Working-with: talking and sorting in personal archives

Cultural–Historical Geographies of the Archive: Fragments, Objects and Ghosts

“…We should perhaps be cautious of over‐celebrating or romanticising the ‘cultural–historical geographies of the archive’; indeed, there is a need to remain critically engaged with issues of power and representation and the politics of the archive, which historical geographers have importantly highlighted. However, the growing literature on “archive as site as well as source” (Ashmore et al , p. 82; see also Stoler , p. 44) and work by cultural–historical geographers that creatively plays with the fragments, objects and ghosts of archives is certainly energizing methodological innovation and debate. In this conclusion, I want to briefly reflect on the future of archives themselves and what this may mean for geographers.…”

“…I should note that there is, therefore, an explicit politics in recovering and restoring fragments, or creating new archives, for many researchers. Geographers have used archival material as part of activist campaigns (DeSilvey ), to uncover the hidden geographies of political protest and re‐unite activist networks (Brown ), as well as working with owners of personal archives (Ashmore et al ) and organisations (Mills ) to catalogue fragments and (re)make collections.…”

“…They describe the affective pushes of “the archive in flux” and how during the processes of ‘archivalization’ (see also Ketelaar ) when an archive is coming‐into‐being there were clear connections to (their and his) ongoing lives in the present day: through conversations with the owner, files that travelled outside the home to share with his friends, and discussions with colleagues. Importantly, they note that “instead of approaching the archive as a consumer – as a researcher who will extract meaning from the contents – it is also possible to shape the emphasis and order of an archive itself” (, p. 88; see also Mills ).…”

“…First, as already hinted, it builds on Dwyer and Davies' 2010 acknowledgment that the archive has recently been ‘animated’. I seek to expand their discussion and provide an introduction to these animations for those less familiar with archival methods, positioning this review as part of a broader move in the methodological literature from “archive‐as‐source to archive‐as‐subject” that considers “the practices of collecting, classifying, ordering, display and reuse” (Ashmore et al , p. 82) through a discussion of archival fragments, objects and ghosts . In doing so, I argue that being creative with archives opens up a number of possibilities for geographers, as well as potential collaborations between cultural–historical geographers, other researchers and practitioners.…”

Historical geography, climbing and mountaineering: route setting for an inclusive future

“…Subsequently, feminist studies of climbing focused on women were, when Brickell and Garrett (, p. 9) published, and are now, still rare. Learning from the work of Ashmore, Craggs, and Neate (), it thus appears it is in exactly this kind of scholarship that there is the opportunity for “working‐with” to find archives unknown, and in doing so re‐emphasise “the importance of place in archival research” (Ashmore et al, , p. 82).…”