sional education which is outside the academic en~ironment.This, however, will change shortly. The Archives School has allied with the University of Amsterdam, where, beginning in 1995, a four year university course will lead to a degree in library and information science, with a distinctive focus on archival science. It is hoped that the academic setting of archival education will yield more progress in archival theory than was the case with the practice-oriented training at the Archives Scho01.~I must confess that I am a bit worried about the risk that the baby of archi- val knowledge will be thrown out with the bathwater of practical training, when the tub is filled with information science and archival science. But I look forward to better chances to develop archival theory, "free from the constraints of direct practi- cal application and in exchange with other scholars' ideas in discussion meetings and seminars, essays and dissertation^."?^
Archival theory, however, should have a wider basis than graduate archival educa- tion programmes only, as Richard Cox and others have emphasized.?' The archival institutions, the professional associations and their journals, and individual practi- tioners all can be instrumental in furthering archival theory.
The contribution to archival theory by professionaljournals was demonstrated re- cently when The American Archivist provided a special forum on needs in archival research and publication. In order to assess where some of the leading European archival journals stand as a vehicle for archival theory, I took as a sample the 1994 issues of the Dutch Nederlands Archievenblad, the German Der Archivar, and the British Journal of the Society of Archivists. I counted all essential articles, omitting reviews, proceedings of meetings, publication of legal texts, etc. The German and the Dutch journal devoted 28.5 per cent and 26.5 per cent of their articles to archival theory, which is more than in the 1994 volume of The American Archivist--where 19.5per cent of the articles dealt with pure archival theory--and much more than the British, who published in 1994nothing at all on archival theory. The British are good at publishing case studies and articles on diplomatics, but their practicality seems to counteract pure archival theory. The same is true of the French. Their handbook, published last year, is called: "The Practice of French Archivology." It is a useful methodological handbook, but not a theoretical treatise.40
Because the journals have a different format, I converted the pages on archival theory to the equivalent of one page of the Dutch journal. On archival theory The American Archivist published in 1994 the equivalent of fifty-two Dutch pages, the Germanjournal, thirty-eightpages and the Dutch, sixty-onepages. BeforeAmerican archivists pride themselves, however, I have to add that nearly all of these fifty-two pages of The American Archivist were written by Canadians (Duranti, McDonald, Wallot) and by our German colleague Menne-Haritz.
It was Angelika Menne-Haritz who, in her paper at the 1992Montreal International Congress on Archives, took over the defence of functional archival science from Bruno Delmas (the French archival theori~t).F 'unctional archival science replaces descriptive archival science, with its methods of description and arrangement and the creation of finding aids. As Van Riemsdijk, more than a century ago, already understood: only by a functional interpretation of the context surrounding the cre- ation of documents, can one understand the integrity of thefonds and the functions of the archival documents in their original context.42The form and function of the