Familiarity and Contempt: the archaeology of the 'modern' (original) (raw)

Over the last twenty years or so there has been a growing recognition within field archaeology that post-medieval sites deserve as careful excavation and recording as those of more ancient date. Even so, the patience of many archaeologists seems to run out some time between 1750 and 1850. Too many are still prepared to shave off the Victorian and twentieth-century deposits from urban sites on the grounds that they are 'overburden' or, worse, 'modern disturbance'. Rural sites fare no better, with interest confined largely to standing farm buildings (e.g. Brunskill 1987) and other industrial remains, iiicluding transport systems. The coiTimonest excuse given is that this period is so fully documented and understood that we do not need to 'supplement' the historical record with archaeology. This is nonsense, of course. To deny that archaeology can make a contribution towards understanding modern societies is to deny that the discipline has a role to play in understanding any society. Ultimately, it is a denial that archaeology has its own specific viewpoint (Shanks and Tilley 1987: 208). In fact, there are many roles that archaeology can play in giving meanirig to the world, from providing the sole information about prehistory to documenting stylistic changes in a specific artefact category. However, one of the most important ought to be helping people in the present to eiigage with their own past and the pasts of others. This is what we try to achieve with popularizing accounts or with television programmes, but the results are all too often lacking in the sort of engagement which fires the public imagination.