May 03 2008
Marking time… part 2
Continuing my thoughts about historical markers in Denver; I noticed something interesting about the front steps of the Colorado State Capitol building. Carved into the fifteenth step (yes, I counted) was the inscription “One Mile Above Sea Level.” Three steps above that on step eighteen, a round, gold-colored marker was embedded in 1969 stating that it is “5,260 feet [1 mile] above sea level.” A third marker was installed in 2003 when the distance was apparently measured again. What’s so special about this?
Well, for starters, in conjunction with the nearby Sand Creek marker, it shows that perhaps Coloradans are more willing than the average bear to admit that they were wrong; a generally admirable trait. Furthermore, I don’t think that it’s stretching to say that both were situations in which the understanding or measurement of the past was regarded as being no longer valid. While the mile-high marker probably didn’t do as much harm to historical memory as the Civil War marker, I think that it would be interesting to learn more about the process by which each was updated. Additionally, I think that by adding markers instead of modifying or removing those that were already in place, the various groups have helped to show that history is not static and that as understanding and opinion shifted, more information was added.
So what does all of this mean when it comes to archives? Well, in some cases, when the understanding of an historical actor shifts, there is renewed interest in reviewing archival material related to the person and their situation. Perhaps a scandal, or a new piece of legislation, or an anniversary compels researchers to take a different tack when approaching various records. Sometimes new materials come to light years after a collection has been accessioned and processed and the dominant version of history has been accepted. As archivists, one of the challenges of providing access to collections is to place the documents within the context of the historical narrative without judging the records or the records creators. I think that in situations where new material is received, or a reexamination is warranted, that it makes sense to not only reevaluate the organization and understanding of the collection as it stands, but also to document the thinking behind any changes that may be made, and the reasoning for doing so. By doing this we can attempt to preserve not only the documents, but also create a new record of shifts in growth and understanding that could ultimately become just as valuable.