"Patrick E. Martin (Patrick Martin)" wrote:
> You might note that the trend, as I understand it from colleagues at
> Leicester University' s School of Archaeological Studies, is to treat
> Industrial as a period equivalent to Medieval, Roman, etc. You might refer
> back to the lively interchange between Marilyn Palmer and Catherine Clark
> in the pages of Antiquity in 1989-1990, where Palmer convincingly argued
> that the period of industrialization was sufficiently important in cultural
> terms to warrant an archaeological focus.
I have to say that the first part of this this appears to me to be an
inaccurate description of current developments in historical archaeology
in Britain. Indeed, I see more of a trend (such as one exists at all)
towards the _breaking-down_ of artificial period-based boundaries.
I would welcome input from other archaeologists on this side of the
Atlantic on this point, whether pro or con.
Leicester is an excellent centre for industrial archaelogy, but it would
be
wrong to consider that they singlehandedly represent British archaeology
(any more
than York does). Here at York, for example, the taught
undergraduate unit is in "Industrial and Historical archaeology" - but
the
separation is hardly period based. The two topics are instead closely
related
and linked. Similarly, the recent volume _The Familiar Past?_ (Tarlow
and West
1999; Routledge)*, which I consider to be the most representative
example of
current theory-informed practice in British historical archaeology,
certainly
doesn't have an artificial period-based divide between "post-medieval"
and
"industrial" archaeology. And why should there be?
That said, of course Marilyn Palmer is utterly correct in stating that
the
period of industrialization warrants an archaeological focus - who could
argue otherwise - but once again, not all archaeology of the
post-industrial
world necessarily involves industrial sites...
> The semantic distinctions between historical and industrial archaeology are
> real, but of little consequence, IMHO. One hopes that a study or argument
> that illuminates past events, processes, and/or patterns is of value no
> matter what label is attached. The development of meaningful context
> requires that some persons specialize in arcana, whether it be the pricing
> of ceramics or the evolution of brickmaking technology. Incorporating the
> arcana into broader interpretations is a challenge to us all.
I couldn't agree more. Therefore even if there was a period-based
divide
between "post-medieval" and "industrial" in this country (and obviously
I'd argue that there isn't), surely we should be looking for ways to
break down that divide....?
Alasdair Brooks
*I feel compelled to note that I wrote one of the chapters in _the
familiar past_, so I have some fairly obvious self-interest in
considering
it "representative".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
University of York
King's Manor
York
YO1 2EP
England, UK
phone: 01904 433931
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull
|