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.
These general impressions are:
[1] Australia [and New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, UK and the
non-English speaking world] may as well not exist for most US historical
archaeologists, the main international 'market'. The size, nature and
demands of the US CRM system create and sustain an extremely insular
focus.
[2] Australia's settlement processes, continuing indigenous cultures,
urban and industrial processes and their growth, and material culture
are perceived as being so different as to be alien and irrelevant to the
US experience.
[3] Australia is not seen as a useful place to pursue doctoral
research or international programs. Why, since pre-transformation South
Africa was very popular with US historical archaeologists, as was work
in the Caribbean and elsewhere?
[4] Printed material on Australian historical archaeology is difficult
to come by, both books and journals, but do people look or check or know
of this literature's existence? How can it be better disseminated?
[5] For archaeologists outside the US there are possible Australian
themes that may also be relevant for them to explore, such as:
* being part of the British empire
* settlement through forced migration
* evolution from a controlled economy through pastoral capital and
integration into a global economy
* gold rushes that transformed economy and society
* European mind-sets dealing with strange environments and established
indigenous cultures
Do non-US archaeologists access Australian research for comparative
data? But, hang on, don't all of these also apply to big chunks of the
US as well, and why aren't they seeing it as relevant comparative data?
Are these impressions accurate? To what extent are they valid? If
they are incorrect, what evidence is there for an alternative? If
correct, how do we move forward?
[I confess now that I've deliberately generalised some of these for the
purposes of discussion, but would argue they are reasonably accurate.
I'm also assuming that US CRM practitioners form the bulk of the list,
and the bulk of the profession].
I'd welcome your thoughts on these, either shared with the list, or
privately if required.
cheers
Denis
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Denis Gojak
Heritage Asset Manager
planningNSW
2-10 Wentworth Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
PO Box 404 Parramatta 2124
Ph: +61 2 9895 7940
Fax: +61 2 9895 7946
Email: [log in to unmask]
|