Tracing Archives through Language and Objects

Tracing Archives and their meanings are created through objects within space and the historicity of language. Boltanksi believes traces of life is based on objects we are surrounded by which represent who we are. In addition, Boltanski believes language about what we've said and has been said about us. However, I am perplexed at how we can store these objects and statements in a so-called safe place. In reality, is there anywhere that can be considered "safe?" Foucault's Archaelogy of Knowledge informs us how langue transforms and never neutralizes the meaning of archives. Although Foucault never uses an actual archive as an example to his theory that text/language/statements constantly changes the historical meaning of archives, there is no need for Foucault to use an archive example because the physical objects contained within an archive does not change. Instead, through the archaeological digs of what has been said within a discursive systems about archives, it is our duty to question those statements so its meaning can never be neutral. I find this to be much more interesting than Susan Hiller's account of the objects within the Freud Museum's archive. Although Hiller discusses that the utilization of an archive is used to creating new meaning, I am not very interested in Hiller's personal recollections of the Freud's personal collection. Why do I care about Hiller's personal statements -- Is this for me the "garbage" that the plumber that Kabakov is referring to in his text? I am more concerned about the underpinnings in term of our theoretical understandings of the traces that create historical meaning for archives through what Agamben calls the "possibility/impossibility, potentiality/impotentiality, the said/unsaid" of langue.