Reflections on “Remnants of Jenkinson: observations on settler archival theory in Canadian archival appraisal discourse”

The authors conceptualized the canon on appraisal looking at the current archival landscape within the Canadian context. They do so by looking at two tenets of the canon, that is, Jenkinson’s advocacy for administrative bodies and historians to be responsible for selection decisions, as well as the role of authority in validating the authenticity and reliability of records. The canon is confronted against the back-ground of the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, specifically call No. 70 which is related to a national review of Canadian archival policies and practices. While the authors acknowledge the influence of the canon, especially in the former British colonies, they argue that Canada’s archival tradition never subscribed to Jenkinson’s canon as the Public Archives Act of Canada that set the foundation for the country’s archival system precedes this canon. The Act, they argue, made provision for the collection of both private and public records, unlike Jenkinson who would later focus mainly on government records and thereby not make provision for inclusive archives. If this colonial dogma is carried forward, those who have been marginalized in the past will continue to be pushed further to the periphery of the archival system. In this regard, they see Jenkinson’s Manual as having been relevant in a particular period (after the First World War), and as no longer reflecting the realities of today within the Canadian context, especially with regard to reconciliation and decolonization in relation to archives and Indigenous communities. The authors are trying to tell us that the canon is not relevant to the Canadian context especially looking at the work of the Steering Committee on Canada’s Archives, which is highlighting the evolving professional movement towards an inclusive, community-based approach to archival appraisal. This approach is seen as a way of including the voices of those previously marginalized in the archives. They do not see how Jenkinson’s canon can pave the way towards accommodating Indigenous traditional knowledge that is mostly transmitted orally. They further argue that by taking away the responsibility of appraisal from the archivist as propagated by Jenkinson, the archivist