copying, repro-
duction, or exhibition represents a tracking chal-
lenge to ensure that the item eventually can be
returned to its proper location. Many photographs
are part of a large group, which would be difficult or
impractical to catalogue at the item level. A by-prod-
uct of the increasing interest in all kinds of historic
photographssincethe1960sand1970sisthatgreater
numbers of photographs from archives are being
selected for reproduction and other purposes, and
greater demand createschallenges for archival meth-
ods and assumptions. Some archives have adopted a
strategy of selective item-level cataloguing for
photographs and other high-demand items on a
user-driven basis, since usage frequently begets
repeat demand and an increased need for staff to
locate individual photographs or information
about them; the need to identify image surrogates
such as copy negatives and scan files implies item-
level cataloguing in spite of the archival protocol for
group-level description. Such practice makes the
archival repository a more hybrid kind of organiza-
tion, overlaying archival techniques with library and
museum methods. Since photographs frequently
embody many layers of meaning—as historical evi-
dence,aestheticobject,andculturalartifact,whether
identified and interpreted singly or in groups—a
flexible approach to varied modes of access may be
advisable. A library, museum, or archival repository
can severely limit its options and its services to
patrons by attempting to impose a rigid, tradition-
bound policy for access to its holdings.
Photographs and other visual materials, no mat-
ter how well they function in a group context,
ultimately demand some degree of item-level
access. While a written document may be refer-
enced, summarized, or quoted without physically
removing it from its file location, visual materialsARCHIVES