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.
Related papers
'Archaeology’s places and contemporary uses'. An archaeologist’s perspective
The relationship between archaeologists and architects dealing in cultural heritage is not always idyllic. It can be complex, tense and sometimes, even hostile with each discipline being characterized by seemingly incompatible principles and criteria. The issue is part of a wide and heated debate focusing on the preservation and enhancement of archaeological heritage, using this term both for ancient buildings and areas subjected to the excavation activities of archaeologists. The recent increase in conferences, study days and publications demonstrates the attention that professionals are paying to this problem 1 . There seems to be a desire to find the meeting point where profound reflection can occur with respect to the meaning of the work of archaeologists and architects regarding the protection, enhancement and communication of historical places. The Intensive Programme 'Archaeology's places and contemporary uses' appears strictly related to this topic. Students belonging to faculties of Architecture and Archaeology coming from Italy, Spain and The United Kingdom have been involved in the creation of temporary shelters for archaeological sites in the Triveneto region. During the first days they were arranged into mixed groups, awakening them to the many differences imposed by university education, culture, outlook and modus operandi which they were expected to overcome in order to fulfil project requirements to a certain degree of quality. Specific areas of X Regio Augustea were selected to highlight the different needs and priorities required by each different site. The groups had to analyse aspects such as the history of the area, its relationship with the environment, protection from natural and human elements and, last but not least, its improvement. The result was a tense dialogue with no-holds barred: tension, friction, ideas merging and clashing in a practical demonstration of the importance of collaboration among differing professionals. As the archaeologists' tutor for this edition as well as the previous one I pondered at length the potential impact that an experiment like this could have on the growth of young archaeologists and designers who wanted to practice in the field of archaeological heritage. It constituted an occasion for a strict analysis of ethical and social responsibilities, strengths and weaknesses that characterize both of the disciplines. It wasn't easy. Let's face it: we think in dissimilar ways and view problems from dissimilar perspectives. Not even languages are the same. An example which is more significant than it may at first appear is the use of the term 'ruins' commonly used by architects as opposed to 'archaeological evidence' preferred by archaeologists. Clearly synonyms, but even in this case the students seemed to want to distinguish the same notion into different streams of thought. For students of Architecture the term 'ruins', rather than evoke Houel, Goethe or Maupassant's romantic vision, it emphasized their decay. Ruins reach the present through a series of passages that have eroded its original form thus representing fragments of an intangible past but creating a new entity at the same time: a sort of Chimera. Although mysterious and fascinating, ruins for them remained unrelated to contemporary reality, frozen in their timeless dimension. Creating a link between the old and the new was often the young architects' conceptual premise. They gave fundamental value to the redevelopment of the ruins, resurrected only through the creative impulse of their work.
Contemporary and recent archaeology in practice
Industrial Archaeology Review
The archaeology of the 20th century has been studied since the 1960s, but it is only more recently that explicit theoretical and methodological issues have been explored by the wider archaeological profession. This paper explores some of those issues in the contexts of developer-funded archaeology and community archaeology. Ways in which the archaeology of the more recent past may both help and hinder the discipline are considered, together with the relevance of archaeology to society at large.
Archaeology for the People: Introduction
Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-107-8 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-108-5 A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.
Historical Archaeology and the Recent Urban Past
This paper examines the ways in which international historical archaeologists have explored the recent past, in an effort to inform and contribute to contemporary debates about social identity and social inclusion. It is argued that the archaeology of the mundane and everyday can contribute to contemporary culture by creating a sense of community and developing social cohesion. Emphasis is placed upon the archaeology of the recent urban past and case studies are presented from New York, Sydney and Cape Town. The paper concludes that the study of the materiality of urban social life offers a powerful research tool for social scientists, and that archaeologists and heritage interpreters should make greater use of this form of evidence within the context of early 21st-century urban regeneration schemes in the UK.
Historical archaeology and archaeological practice in Britain
Across the North Sea, 2012
The development of historical archaeology in Britain is closely related to the ways in which frameworks for managing the historic environment have evolved. This chapter provides an introduction to those frameworks, and examines how the disciplines of industrial, post-medieval and historical archaeology have beneftted from the growth of commercial practice.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.