on 1/15/02 10:35 AM, Denis Gojak at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Colleagues
> 
> The three major Australian archaeological societies - the Australasian
> Society for Historical Archaeology [ASHA], Australian Archaeological
> Association [AAA] and the Australasian Institute for Maritime
> Archaeology [AIMA] will be holding back-to-back conferences in late
> 2002.  A main purpose will be a joint workshop to examine issues
> spanning the three societies' interests and concerns.  Establishing a
> clear understanding of how Australian historical archaeology is being
> used in an international context is an essential step in working out how
> it can become more relevant and effective in what it does to both
> domestic and wider audiences.  In gauging what relevance or utility
> Australian archaeological research has internationally I so far have
> only impressions, although these are formed from the list, literature
> and attendance at several SHAs.

<much snipping of Denis' thoughtful comments>

Denis asked me for my opinion on this post before he sent it to the list.
Some of you will no doubt think this was a bit like asking Joseph McCarthy
to give a fair and unbiased opinion on Soviet Communism, but there you go.

For the most part I don't want to re-tread what I said to Denis (who's
already heard it anyway).  My opinions on US cultural insularity are also
presumably already known, and given the current state of the world, airing
them in this forum again might  start a wholly unnecessary argument.

So instead, I thought that for a change of pace I'd offer a positive and
practical example of how historical archaeology research can interact across
four continents: Australia, Europe (well, just the UK, really), North
America and (briefly) Africa.  This is intended to show the potential
importance of a broad international understanding of the appropriate
archaeological record, and thus act as an implicit argument against
insularity - whatever the cause.  I'm not arguing that this broad
understanding will always be relevant, just trying to show its potential
importance through a practical example. Most of the following is
paraphrased from a section of a paper I've submitted for the next volume of
Australasian Historical Archaeology.  There are some references towards the
bottom, but I haven't attempted formal citations in the text.

The pottery type known as 'white granite' (see postscript at bottom of post)
is rapidly emerging as one of the most important types in the study of
international trade and variation in national preferences.  Ewins' study of
the 19th century trans-Atlantic pottery trade has shown the role of white
granite in demonstrating divergence in trans-Atlantic taste.  Archaeological
evidence also demonstrates this divergence.  It's a very common ware type in
US and parts of Canada in assemblages dating from the second half of the
19th century.  However, while it's made in the UK, I know of only one
_domestic_ assemblage in the UK off the top of my head that includes white
granite (a lack of relevant British analysis on domestic assemblages dating
from this period makes this difficult to gauge - I'd be very interested if
anyone has any data to the contrary).  Those interested in the implications
are directed to Ewins' work, but suffice it to say that we have clear
international divergence and influence.  A pottery type made in Britain
occurs in North America, but apparently hardly at all domestically in
Britain itself.

What does this mean for Australia?  Crucially, white granite is a largely
plain/moulded ware.  Susan Lawrence's research suggests that while plain
wares (like white granite) are indeed common domestically in the US and
parts of Canada from the mid-19th century, much of the 'British Empire'
continues to favour colourful decorated wares.  This initially appears to be
supported by Klose and Malan's observations at the Cape [S. Africa] and  my
own work on relevant Welsh assemblages and trans-Atlantic comparisons
between UK and US assemblages.  However, ongoing research on some Australian
assemblages with this point partially in mind appears to show that white
granite is turning up in far greater quantities in both Victoria and New
South Wales than might have been anticipated.  This is true both at sites
associated with a prosperous rural residence and urban institutional
housing.  This is contrary to what both myself and Lawrence would have
anticipated.

So why? A partial list of relevant questions: Is the presence of white
granite in Australia in larger than anticipated quantities a demonstration
of the development of a specifically Australian taste (as per the American
white granite model)?  Is the Imperial metropolis just shipping stuff it
doesn't want out to the Antipodean colonies irrespective of local taste?
Since the advent of white granite is more or less contemporaneous with the
Gold Rushes, might there be a trans-Pacific influence? Might there also be a
methodological reason for the lack of undecorated white granite in older
Australian assemblages based on the culling of those materials to form
diagnostic study collections?

Only through examining white granite in its international context can these
research issues be fully addressed.  Furthermore, not only will this help us
understand the Australian archaeological record, but will also help us to
more fully understand the ideological/economic underpinnings of white
granite's occurrence in other parts of the world.

So there you go - a practical, positive example of the importance of being
aware of the different role that one aspect of material culture might play
in different parts of the world, and how this might potentially influence
archaeological interpretation.  And it's hardly the only example...

Alasdair Brooks


Postscript:
As George Miller will no doubt remind us if I don't, 'white granite' is not
synonymous with 'ironstone'.  The former is a ware type, the latter a
meaningless brand name. See Miller and Ewins in the following wildly
incomplete short biblio for definitions.  Katey Banks at the Museum of the
Potteries in Stoke was also doing some research on white granite, but with
apologies, I don't know what the results of this might be.


Brooks, A. (2000). The Comparative Analysis of Late 18th- and 19th- Century
Ceramics - A Trans-Atlantic Perspective. Unpublished DPhil thesis, York:
University of York.

Brooks, A. (in press). "Crossing Offa¹s Dike: British Ideologies, Welsh
Society and Late 18th and 19th-century Ceramics in Wales", in Lawrence, S.
(ed.), The Archaeology of British. Routledge, London.

Ewins, N. (1997). "ŒSupplying the Present Wants of our Yankee Cousins...¹:
Staffordshire Ceramics and the American Market 1775-1880". Journal of
Ceramic History 15.

Klose, J. and Malan, A. (2000). "The Ceramic Signature of the Cape in the
Nineteenth Century, With Particular Reference to the Tennant Street Site,
Cape Town". South African Archaeological Bulletin 55:49-59.

Lawrence, S. (In Press). "Archaeology and the Nineteenth-Century British
Empire". Historical Archaeology (don't know the projected volume number -
apologies).

Miller, G (1993) "A User's Guide to Ceramic Assemblages: Part Four. Some
Thoughts on Classification of White Earthenwares".  Council For Northeast
Historical Archaeology Newsletter, No.26




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
La Trobe University
Plenty Road
Bundoora VIC 3083
Australia
Phone - 03 9479 3269
E-mail - [log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The buffalo tastes the same
on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull