El trabajo que se presenta tiene como objetivo la identificación y análisis de la documentación relativa a las visitas pastorales conservadas en los archivos eclesiásticos, como fuente fundamental para el desarrollo de investigaciones históricas. Ello nos acercará al conocimiento en profundidad de las poblaciones en que estas visitas fueron desarrolladas. No solamente a los aspectos eclesiásticos (número de parroquias, sacerdotes, feligreses, etc.), también a las realidades históricas, demográficas, económicas, educativas, culturales, patrimoniales, artísticas, sociales, etc. de cada una de estas poblaciones; permitiendo por tanto a partir de este análisis, el desarrollo posterior de investigaciones de diversa índole que tienen como sustento la documentación de archivo. Para el desarrollo de este cometido tomaremos como referencia los Archivos Eclesiásticos de Mérida-Badajoz, institución eclesiástica que conserva un volumen documental importante relativo a visitas pastorales y por tanto nos permite trazar un modelo extrapolable al conjunto de archivos que constituyen la Iglesia católica.

The commentary on “Building better archival futures by recognizing epistemic injustice” by Charles Jeurgens begins to approach some of the ideas and concepts that he analyses, namely “epistemic justice” and, in special, “hermeneutical injustice”. Follows a mention to diverse researches and initiatives revisiting colonialism in Portugal and a critical mention on the extensive use of the term decolonisation applied, for instance, to the archives. The “myth of impartiality and neutrality” of the archivists deserves a specific attention, as well as the difficulties surrounding their practices’ transparency. The uniqueness of the colonial archives is questioned, in comparison with other archives equally demanding a rigorous study. Finally, doubts are raised on the role of archivists and archival institutions regarding the colonial archives as a matter of justice.

Considering archives as instruments of power, whatever that may be, with or without a question mark, is probably one of the most classic of all the facets of archives. Archives are associated with power and especially State power, even while power can take many forms, whether religious, economic, social, gender-based, etc., whether it is the power of one, the power of many, the power of all, whether it is sovereign, delegated or relative. We don’t have to consider power in a univocal mode, where it is necessarily confused with domination, force and constraint. Power administers, informs, protects and serves, just as much as it represses, controls, threatens or enslaves. It is power, its nature and objectives, that influence the value of archives as an instrument, and not the other way round, although the liberating and illuminating function of the written word remains secondary and ambiguous. It is possible to adopt a number of positions when considering the relationship between power and archives, whether this relationship is fundamental, instrumental or antagonistic. It could be summed up in a few simple formulas: power through archives, power over archives, power of archives. In short, the relationship between archives and power has three dimensions: functional, symbolic and critical. The social responsibility that the archivist has recently discovered and taken upon himself does not preclude the instrumental dimension of archives, nor does it eliminate their functional, symbolic or critical dimensions, but it does allow us to see more clearly what archives do for power or — to put it another way — what their power is.

In 2024 University of Amsterdam’s launched a new research priority area, "Decolonial Futures," which centers on transforming archives, museums, and cultural institutions to address colonial legacies. This article focuses on colonial archives managed by archival institutions. The central question is what forms of injustice are embedded within these archives and how can archival institutions build better archival futures based on the recognition of those injustices. Colonial archives are inherently problematic as knowledge resources, as they primarily reflect the perspectives of colonial authorities, often distorting and silencing the voices of colonized populations. Drawing on Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice, two main forms of injustice can be identified: hermeneutical injustice and testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs according to Fricker when a hearer gives "a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word", often based on the speaker’s gender or race. Testimonial injustice frequently results from hermeneutical injustice, which involves structural identity prejudice. Fricker defines hermeneutical injustice as "the injustice of having (…) one’s social experience obscured from collective understanding owing to a structural identity prejudice in the collective hermeneutical resource". Using the lens of epistemic injustice offers valuable opportunities to better understand the problematic nature of colonial archives, while also providing archival institutions with guidance on how to avoid perpetuating injustices when creating digital archival spaces. This article shares experiences from a project initiated by the Dutch National Archives to map how representatives from affected communities, as well as those from the academic and heritage sectors, view the necessity and possibilities for archival institutions to engage with these archives in a different, decolonial way, with the aim of creating a more inclusive historical record and better serving communities marginalized by history.

This paper deals with a number of changes. The first is the new way of looking at and beyond the record, trying to read its tacit narratives of power and knowledge, and taking into account archivalterity, which refers to the acts of continuous and discontinuous change that transform the meaning and authenticity of a fonds as it is transmitted over time and space. This means a broadening—thus a change—of archival science and an openness to contributions from other disciplines. Looking beyond the record brings the contexts of archiving to the forefront, the why, who, what, and how, embedded in various temporalities. Contexts will change, and creation, capture, organization, and pluralisation will change, and societal challenges and technology will change. The major change in the 21st century and the major challenge for the archival endeavour is the existential threat from climate change (global warming), requiring an urgent switch to environmental sustainability, in all areas of archival practice.

This article examines the evolving and complex relationships between core concepts in Archival and Information Sciences, as analyzed by Geoffrey Yeo in his paper, “Archives, Records, and Information: Terms, Concepts, and Relationships across Linguistic Cultures”. Yeo underscores the need for a historical and cross-cultural examination of terms such as archives and records to reveal conceptual nuances shaped by linguistic and cultural contexts. Highlighting his recent works, “Record-Making and Record-Keeping in Early Societies” (2021) and “Records, Information and Data: Exploring the Role of Record-Keeping in an Information Culture” (2018), the paper addresses challenges in mapping these terms across languages, emphasizing the gradual expansion of archival terminology and practices. Yeo’s approach sheds light on divergent interpretations across regions, advocating for more inclusive views that incorporate local archival traditions. In discussing the evolution of archives and records, he critiques modern Western influences, encouraging deeper consideration of non-Western perspectives. Moreover, the analysis of records as a distinct entity from documents raises questions about the ontological boundaries within archival studies, particularly in English-speaking traditions, as contrasted with Romance languages. This article also connects archival terminology with broader scientific discourses, specifically with Hispano-Lusophone vocabulary, reflecting on how contemporary shifts towards information governance, data management, and artificial intelligence are reshaping archival practices. Through this lens, Yeo calls for nuanced understandings of records and information to maintain their epistemic significance, especially amidst evolving digital environments. In this light, the paper provides a vital contribution to the field, encouraging ongoing dialogue about how cultural, linguistic, and technological factors inform archival science.

This paper is a lightly revised version of a talk that I gave as part of the seminar cycle Rethinking the Archive(s) / Repensar o(s) Arquivo(s) in Lisbon in March 2024. The organisers of the seminar asked me to speak about three terms that are central to our professional discourse: archives, records, and information. These terms give rise to a number of questions that I sought to address. What are the concepts that underlie them? How might they be related? How are the terms used in different languages and how are they understood in different linguistic cultures? Is there still a place for distinct understandings of archives and records in a world increasingly dominated by ideas about information? In attempting to answer these questions, it seems best to begin by considering the terms themselves. Each of them has a diverse range of meanings, and this paper aims to examine how the three words have been used in the past as well as how they are understood today. It begins by discussing historical and current understandings of archives. It examines the origins of the word records, its transformation from a purely Anglophone to a largely global term, and the challenges that arise in translating records from English into other languages. It then considers how ideas about information intersect with our comprehension of records and archives, and offers some concluding thoughts on the importance of records and record-keeping in the digital era of the twenty-first century.

Both historical and archival theorists use the concept of “context,” but with significantly different referents. Historical context generally refers to circumstances surrounding events or actors of interest, and can range from the local details of events to global trends. Archival context, in contrast, was rigorously defined during the emergence of canonical Western archival theory in the 19th century, and refers to assemblages of records created by an actor – individual or institutional – while conducting its business, which must be preserved according to the canons of provenance and respect des fonds. This paper argues that archival context itself has a history, however, and that the canonical version associated with modernity and a capitalist political economy was preceded in Europe by a particularist, pertinence-based understanding of archival context that emerged from the political economy of privilege in late medieval and early modern Europe. Moreover, a post-modern understanding of archival context embodied in the model of the records continuum is emerging today, in connection with a political economy of commodified information. The essay offers both historical cases and comparative considerations to illuminate this trajectory. Close attention to context in historical and archival theories, which look at how archival thinking and historical thinking were entwined over this entire trajectory, provides a fresh perspective for understanding both past deep structures and current tendencies. The goal of scholarship is both to make meaning out of the evidence around us in disciplinary ways, but also to reflect on the conditions of that meaning-making: the limitations, the questions unasked, the patterns not perceived. Looking at archival regimes as a historian – given that historians today are profoundly dependent on archives – can add a recursive and dynamic perspective on long-standing models of transformative change.