Colonial archives deliberately destroyed documents deemed too sensitive or lowly to preserve
Evidence
The major disadvantage of papyrus, otherwise an excellent medium for information storage, is its susceptibility to damp. Even in a well-curated collection, texts need to be recopied after a generation or two. The sheer size of the Alexandrian library militated against its survival. As with so many of the libraries we will meet in this book, neglect was a much more potent enemy than war or malice. — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 58 (
#complicates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Colonial archives functioned as active technologies of rule, not passive records; Neglect destroyed more ancient libraries than war or malice did — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 58; Destroying a copy can erase the only public record of an original. — Jamal Awil, The Whispering Archive: The Complete…, 431 (+12 more)
Related
- Neglect destroyed more ancient libraries than war or malice did (similarity 0.88)
- Libraries decline mainly through neglect and redundancy, not deliberate destruction. (similarity 0.81)
- Colonial archives functioned as active technologies of rule, not passive records (similarity 0.81)
- Papyrus texts require continuous curation and perish if neglected. (similarity 0.80)
- Faster European publishing made library destruction less effective as a weapon (similarity 0.79)
- Destroying a copy can erase the only public record of an original. (similarity 0.79)
- Peasants destroyed libraries to erase legal proof of feudal obligations (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Neglect destroyed more ancient libraries than war or malice did
#complicates(0.55) — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 58