A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.

A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. It is currently fashionable to call for a 'world historicalarchaeology'. Such an archaeology proposes that our concerns mustlook at cultural systems from the scale of the local to the global, anddeals primarily with the period after 1450. It is an excitingdevelopment for several reasons. First, it offers the opportunity forpreviously rather insular traditions to communicate on a world stage.Many such calls have come via the forum of the World ArchaeologicalCongress The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization which promotes world archaeology.Established in 1986, WAC holds an international Congress every four years to promote the exchange of results from archaeological research; professional (Funari et al. forthcoming). Second, many of the themes thatmight unite different strands of such a global movement - the 'riseof capitalism', of the structures of colonial contact andexploitation, and of the construction of modern identities and modernityin general - offer an opportunity to build an exciting theoretical base.These themes do so, moreover, in an area of archaeology whose discoursehas previously been dominated by highly particularist par��tic��u��lar��ism?n.1. Exclusive adherence to, dedication to, or interest in one's own group, party, sect, or nation.2. , often'pre-processual' approaches.Such themes, of course, have been dealt with before in archaeologicalwriting, though often implicitly. Most notably, the reworking by MarkLeone and his students of the archaeology of the Georgian Order haslinked patterning in material culture to the ideologies of mercantilecapitalism (Leone 1988; Shackel 1993). The success of such work, andthat of related North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. schools (cf. the studies in McGuire &Paynter 1991) has meant that until quite recently theoretically awareand wide-ranging historical archaeology Historical archaeology is a branch of archaeology that concerns itself with "historical" societies, i.e. those that had systems of writing. It is often distinguished from prehistoric archaeology which studies societies with no writing. has been synonymous with NorthAmerican studies. What is new, then, in the call for a global historicalarchaeology is the insistence that they be dealt with on a comparativeand world-wide scale. It is surely no coincidence that this new stresshas gone hand-in-hand with the development of theoretically awarehistorical archaeologies in parts of the world other than North America(Funari et al. forthcoming).The call to work on such a scale is laudable, but holds a series ofpotential tensions in store for the archaeologist proposing to work inthis area. The first is that between global and particular; feel for thelocal context might be lost. The second is that between the urge towrite one grand narrative and the argued need for a proliferation ofnarratives; in defining historical archaeology around certain themes,the importance of those themes as structuring principles for researchwill be assumed rather than argued through. Other stories about the pastbuilt around other ways of looking at the world are possible and manyarchaeologists, this reviewer included, would encourage the developmentof these.These are some of the issues to be tackled in the undoubtedly grandand certainly courageous new monograph series Contributions to GlobalHistorical Archaeology, edited by Charles Orser himself. Orser'sPreface to the series states: 'the thrust of the series will be toexplore topical, methodological, and comparative questions in historicalarchaeology'. The two books reviewed here perform this task verywell and form an excellent start to the series.Orser's wide-ranging and ambitious book tackles head-on some ofthe problems raised above. He characterizes historical archaeology asthe meeting-place of four 'haunts': those of colonialism,Eurocentrism, capitalism and modernity. Each is defined and discussed atsome length without unnecessary schematization sche��ma��tize?tr.v. sche��ma��tized, sche��ma��tiz��ing, sche��ma��tiz��esTo express in or reduce to a scheme: a diagram that schematizes the creation and consumption of wealth. .At the same time, the tension between global and local forces isnegotiated skillfully. Orser adopts a 'mutualist' perspectivederived from the work of the anthropologist Michael Carrithers (1992) inwhich the focus is on people and their actions rather than culture as anabstracted entity. It is not clear from Orser's account ofCarrithers what insight is gained by this perspective that we are notalready familiar with through, for example, structuration The theory of structuration, proposed by Anthony Giddens (1984) in The Constitution of Society, (mentioned also in Central Problems of Social Theory, 1979) is an attempt to reconcile theoretical dichotomies of social systems such as agency/structure, theory, butOrser's exposition is clear and convincing nevertheless. He goes onto explore the interaction between global and local by concentration onand comparison between two case studies, Palmares in Brazil andGorttoose in Ireland. Orser's style is clear and readable, and hisinterpretations avoid the more mechanistic feel of some of the studiesin this area.Orser's criteria for the definition of such an archaeology areshifting. There is a tension here between time period, method and themethat is explicitly discussed; Orser comes down in favour of a thematicapproach in which the historical archaeologist studies modern times (p.28), though this does, he feel, overlap with a temporal definition basedon a post-1492 date. Old World archaeologists will sympathize withOrser's desire to keep at bay (with apologies to David Clarke) themurky exhalation exhalation/ex��ha��la��tion/ (eks?hah-la��shun)1. the giving off of watery or other vapor.2. a vapor or other substance exhaled or given off.3. the act of breathing out. that passes for interpretation in much of Classical andearly and high medieval archaeology. They will not, however, wish torule these earlier historical periods out entirely. Of Orser'shaunts, colonialism and Eurocentrism are practices that can trace theirgenealogies back to the Roman world, as recent exciting work by aminority of Romanists has pointed out (Webster & Cooper 1996).It is also impossible to explain many of the enduring structures ofpost-medieval landscape and culture without reference back to theirmedieval antecedents. Even Michel Foucault traces many of the practiceshe sees as constitutive constitutive/con��sti��tu��tive/ (kon-stich��u-tiv) produced constantly or in fixed amounts, regardless of environmental conditions or demand. of 'panoptic society' back to themedieval monasteries. Five centuries is too short a time-frame withinwhich to consider the origins of the modern world - as Orser himselfimplies in his comments on medieval archaeology in the final chapter.My reservations with this otherwise excellent book lie withOrser's data. Orser structures much of his discussion around twoplaces: Palmares, in Brazil, and Gorttoose, in Ireland. I know little ofpost-medieval Ireland, but even less of Brazil, so let us concentrate onthe former. There are no references to the tension around'revisionism' that has existed within Irish historicalscholarship since the 1930s, though this is central to the themes Orserdraws from this secondary literature. Gerry Adams is cited asrepresentative of Irish nationalism without further comment orqualification (p. 93). Gorttoose, the centre of Orser's fieldproject, was spelt speltSubspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light-red kernels. Triticum dicoccon was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked inconsistently in the 17th century (p. 91), but itdoes not betoken be��to��ken?tr.v. be��to��kened, be��to��ken��ing, be��to��kensTo be or give a sign or portent of. See Synonyms at indicate.[Middle English bitoknen : bi-, be- + confidence when we find it spelt inconsistently inOrser's text eight pages later. It would have been difficult forGaelic chiefdoms (surely chieftains?) to swear allegiance to QueenElizabeth after 1635 (p. 94), as she had been dead for over 30 years bythat date. Orser is still in a different league from, for example, SirRoy Strong's recent glossing-over to the point of denial of Englishcolonialism in Ireland (1996), but if Orser's subalterns want toreally cut the ground from under right-wing elitists like Strong, alittle more subtlety and detail is required.More serious here is a lurking essentialism essentialismIn ontology, the view that some properties of objects are essential to them. The “essence” of a thing is conceived as the totality of its essential properties. that Orser would decry de��cry?tr.v. de��cried, de��cry��ing, de��cries1. To condemn openly.2. To depreciate (currency, for example) by official proclamation or by rumor. ifdeployed in other colonial contexts. A farmer 'embodies ruralIreland . . . a quiet, deeply religious man . . . he projects a quietstrength and a deep understanding of the Irish soil' (p. 89). TheCelts are treated as 'the first great conquerors . . . coming inseveral waves' (p. 92). Orser appears unaware that the image heinvokes of an emerald isle of 'mysterious bogs, the rolling, greenhills, and the craggy crag��gy?adj. crag��gi��er, crag��gi��est1. Having crags: craggy terrain.2. Rugged and uneven: a craggy face. mountains [that] were once free from colonialism,Eurocentrism, capitalism and modernity' (p. 105) is a complexcreation of Anglo-Irish literature of the 19th century and is thusitself a highly problematic artefact See artifact. of colonialism (Cairns &Richards 1988). Postcolonial archaeology needs to catch up withpostcolonial literary criticism here, it seems.We encounter the tension between global and local again with PaulShackel. Despite its broad title, Shackel's Culture change and thenew technology turns out actually to be an account of a single site: thetown and national armoury at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia Harpers Ferry redirects here. For other uses, see Harpers Ferry (disambiguation).Harpers Ferry, a town in Jefferson County, West Virginia (formerly in Virginia; see Civil War . Shackelreviews the history of Harpers Ferry from its 18th-century originsthrough its most famous appearance in history as the location of JohnBrown's ill-fated raid in 1859 to the modern creation of theHarpers Ferry National Park. The story is told clearly and accessibly,and with some style.Shackel ties this narrative together with a series of archaeologicalinvestigations, focusing on the topography of the developing settlementand armoury, the meanings of the 'built landscape', andexcavations of the workers' households. I found the use ofso-called 'environmental data' to be particularly exciting,enabling Shackel to address the changing appearance of factory andgarden landscapes as well as the diet of worker's households.Historical archaeology, with its closely defined and dated contexts,offers a unique opportunity to look beyond 'environment' intothe meanings of things being planted and consumed; Shackel does thisskillfully, drawing instructive contrasts between factory and domesticlandscapes.Though this is a study of one town, the wider relevance of this studyis great. It is the best example I have read of a theoretically informedapproach to 'industrial archaeology', and as such deserves tobe read by industrial archaeologists everywhere. Most encouraging inthis respect is Shackel's insistence that the archaeology of thearmoury be placed alongside that of the worker's households. Thiscontextual approach avoids the dryness and sheer distance from everydayreality that characterizes countless traditional accounts of industrialtechniques - it puts the people back into the Industrial Revolution. AsShackel comments (p. 144), 'emulation, social separation,consciously or unconsciously participating in a new industrial culture,and subscribing to the new Romantic ideal are all variables that need tobe considered' by the archaeologist of the industrial period, notjust the typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. of steam turbines.Shackel's explicitly theoretical approach is to be applauded; Ido have problems, however, with some of the specific theories Shackeladopts. Shackel discusses Colin Campbell's (1987) thesis of linksbetween consumerism and the Romantic ethic, and this is a usefulantidote to many of the production-centred theoretical discussions ofthe Industrial Revolution in the past. It comes across, however, as alittle shallow; reliance on one sociologist alone does not a newarchaeological movement make. Chandra Mukerji's crucial work onmaterialism, for example, is neither referenced nor discussed; nor ismuch of the recent literature on consumption beyond the seminal but nowout-of-date McKendrick, Brewer & Plumb (1982). In particular, it isnot clear from Shackel's account that there was actually adiversity of late 18th- and early 19th-century 'Romanticisms'with a corresponding diversity of cultural meanings and associatedethics. I liked the links drawn between landscape and industry (pp.1069), though they could have been strengthened with reference tointernational data, for example the carefully constructed landscape andarchitecture of socialist Robert Owen's Utopian project at NewLanark in Scotland.There are a number of errors of detail that detract from the overallpicture. I and a number of colleagues searched in vain for the mansard Mansard:for French architects thus named, use Mansart.roofs claimed to be in the centre of figure 2, and without a knowledgeof the American Civil War the reader will not be aware that theSharpsburg of figure 8 is the same place as the Antietam of p. 45. Weberdid not posit the Protestant Ethic as a 'prime mover of theindustrial consciousness' (p. 12); he explicitly characterized itas one side of a many-sided causal chain. It isn't clear whetherfigure 33, a 'standardised plan for armoury worker'sdwellings', is an abstraction from a 19th-century plan or fromsurviving dwellings (if the latter, which ones? how many? etc). There isno location map that is readily intelligible to a non-American audience,surely a serious omission in a volume styling itself a 'globalcontribution'.One of the most encouraging aspects of Shackel's book is itsdemonstration that theoretically sophisticated and openly controversialarchaeology can be done within the framework of the management structureof a 'professional' organization such as a National Park.Historical archaeologists in Europe are more often than not employed ingovernment organizations and museums rather than enjoying the relativeacademic freedom of universities, and this has been one of thecontributing factors to its theoretical conservatism. Shackel isexplicitly critical of past National Park policy, making a refreshingchange from the self-serving accounts that some British organizationsproduce from time to time (most notably recent accounts of the NationalTrust that are too uncritical to qualify as 'histories' andthe smug response to one recent critique: Weideger 1994). Many times inthe last decade I have had European archaeologists complain privately tome: 'I'd love to do more exciting things, but my museum/localauthority/English Heritage bosses insist on keeping to a more orthodoxline . . .'. It's a moot point moot pointn. 1) a legal question which no court has decided, so it is still debatable or unsettled. 2) an issue only of academic interest. (See: moot) whether the sense ofintellectual liveliness that is present in this book is down toShackel's determination to see his vision into print or therelative liberality lib��er��al��i��ty?n. pl. lib��er��al��i��ties1. The quality or state of being liberal or generous.2. An instance of being liberal. and far-sightedness of his employers; probably acombination of both. The point is that with effort and imagination itcan be done. We have nothing to lose but our chains.If much of the above discussion seems overly critical of both Shackeland Orser, it is because they both have the courage to take on some ofthe big questions facing historical archaeology. Further, they do so notjust through abstract critique, but through a close linkage betweentheory and practice, between wide issues and the minutiae mi��nu��ti��a?n. pl. mi��nu��ti��aeA small or trivial detail: "the minutiae of experimental and mathematical procedure"Frederick Turner. ofarchaeological material. In the process of so doing, they raise a seriesof contentious theoretical and empirical issues that will not lie down,and will be sources of productive tension in archaeology for decades tocome. I strongly encourage people to read, and to argue with, thesebooks and with the series as it develops.ReferencesCAIRNS, D. & S. RICHARDS. 1988. Writing Ireland: colonialism,nationalism and culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CAMPBELL, C. 1987. The Romantic ethic and the spirit of modernconsumerism. Oxford: Blackwell.CARRITHERS, M. 1992. Why humans have cultures: explaininganthropology and cultural diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.FUNARI, P., M. HALL & S. JONES (ed.). Forthcoming. Back from theedge: archaeology in history. London: Routledge.LEONE, M. 1988. The Georgian Order as the order of capitalism inAnnapolis, Maryland, in M. Leone & P. Potter (ed.), The recovery ofmeaning in historical archaeology: 235-62. Washington (DC): SmithsonianInstitution.McGUIRE, R. & R. PAYNTER (ed.). 1991. The archaeology ofinequality. Oxford: Blackwell.MCKENDRICK, N., J. BREWER & J.H. PLUMB. 1982. The birth of aconsumer society: the commercialisation of 18th-century England. London:Hutchinson.SHACKEL, P. 1993. Personal discipline and material culture: anarchaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870. Knoxville (TN):University of Tennessee Press The University of Tennessee Press (or UT Press), founded in 1940, is a university press that is part of the University of Tennessee. External linkUniversity of Tennessee Press .STRONG, R. 1996. The story of Britain. London: Thames & Hudson.WEBSTER, J. & N. COOPER. 1996. Roman imperialism: post-colonialperspectives. Leicester: University of Leicester HistoryThe University was founded as Leicestershire and Rutland College in 1918. The site for the University was donated by a local textile manufacturer, Thomas Fielding Johnson, in order to create a living memorial for those who lost their lives in World War I. . Leicester ArchaeologyMonographs 3.WEIDEGER, P. 1994. Gilding the acorn: a critical history of theNational Trust. London: Simon & Schuster Simon & SchusterU.S. publishing company. It was founded in 1924 by Richard L. Simon (1899–1960) and M. Lincoln Schuster (1897–1970), whose initial project, the original crossword-puzzle book, was a best-seller. .