Iain Stuart Wrote:
> Without wanting to seem too rude, I cannot understand why there is this
> persistence in tying industrial archaeology to a set period of time
> especially when, in its current formulation (i.e. what practitioners
> actually do), it clearly doesn't have the broad focus that historical
> archaeology in Australia, New Zealand and North America does. So why try
and
> make it cover historical archaeology - why not call it "historical
> archaeology"- it won't hurt? Then you could have industrial archaeology
as a
> specialist area or skill set within the broad church of historical
> archaeology.
> Is this why there is the trendy flirtation with adopting social theory,
> because industrial archaeology in the UK is really historical archaeology??
Iain,
(First of all, an acknowledgement on my part that I've been in the field
recently, so I've only read the last couple of messages on this topic --
sincere apologies if I'm re-treading old ground in what has clearly been
an on-going debate).
I managed to get into minor trouble on this very list about 5 or 6 years
ago by more or less writing the same thing, that periodising Industrial
Archaeology in the British tradition as something that comes after
historical archaeology (or post-medieval archaeology) was at very least
problematic.
I've never felt that a periodised 'industrial archaeology' adequately
covers the archaeology of - to take one example - domestic rural sites in
18th and 19th century Britain. A Welsh cottage may produce artefact
assemblages containing industrially-mass produced artefacts, but it's a
stretch to call it an industrial site.
Like you, I'm more inclined to think an outcome where historical
archaeology and industrial archaeology are part of a holistic whole rather
than competing or successive periods what we should be aiming for.
I think it's worth noting that, in my opinion, the occasional tendency to
periodise industrial archaeology has specifically British roots.
Australasia and North America tend (and apologies to everyone for the
oversimplification here -- nits may freely be picked) to have either
prehistoric/indigenous archaeology on the one hand and historical
archaeology on the other. In Britain, in contrast, and notwithstanding
noteworthy attempts to look at 'ages of transition' rather than distinct
units of time, archaeology tends to be far more divided into periods, with
clear and distinct traditions existing for prehistorians, Romanists,
medievalists and post-medievalists. In this context, the tendency or
temptation to simply create 'industrial archaeology' as the period after
the post-medieval becomes particularly understandable given that SPMA (the
Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology, of course) originally saw the
mid-18th century as the terminal date for 'post-medieval archaeology'
(which it no longer does, I should add). This tendency is more than
thirty years old -- note, for example, Riden's 1970s paper in "Antiquity"
(I regret I don't have the specific citation to hand) defining industrial
archaeology as "Post-post-medieval archaeology".
But I don't think this will be the view that eventually wins out, even in
the UK. While admitting that I've been in Australia for 5 years now,
and therefore aren't quite up on theoretical developments in my home
country as I used to be, periodisation of industrial archaeology is by no
means universal, and there are plenty of people in Britain who see
historical (defining that more or less in the North American and
Australasian senses) and industrial archaeology as overlapping and
complementary, rather than successive and/or competing, areas.
Note that where Marilyn Palmer (for whom I have the utmost respect for her
titanic contribution to industrial archaeology) recently quoted herself in
writing to this list as saying:
"Rather, we may have to continue to operate on two levels: the acceptance
of a term such as 'later historical archaeology' for the academic study of
the archaeology of industrialization, but a continuing popular recognition
of 'industrial archaeology' as the study and conservation of the monuments
of past industrial activity and generally synonymous with'industrial
heritage'.
I would agree with that entirely if the following minor editing changes
were to be made:
"Rather, we may have to continue to operate on two levels: the acceptance
of the term 'historical archaeology' which would include the academic
study of the archaeology of industrialization as one of its topics, but a
continuing popular recognition of 'industrial archaeology' as the study
and conservation of the monuments of past industrial activity and
generally synonymous with 'industrial heritage'."
And while I could well be wrong -- and I expect you'll tell me if I am -
I'd imagine that you'd be reasonably comfortable with that latter
definition as well.
Alasdair
|