I think the situation in Europe is so different that it does not offer
helpful paths and examples for us in the US. Whatsmore I would venture to
say that if the level of documentation available to scholars of the English
in 18c America was available to scholars of Roman Britain y'all would face
some of the same problems we in America do. Lets face it--as Dell Upton and
others have pointed out, it is damn hard to wring interesting meanings out
of material evidence. If it's all you have, than you give it a good try--and
if it really is all you have than lots of other folks will come over to help
out. But if any research library is crammed full of what these people wrote
about themselves and each other then is it easy to see why so many
historians have failed to see the utility in spending lots of money to find
out what we knew already for only the cost of trip to archive.
This is the familiar refrain that Dan Mouer mentioned and that I guess
every one has heard at one point or another. The reason why it stings still
is because there is some truth to it. At least there has been some truth to
it as long as archaeologists allow historians to be the keepers of the
debates.
For a time there seemed to be a convergence between the goals of the two
disciplines. The New Social History with its interest in marginal folks and
its faith in structural causes momentarily merged with the interests and
strengths of hist arch. But those days are over--the New Social Historians,
although the controllers of history's reigning orthodoxy, are themselves
getting older and are beginning to retire by the cart load. The newer folks
have imbibed heavily at the fountain of literary studies and are more
concerned with Ben Franklin and the creation of the self than with
statistical formulas' path to true understandings of wealth distribution.
The Chesapeake literature is a great example of this. Armed with a claim of
poor sources (although they were never as poor as their reputation holds)
archaeology seemed to have a real role to play to in a larger regional
interpretation. This never really happened--but that is a different thread.
But now newer works take a personal focus that severs the once seeming
mutuality of the region's writing. Meanwhile archaeologist seem to still be
working toward a grand synthesis in the style of the New Social History
while history itself has left this goal behind. Nothing has yet stepped in
to replace that goal in archaeology. A goal can be found, but it must come
from within the concerns and strengths of the discipline and perhaps not in
conjunction with others disciplines' goals and interests.
It seems to me that this is a great intellectual time for hist arch. As
long as social historians and archaeologists both focused on questions of
wealth, status, and so on, of course historians were going to claim that
they could find facts quicker, cheaper, and for a greater number of folks.
But as the focus moves to more "self" oriented issues the tone of debate
shifts and the possibilities for meaningful interaction is actually greater.
It falls to archaeology to tell the tale.
Philip Levy ABD
College of William and Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Courtney <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Historians and hisorical archaeology
In Britain there has been a long tradition of mainly medieval economic
historians and archaeologists working in co-operation sine the late 40s
and 50s. Rodney Hilton at Birmingham was a key influence and created a
post in medieval archaeology within the history department. This has
influenced Birmingham medievalists ever since. Prof Chris Dyer, an
economic and social historian at Birmingham is now the current
president of the Society for medieval archaeology. Maurice Beresford,
another economic historian, also worked closely with an archaeologist
John Hurst on deserted villages especially the decades long excavation
at Wharram Percy. In post-medieval archaeology, David Crossley, another
economic historian, was another leading light. In the 1970s and 1980s
several archaeology units employed brilliant historians such as David
Roffe at Stamford and Derek Keene at Winchester which produced some
classic studies of interaction between the two disciplines. Sadly with
commercialisation and smaller projects the norm those days are in
decline. This close relationship between history and archaeology can
also be found in many continental countries. Many post-medievalists also
received their primary training like myself in medieval studies. As a
result there are many archaeologists especially with a PhD level
academic training in both documentary history and archaeology in N.W.
Europe. Of course the majority of people who work or research in this
field either had their academic training in other subjects or their
archaeological training ended at the Roman or migration period. There is
little tradition in Europe being an offshoot of anthropology except for
the university department at Cambridge where students study both subject
jointly in their first year. There has been some tension in recent years
with the advent of more theoretical approaches in archaeology. Some
people seem happy to combine these with a traditional historical
approach while others have suggested that history merely hinders
archaeology. However, I have just attended a weekend conference on
medieval towns in Oxford which showed a fruitful interaction between
historians, archaeologists and modern theory. In the US cultural
anthropology has been clearly anti-historical in some of its
manifestations which has not always helped interaction between the two
disciplines. However, the work of Kathleen Deagan with Hispanic
historians (eg in her Puerto Real_ book) and such studies as those In
_Documentary Archaeology in the New World_ ed. by Mary Beaudry show that
that equally excellent studies in the US. Landscape history -a key area
of interdisciplinary meeting- also seems to be taking off in the States
after a slow start compared with the UK. Yes historians generally ignore
archaeology but with my historians hat on I can sy that most
archaeologists simplistic grasp of history on both sides of the Atlantic
is equally appalling. There is a very wide gulf between worst and best
practice.
paul courtney Leicester (UK)
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Iain Stuart
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Mail*LinkŪ SMTP Historians and hisorical archaeology
>
>The situation in Australia at a general level is pretty much the same the
>historians largely ignore archaelogy to consentrate on their post-modern
>histories of of leather jackets in the 1950's or some such. When they turn
>their
>gaze to historical archaeology they are distainfull or jealous (especially
when
>they find out the cost of excavations). And guess what many historical
>archaeogists panic! "Oh the historians don't like us" they mone and run
around
>trying to show historians how usefull we can be.
>
>Iain Stuart
>University of Sydney
Paul Courtney
Leicester UK
|
