Understanding Archival Hierarchy: Context, Structure, and Ethics

Jul 9

Archival hierarchy is one of the foundational principles of the archival profession, shaping how we describe and relate archival materials. In this blog post, we explore what archival hierarchy is, where it comes from, how it works in practice, and why it matters. Whether you are new to archives or looking to deepen your understanding, this guide offers a comprehensive introduction to the layered nature of archival description.

The Background and Historical Context

To meet the unique descriptive needs of archival materials, archivists have developed international standards and content models over the years. The International Council on Archives (ICA) introduced several such frameworks between 1993 and 2007, including:

ISAD(G): International Standard Archival Description (General)
ISAAR(CPF): Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families
ISDF: Standard for Describing Functions

ISAD(G) established the expectation that descriptions follow a hierarchical structure, emphasizing whole-part relationships between levels of a collection. The Society of American Archivists later created Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) to interpret these international guidelines for a U.S. context and integrate them with other systems like RDA (Resource Description and Access).

Understanding this background helps contextualize why hierarchical structures exist and what rules we follow when applying them in modern archival settings.

What Is a Hierarchical Structure?

In archives, a hierarchical structure is one in which items are nested within other items, much like a family tree or a set of nesting dolls. Lower levels inherit contextual meaning from the levels above them. This model allows us to position each unit of description in relation to a larger whole, providing intellectual clarity even when physical order is absent.

As RDA explains it, hierarchical description involves connecting related descriptions in a part-to-whole relationship, offering full identification of both the components and the entire group.

This structure becomes especially important when dealing with records created by large, complex organizations. It also reinforces the archival principle of respect des fonds, which asserts that materials should be preserved in the context of their original creator and order. This principle emphasizes the documentary value not just of individual items, but of how and why they were created and used.

That said, today's archives include a much broader and more diverse set of records than in the 19th and 20th centuries. While early fonds often reflected stable, hierarchical entities like corporations or government agencies, modern archives may include loosely organized personal papers, digital content, and records that cross institutional or thematic lines. As a result, some archivists now distinguish between the physical and intellectual control of a fonds, opting to represent relationships intellectually in the finding aid rather than physically rearranging materials.

Why Hierarchy Matters

Hierarchical structure provides a way to:

Contextualize materials
Capture complex relationships
Guide users through a layered understanding of the collection
Standardize content for encoding systems like EAD (Encoded Archival Description)

When building an EAD finding aid, for example, you may begin by determining the nature of the materials and then using that to assign appropriate level attributes.

General Rules for Multilevel Description

Broad to Specific: Start at the top and move downward. Upper levels should describe large groupings, while lower levels become increasingly specific.
Do Not Repeat Information: Avoid including details in upper-level descriptions that only apply to lower levels. Similarly, don't repeat content from higher levels when you get more granular.
Use DACS Elements: Include required elements such as scope and content, title, and date for each level. Titles can be formal or supplied, and dates can range from exact to approximate.
Tailor to the Collection: Match the depth of your description to the complexity of the collection and the needs of users. Not every collection requires item-level detail.

The "System of Arrangement" section of a finding aid is your opportunity to explain how you structured the collection and why. It might follow original order or reflect an imposed scheme like alphabetical, chronological, or topical.

Levels of Description in Practice

Let’s look at the common levels used in archival hierarchy:

Fonds

The total body of records created or accumulated by a particular person, family, or organization during their life or work. In the U.S., the term may be replaced with "record group," "collection," or "record series."

For example, the Massachusetts Historical Society holds the Richard Frothingham papers, 1683–1865, which reflect the work of an individual. The Old North Church (Christ Church in the City of Boston) Records, 1569–1997 represent a corporate body. These fonds offer a top-level description of all the materials held.

Subfonds

Subdivisions within a fonds, often representing departments or distinct functional units within a larger organization. In the U.S., these are more commonly called "subgroups."

Subfonds may be useful for differentiating accessions or topics within a single fonds. They are less common in personal papers.

Series

Records grouped together due to a shared activity, form, or filing process. Series are foundational in archival arrangement.

Examples from the Old North Church fonds include:

Administrative Records, 1722–1997
Financial Records, 1722–1963
Baptism, Marriage, and Burial Records, 1723–1970
Pew Records, 1724–1960

Each series includes its own scope and content information and may be further divided.

Subseries

A further breakdown of a series based on physical type, content, or format. For example, the "Administrative Records" series includes:

Volumes, 1724–1946
Loose Administrative Records, 1722–1997

If subseries do not require unique contextual notes, they may lead directly into files.

File

A set of documents grouped together by subject, function, or transaction. Files are usually the smallest unit routinely used in arrangement.

Within "Volumes, 1724–1946," files include:

Wardens’ and Vestry Record Volumes
Proprietors’ Record Volumes

Item

An individual piece such as a letter, report, or photograph. Item-level description is often reserved for high-value or frequently requested materials due to the labor involved.

For instance, within the vestry volumes, specific books are listed individually, sometimes with additional descriptive elements.

Ethical Considerations

Archivists are not neutral. Every choice made in arrangement and description involves interpretation. Records were created in social and cultural contexts, and those contexts should be acknowledged.

Here are some ethical questions to keep in mind:

What social or political dynamics shaped the creation of the records?
Is the fonds complete? Are parts of the creator’s work housed elsewhere?
How has custodial history affected the way records are arranged?
Should information about the processing archivist be included to provide transparency?

Born-digital materials also present new challenges. Scholars like Geoffrey Yeo and Rachel Walton have discussed how digital and web-based access changes the way we interact with hierarchy, suggesting that the "browse" paradigm may no longer be sufficient in a "search"-driven environment.

Final Thoughts

Archival hierarchy is not just a structure; it is a way of thinking. It is a framework that helps archivists preserve context, support user access, and provide intellectual clarity across time, format, and function. By understanding the logic and ethics behind archival hierarchy, we can build more thoughtful and transparent collections that serve users now and in the future.

For more on this topic, check out recent work by Shelley Sweeney, Geoffrey Yeo, Rachel Walton, and others, or revisit our webinar on Provenance and Original Order.

Recorded Webinar

Want to learn more? Check out our webinar on archival hierarchy!

Sources

Barton-Norris, Emma. 2024. “Keeping it flat: The subjectivity of processing and the case against subseries” New England Archivists Newsletter 51(4), pp. 4-5, 14.

Evans, Joanne, Sue McKemmish, Barbara Reed. “Archival arrangement and description” in Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 4th Edition, 2017, pages 115-126, 10.1081/E-ELIS4-120053315

Garvie C. and Doig J. (2022) “Reimagining the Commonwealth Record Series System”, Archives & Manuscripts, 50(1), pp. 71-80. doi: 10.37683/asa.v50.10457.

International Council on Archives Committee on Descriptive Standards. 2000. ISAD(G) : General International Standard Archival Description : Adopted by the Committee on Descriptive Standards, Stockholm, Sweden, 19-22 September 1999. Ottawa: International Council on Archives.

Meehan, Jennifer. “Making the Leap from Parts to Whole: Evidence and Inference in Archival Arrangement and Description” The American Archivist 1 April 2009; 72 (1): 72–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.1.kj672v4907m11x66

Roe, Kathleen, and Society of American Archivists. 2005. “Core concepts and principles of arrangement and description” in Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, pages 11-31.

Ruth, Janice. “The development and structure of the Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Document Type Definition” in Encoded Archival Description on the Internet, 2001, pages 27-59

Sweeney, Shelley, 2017, “Provenance of archival materials” in Encyclopedia of Libraries and Information Sciences, 4th edition, pages 3746-3755, 10.1081/E-ELIS4-120053423

Szary, Richard V. “Encoded Archival Context (EAC) and archival description: Rationale and background” in Encoding Across Frontiers: Proceedings of the European Conference on Encoded Archival Description and Context, 2005, pages 217-227.

Walton, Rachel. “Looking for Answers: A Usability Study of Online Finding Aid Navigation” The American Archivist 80 (1): 30–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.80.1.30

Wick, Amanda. 2020. “Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts. The American Archivist 83 (1): 204–208. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-83.1.204
Wiedeman, Gregory. 2019. “The Historical Hazards of Finding Aids. The American Archivist 82 (2): 381–420. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc-82-02-20

Yeo, Geoffrey. 2015, “Contexts, Original Orders, and Item-Level Orientation:

Responding Creatively to Users' Needs and Technological Change”, Journal of Archival

Organization, 12(3-4), pp. 170-185, DOI: 10.1080/15332748.2015.1048626

Zhang, Jane. 2012, “Archival Representation in the Digital Age”, Journal of

Archival Organization, 10(1), pp. 45-68, DOI: 10.1080/15332748.2012.677671

Brittany Fox

Brittany Fox is an archivist, knowledge manager, and librarian in the greater Boston area. She is dedicated to making the past accessible to current learners and future generations.

Brittany started her career in archives as a work-study student in her undergrad archives at Salve Regina University, where she worked for fellow Backlog archivist Genna Duplisea. Falling in love with the profession, she continued her education at Simmons University, earning a Master of Science in Library and Information Science with a concentration in archival management and a Master of Arts in history. Brittany has worked at many different types of institutions, including academic archives at Salve Regina University and the U.S. Naval War College; the Cambridge Historical Commission’s municipal archive; and the Newport Historical Society, a cultural heritage organization. She has also worked at the digital production lab at Northeastern University and Abt Global’s corporate library.

She specializes in records retention plans, knowledge management tools, policy writing, processing collections, and training sessions. For the last four years, Brittany worked in a corporate setting with Abt Global where she fulfilled the research needs of staff and their clients. She is skilled in being a cross-functional asset in corporate matrix structures as well as being an agent of change in knowledge resource structures. Her background in corporate work styles, plus her technical skills in archives, make her work highly skilled, dependable, and polished. Brittany has additional interests in environmental history, film, and preservation practices. She volunteers her time as the Chair of the Membership Committee of the New England Archivists.

As part of the Backlog team, Brittany writes policies and procedures, archives needs assessments, and other reports. As a newer member of the Backlog team, Brittany has recently contributed to Backlog webinars and is excited to continue sharing her knowledge with this community.