Theory and the Development of Historical Archaeology in Australia

8/10/2019 Theory and the Development of Historical Archaeology in Australia

1/10

Oceania Publications University of Sydney

Theory and the Development of Historical Archaeology in AustraliaAuthor(s): Tim Murray and Jim AllenSource: Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. 21, No. 1, Papers Presented to John Mulvaney (Apr.,1986), pp. 85-93

Published by: Wileyon behalf of Oceania Publications, University of SydneyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40386715.

Accessed: 07/09/2014 11:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wileyand Oceania Publications, University of Sydneyare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toArchaeology in Oceania.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.226.229.16 on Sun, 7 Sep 2014 11:43:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oceaniahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40386715?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40386715?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oceaniahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/10

Theory

nd the

development

f

historical

rchaeology

n Australia

TIM

MURRAY

and

JIMALLEN

Over

the

ast

decade,

but

especially

n

the

last

five

years,

the material

remains

of human action

in

Australia have

begun

to assume a

greater

mport-

ance

in

the

minds of

many

Australians.

ncreased

public

interest

n Australian

history

has meant

that

heritage

has become

big

business.

Nevertheless,

n

the

academic

arena,

research

into a wide

range

of

material

remains

has,

with few notable

exceptions,

provided

ittlemore

than

supplementary

llustrative

material

o

a

range

of historical

disciplines.

Interest

n the

historicbuilt environment

as

also

been translated

y

groups

such as

the National

Trust

into

a

highly

ffective

onservation

obby.

The recent

outcry

over the future of the First Government

House

site

in

Sydney

s

testimony

o this.

Indeed,

such

is

the

zeal

for

heritage

that

ersatz

'historic

places'

can

be

established

almost

at

will

-

and

process

satisfied

customers.

The

public

delight

in

such

places

shows

no

signs

of

slackening.

The same

period

has seen

increased

government

funding

for

museums

(both

indoor

and

outdoor),

with

some,

like the

Museum

for

Applied

Arts

and

Sciences

in

Sydney,

having

an

avowedly

social

his-

tory approach

to

the

interpretation

nd

display

of

their

bjects.

Viewed

superficially,

he

rise of

'heritage

con-

sciousness' seems to guarantee a brightfuturefor

historical

archaeology

in

Australia.

Legislation

protecting

historical

material

remains

is either

in

place

or

pending

in most

Australian

States

and

Territories.

But

while

funding

has

increased

for

archaeological

contributions

o

the

recording,

nal-

ysis,

nd

restoration

f

historic

tructures

nd

works,

the

question

remains:

just

how

much

impact

has

nearly

twenty

ears

of

research

nto

Australian

his-

torical

archaeology

had on

the

'heritage

conscious-

ness'

of

the

Australian

People?

Our

paper

reviews

some

of

the

recent

develop-

ments

in

Australian

historical

archaeology against

this

background

of

increasing

interest.

Noting

changes in the orientationof historywriting, nd

comparing

the

practice

of

historical

archaeology

n

Australia

with

that

in the

United

States,

we

argue

that

despite

growth

in the

funding

of

heritage

surveys

nd

impact

mitigation

xcavations,

historical

archaeology

has not

yet

realized its

potential

to

provide

a

unique

and

important

erspective

n

the

history

f

Australian

society.

Instead

Australian

historical

archaeology,

now

20

years

old,

continues

o

ustify

tself

in

rare

moments

of

critical

self-reflection)

n terms

of the

aims

of

other

disciplines.

By

contrast,

during

the

same

period

in

the

United

States

t

has

been

claimed

that

'historical

archaeology

has

been

able

to

make con-

Department

f

Archaeology,

a Trobe

University,

Bundoora,

ictoria.083

tributions

hatwould

not

be

possible

through any

other

avenue

if

nquiry' Deagan

1982:153).

We need

to ask

why

similar

contributions

have

not been

made

in Australia.

In

this

paper

we

will

suggest

several

strategies

that

will

encourage

better

pro-

fessional and

public

understanding

nd

acceptance

of

the

unique

possibilities

of historical

archaeology.

Ultimately,

however,

this can

only

be achieved

through

ction and demonstration n

the

field.

The

context

f

Australian

istorical

rchaeology

Two

long

standing

factors

have

strongly

in-

fluenced

the contextof Australian historical archae-

ology, shaping the identity f, and the politics of

discourse

about,

the

field.

First,

there has been no

substantial

increase

in the numbers of full-time

archaeologists

in

universities

over the last

decade,

and

secondly,

the

primacy

of

'preservation'

s

justi-

fication for action

has continued

to dominate

the

approaches

of these

practitioners.

When these fac-

tors

are

linked to

the short

history

of

historical

archaeology

n

Australia,

nd the lack of

a tradition

supporting

he

significance

of

Australian historical

material

remains

(either

n

terms

of

antiquarianism

or

anthropological

archaeology)

the

singular

history

of

Australian

historical

archaeology

becomes easier

to

explain.

Despite

the fact that the first excavations of

Australian

historical

sites

demonstrated

the

possi-

bility

of

studies

of

such world-wide

processes

as

colonization

and

imperialism,

the

essential

feature

of

the

history

of

Australian

historical

archaeology

has

been

the

restriction

f

research

options

to those

of

local

historical

supplementation,

nd

the recon-

struction

of

local

industrial

processes

and

techno-

logies.

We

argue

that

the

successful

development

of

historical

archaeology

n

Australia

can

only

occur

if

research

options

are

expanded

through

he

develop-

ment

of

clearly

defined

archaeological

problems

of

greater

han

local

significance.

Withthe advantage of hindsight t can be argued

that

it

was

the

posing

of

questions

having

a broad

scope

(whether

these

concerned

the

archaeological

significance

of

military

utposts

or the

sociological

significance

of

Georgian

architecture)

which

pro-

vided the

stimulus

for

the

preservation

f

material

remains

in the

Australian

landscape,

and

thus

the

rationale

of

preservationists.

uch

a

process

has

not,

of

course,

been

confined

to

European

Australia

and

its

material

remains.

ndeed,

providing

convincing

basis

for

writing

history

from

archaeological

materials

has

been

a

major

challenge

for

archae-

ologists

since

the

discipline

was

founded

in the

nineteenth

entury.

n this

sense

the

value

of

archae-

ology as a discipline,and the value of the material

remains

of

past

human

action

from

he

point

of view

of

the

cultural

preservationist,

ave been

inextricably

85

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

only

method

to

ustify

ncursions

nto

the

traditional

territories

f the

historian,

eographer

r

architect.

Notwithstanding

hese

explanations

for

the

shape

of

discourse

n

the

field

to

date,

we

consider

that

the

need

to

preserve

he

archaeological

record

has been

perceived

wrongly

o be the

single

most

important

factor

n

defining

he

possibilities

of

thefield.

What

has happened is that in seeking to support this

preservation

philosophy

Australian

historical

archaeologists

have

relied

on the

more

highly

devel-

oped

structures,

nd

hence

the

greater

lausibility

f

the

claims to

knowledge,

f

these

cognate

disciplines,

rather

than

developing

archaeological

ustifications,

whether

theoretical

or

substantive.

Jack

(1985)

and

Birmingham

and

Jeans

(1983)

indicate

support

for

this

view.

Some

historical

pecifics

Our

argument

an be

illustrated

y

examining

he

history

of Australian

historical

archaeology.

The

three

pioneering

excavations

at Port

Essington

(Allen 1973), rrawang Birmingham1968,1976), nd

Fossil

Beach

(Culican

and

Taylor

1972)

demon-

strated

the

potential

richness

of

the

archaeological

data

base, and,

by

extension,

rgued

for he

valuable

contribution

rchaeology

could

make to the

writing

of

Australian

history.

However,

much

of the

drive of historical

archae-

ology

during

the

1970s

and

early

1980s

was re-

directed

towards

research

that would

allow

us to

establish

the

scope

of

the

historical

archaeological

record

in

Australia

(Birmingham

and Jeans

1983:4,

Jack

1985,

Frankel

1972),

because

archaeologists

rightly

rgued

that t is

impossible

to

preserve

what

is

unknown.

These

heritage surveys

gathered

suf-

ficient evidence about the scope and physical

condition

of

the

record to

support

ffective

obbying

for

preservation

egislation

at the

Federal

and

State

levels. The

search for

definition as

also

resulted

n

increased

research

into

relevant

historical

written

documents.

Since

the

introduction

f

the

National

Estate

Grants

Programme,

recording

and

prelimi-

nary

investigation

have

accelerated and

large

numbers

of sites

are

now

known

(Wesson

1983,

1984).

Thus in

the

early

1970s

the two central

aspects

of

historical

rchaeology

research

designed

to

locate,

interpret

nd

explain

sites and

contexts,

nd

the

needs of

cultural

resource

managers,

became

closely

entwined.For several reasons theyhave since been

hard

to

separate.

Again

important

here is

the

small

number of

practitioners,

ecause it has

been

very

much a

matter f

'all

shoulders to

the

wheel'.

Con-

sequently

research

independent

of

the needs

of

preservation,

he

spur

to

Port

Essington

and

irra-

wang,

was

seen as

superfluous

or

sell-indulgent

(Birmingham

nd

Jeans

1983).

But

while

establishing

the

significance

of

ar-

chaeological

resources

is

important

to

resource

managers

as

a

justification

for

preservation

de-

cisions,

such

a

need

does

not,

and

never

did,

comprise

all

potential

interests n the

historical

archaeological

record.

However,

because

of the

immensity

nd seriousnessofthe

management

rob-

lem,

those

few

archaeologists

nterested n

historical

archaeology

but

working

outside

the

management

linked forover a

century,

ot

ust

the ast

20

years

n

Australia.

What seems

clearer now is that

historical

archae-

ologists may

have

inadvertently

een

caught up

too

much

in

only

one

part

of the

equation,

siezing

too

quickly

upon

preservation

as

justification.

We

surmise that the

influence

of the

preservation

thic

in Australianprehistoric rchaeology, he resources

and

personnel

of which have

increased

by

at least

an

order of

magnitude

since

1965,

has had a more

profound

ffect n

the

history

f

Australian historic

archaeology

than

previously

recognised.

**The

essential

differences that n

prehistoric

rchaeology

it

had

prior

academic and

intellectual

ustifications.

In

our

view,

historical

archaeologists

have

been

too

quick

to

justify

heir

activities n

terms

of the

restricted

reas of

cultural

resources

management,

historical

supplementation

or

human

geography,

without

considering

the

over-arching

ualities

and

distinctiveness f

historical

archaeological

data

that

transcend

any

of

these

particular

areas.

We

must

recogniseand demonstrate hisdistinctivenessn its

own

terms.

Our

basic

data

are

material

results

of

human

action

and

natural

site

formation

rocesses.

These we deal

with

by

using

archaeological

methods

to

cluster

data

into

archaeological

entities

which we

then

interpret

n

a

framework

rchaeological

in

its

perceptions

as

well

as

its

procedures Clarke

1968:

13).

Historical

archaeologists

have

the

advantage

of

additional

data

bases

-

particularly

written

docu-

ments

and

oral

histories

but

too

often

so

far)

we

have

been

seduced

into

trying

o fit

the

material

remains

nto

the

ntellectual

tructures f

those

bases

rather

han

perceiving

hatwe

are

dealing

with

two

or more ndependentbases whichmaybe compared

or

tested

against

each

other.

By

extension,

people

who

reconstruct

team

engines,

ocate

the

exact

site

of

the

Eureka

Stockade,

or

collect

bottles

are

not

historical

archaeologists,

however

much

they

claim

to

be,

if

this s

all

they

do.

They

do not

employ

the

methodologies

and

skills

of

archaeologists

on ar-

chaeological

materials

n

order

to

produce

archae-

ological

conclusionsto

archaeological

questions.

In

general,

knowledge

and

understanding

xpand

as

new

theories

are

developed

for

the

interpretation

of

data.

The

production

of

that

knowledge,

nd

the

possibility

f

more,

has

been

one of

the

ustifications

for he

cultural

ignificance

f

prehistoric

emains

n

Australia.This has notbeen thecase in thestudy f

historic

remains,

where

development

has occurred

only

at

the level

of

method and

technique.

Here the

search

for

knowledge

and

the

demonstration of

potential

have

taken

place

predominantly

ithin he

categories

and

research

agendas

of

diciplines

cog-

nate

with

archaeology

-

history,

architecture,

economics,

sociology,

nd

geography.

We

have

already

suggested

hat

one reason

for

his

is that

full-time

rchaeologists

actually

working

n

the

field

are

few,

nd

are

in

a

minority

ompared

to

the

numbers

n

these

cognate

disciplines.

Exemplars

of

practice

and

explanatory

deals

are

more

often

historical

r

architectural

ather han

archaeological.

Low numbers are not conducive to political

clout,

and

this

situation

has

been

exacerbated

by

the

fact

that

in

Australia,

historical

archaeology

has

had

86



4/10

the

nitial

argument

hat

the

significance

r

meaning

of sites

might

be established

through

hem.

Putting

this into

practice

remained

the

task of historical

archaeologists,

whether

managers

or academics.

The continued

enthusiasm for themes and

check-

lists

and the lack

of

any

rationale

for

he interests f

groups

other

than

managers,

has meant that until

the last three

years

these

tools

appear

not

to have

been transformedbeyond their management role

into

a

set

of

specificproblems

and

questions,

s

they

were

originally

intended

(Allen 1978:7).

This

is

despite

the

great

increase

in

the

number

of

sites

recorded,

and

increased

research

into

production

processes

and

technologies.

Other

users of

the

archaeological

data

such

as

university-based

his-

torical

archaeologists,

architects,

historians and

human

geographers,

members

of

preservation

societies,

and

other

members of

the

general

public

-

those

who search

for

meaning

and

significance

outside the

management

sphere

-

have

neither

developed,

changed,

nor

expanded

this

framework.

The

lack of

formal

heoretical

development

f

the

fieldhas meant thatthe interpretationf sites and

contexts

has

tended to

stop

with

the

assignment

o

a

theme or

congeries

of

themes.

Meaning

has con-

tinued

to

reside

in

categories

that

are as

yet

theoretically

unarticulated

by

archaeologists.

As a

consequence,

few

anomalies have

been

detected

between the

categories

and

our

experience

of

classifying

he

archaeological

remains

n

their

erms.

The

categories

of

Australian

historical

archaeology

have

remained

essentially

inviolate

-

predefined,

uninvestigated,

nd

privileged

sources

of

archae-

ological

interpretation.

This

situation can be

directly

related

to a

con-

centrationon

recording

at the

expense

of

analysisand interpretation.Very little of the

published

product

of Australian

historical

rchaeology

demon-

strates

willingness

by practitioners

to

accept

the

unique

command the

field has over

all

the

contexts

of human

behaviour.Instead of

articulatingspoken

word,

written

word,

preserved

behaviour,

and ob-

served

behaviour'

(Schuyler

1979)

into

archae-

ologically

based reconstructions f

past

ways

of

life,

or

processual

analyses,

historical

rchaeologists

have

contented

themselveswith

establishing

significance

largely

n the

grounds

of

historical

upplementation.

This is

both a

failure to

recognize

how

we can

realize

the

potential

of

the

record,

and

a

failure to

understand

that

theorybuilding

is the

key to both

preservation

nd

understanding.

Until recent

years

we

have,

through

our

disregard

for

the

need to

put

an

archaeological

dimension

explicitly

into our

historical

categories,

been

locked

into

the

implicit

theory

f

the themes

and

checklists.

If

the

primary

context

ot

historical

Australian

archaeology

has

been

the

need

to

support

the

preservation

or

conservation

of

the data

base,

the

most

imprtant

sources

of

interpretation

nd

sig-

nificance

(hence

of

justifications

for

preservation)

have

continued

to

be

disciplines

such as

history

nd

human

geography.

Archaeologists

have

added

little

or

nothing

to

this

store.

Yet

one

of

the

original

justifications

for the significanceof the historical

archaeological

record

n Australia

was

the

potential

richness

of

its

contribution

o

the

writing

f

Aus-

87

sphere

behaved as

if this was

not the case.

Nowhere

is

this

more

apparent

than

in the

general

enthusiasm

for

hemes

and

checklists.

Following

the

1974 Conference

on

Historical

Archaeology

held

in

Canberra,

an

eleven

person

committee

was

established

to

advise

the

Interim

Committee

of

the

National

Estate

on

questions

re-

garding

the

nature

of

this

resource

(historic

sites)

and questions of site recording.Heavily influenced

by

recent

trips

to

the

United

States

and

Canada,

members

of

the Interim

Committee

asked

that

this

committee

ormulate

raft

hemes

and

checklists.

t

is

apparent

from

he

committee

eport

Allen

1978)

that,

although

it included

five

archaeologists

with

experience

n

historical

rchaeology,

ittle onsensus

emerged

from

extensive

discussion

on

the

relative

merits

of

themes

and

checklists,

nd

that

the

prob-

lems

associated

with

either,

in

particular

the

predetermination

f

theboundaries

of

interpretation

by

their

use,

were

great.

Pearson

(1979,

1981)

has

outlined

the

history

f

these

tools,

indicating

their

close

association

with

the management role. He has stressedtheir use-

fulness

in

matters

of

site

identification,

nd

the

establishment

of

supra-site

categories

of

archae-

ological

significance

which

could

allow

a

rational

solution

to the

problem

of

what

was

to

be

preserved.

Pearson

(1979:97)

argued

that

the checklists

were

lists

of

expected

site

types

within

any

area

and

that

their

greatest

use

was

in the

compilation

of

'an

inventory

of

historic

sites

in

any

area,

as

they

provide

a framework

or

the

basic classification

of

sites'.

It

seems

that

Pearson

implicitly

ccepted

that

the

form

of the

checklist

was

the result

of

some

theo-

reticalperspective, oweverunderdeveloped

t

might

be.

Clearly,

inventory

nd

significance

assessment

cannot

take

place

in

a theoretical

vacuum.

The

themes

actually

isted

by

Pearson

make

the sources

of

that

theory,

nd

the

theoretical

reoccupations

of

the

last

decade,

slightly

learer.

For

Pearson

(1979:97)

thematic

lists

organized

sites

nto

broad

historical

ategories'

which

may

be

used

as

an

aid

in

explaining

the

historical

signific-

ance

of

a

region's

sites,

and

as

an aid

in

planning

the

conservation

nd

management

of sites'

1979:97).

Thematic

lists

are,

unlike

checklists,

problem

or

question

specific

hence

their

usefulness

s a

basis

for

nterpretation

nd

explanation.

Given

Pearson's

perspectiveas a cultural resource manager, it is

understandable

that

he

saw

the

real

value of

the

thematic

ist as

allowing

for

the

selection

of

a broad

sample

of

sites

type,

unction,

istorical

ssociations,

etc.)

within

the

state

of

N.S.W.

Themes

such

as

exploration,

primary

ndustry,

onvicts,

and colon-

isation

also

represented

what

historical

archae-

ologists

regarded

as

being

meaningful

and

suscep-

tible

to

theoretical

ormulation.

Here

the

link

between

the

need to

explore

the

potential

of

the

archaeological

record

and the

desire

to

develop

defensible

claims

for

the

significance

of

the data

from

a

management

perspective,

s most

apparent. The

themes

selected

by

the Interim

Committee

f the National Estate

(Pearson

1979:97)

cover

an

extraordinarily

road

range,

but

it is

im-

portant

o

notethat

they

were

not

developed

beyond



5/10

tralian

history.

We willnow

explore

the

implications

of

this situation.

Recently,

historical

archaeologists

themselves

recognize

hat hefieldhas

only

produced

data

to act

as

grist

to the

mills

of

the

historians,

geographers

and architects

see Birmingham

and Jeans

1983:4).

No

interpretative

heoryhaving

been

produced

by

the

archaeologists,

hese other

disciplines

have fallen

back on what theyhad before the whole process

started.Given

that

practitioners

f these

disciplines

have

a

strong legitimate

nterest

n

the

material

remains,

t is unfortunate

hatthese

data are used

by

them

without

heir

needing

to

account

for

nterpreta-

tions

produced

from

the

archaeological

perspective.

In other

words,

the

operations

of checklists

and

categories

of

significance

appear

not to

have

been

substantially

altered

or

expanded

through

their

application

to

a

different

ata

source.

This

means

that

either

he

resources

f

historical

rchaeology

re

not as

potentially

ich as

we

first

hought,

r,

as we

believe,

archaeologists

have

not

yet

demonstrated

thispotential.

It

is

our

view that

the

organizing

power

of the

theme

and

checklist

has

been

uncritically

ccepted

by

historical

archaeologists

as

the

theoretical

base

for

the field

-

not

simply

as

a

substitute

or

theory

building,

but

as

theory

tself.

We do

not

wish to

argue

that

the

perspectives

r

problems

ofhistorians

or

human

geographers

re

irrelevant

o

this

process

of

theory

building

-

clearly

they

form

part

of

the

conceptual

and

data

boundaries

of

the

historical

archaeologist.

Yet

they

do

not

provide

the

totality.

This lack of

attention

o

theory

building

has

had

a

number

of

unfortunate

onsequences.

First,

it has

generally

meant

that

historical

archaeologyhas been frozen n a singlerole

-

that

of

historical

supplementation.

We reiterate

hat

the

use of themes

and checklists

does

not ordain

that

this

should

take

place,

indeed

their

critical

use

should

have forced

historical

archaeologists

to

develop

other

roles

for

the

data base.

While

it

is

accepted

that

the

archaeological

data

can

plug

gaps

in the

written

ocumentary

ecord

(thereby

having

some

value),

it seems

that

historical

archaeologists

have been

unwilling

to

realize

that

the onus

of

any

interpretation

nd

explanation

also

rests

with

them.

Secondly,

historical

archaeology

appears

to

have

had

very

ittle

mpact

on

the

writing

f Australian

history,

istorical

sociology,

and human

geography.

The Interference' of archaeologists in heritage

projects

considered

to

be

properly

nder

the control

of architects

has also been

mentioned

(see

Lewis

1984,

Mulvaney

1981).

Jack

1985)

among

others

has

complained

that

historians

seem

unwilling,

or

unable,

to articulatematerial

evidence

into

their

accounts

-

relying

n the

traditional

nterpretative

primacy

of the

written ocument.This

may

well be

true,

ut have historical

rchaeologists

demonstrated

the

potential

of material

remains?

Once

again

the

data can

plug gaps

and therefore

as

a direct and

essentially

nproblematic

use. Yet we

recognize

thai

some

branches of

history

writing, articularly

ocial

history,

require

something

more than

this.

Aus-

tralian historical archaeology has not provided

behavioural

interpretations

f

relictmaterials

which

could

allow

the

historian, socioloeist.

or

human

geographer

to

first

gauge

their

usefulness

and

validity,

and

then

articulate

the

social

or

semio-

logical

implications

of

material

culture

into

their

own

analyses.

Little

wonder

that

history

without

objects

is still

the dominant

form

of

history

writing

in

Australia.

Thirdly,

he

uncritical

maintenance

of

historians',

geographers',

r

architects'

ategories

and

research

agendas seriouslyunderminesthe developmentof

the

archaeological

significance

of

the

archaeologal

data

base.

This

is

because

significance

has

to

be

demonstrated

before

it

can

be

effectivelyustified,

and

the

only

demonstrations

o

date

have

been

of

the

hole-plugging

kind.

In the

following

ection

we

discuss

the

implications

of

this

point,

but

it

is

important

to

note

here

the

potentially

harmful

effects

that

an

abnegation

of

the

need

to

build

theory might

have

on

the

sample

of

the archae-

ological

record

we

can

preserve.

The

context

of

Australian

historical

archaeology

still

comprises

a

small

population

of

full-time

practitioners

whose

professional

goals

and

ex-

planatory

deals continueto be shaped by theneeds

of

cultural

resource

managers,

nd

by

a subservience

to

the

methodological

and

interpretative

rmories

f

history,

human

geography

and

architecture.

How-

ever,

here

re

indications

that

this

situation

may

be

about

to

change.

Some

historical

archaeologists

(notably

Birmingham

and

Jeans

1983

with

their

Swiss

Family

Robinson

model) recognize

the

con-

sequences

of

these

problems

and

the

availability

of

potential

solutions.

It is

significant

hat

while

this

change

parallels

new orientations

f

American

historical

rchaeology

which

are

beginning

to

pose

new

professional

pos-

sibilities

and

emphasize

the

need

for

theory

building,

it

appears

to be a

genuine

Australian

response

to

a

local

need.

As

well,

the

increase

n the

numbers of

full-time

ultural

resource

managers,

and

in the

sizes

of

their

budgets,

has

begun

to

release

some

archaeologists

to

pursue

research

not

based

strictly

n

management

needs.

Finally,

recent

changes

in the orientation

f

history

writing

owards

a

greater

concern

with

the

historical

potential

of

material

remains

are

acting

to

develop

existing

historical

categories

along

more

materialist

ines.

These

changes

in

context

have

meant

that

the

shape

of

discourse

in

Australian

historical

archaeology

s

no

longer

unproblematic

and

tacitly

agreed-upon.

The natureof the fielditselfhas become

a

central

object

of

analysis.

Sketching

he

onfiguration

f

change

In the

last few

years

Australian

historical

ar-

chaeology

has

become

more

critically

elf-reflective.

Six

recent

papers

(Bairstow

1984a,

1984b,

Birming-

ham and Jeans

1983,

Connah

1983,

Jack

1985,Megaw

1984)

collectively

llustrate

move

to

increase

the

scope

of

discussion

beyond

site

reports,

artefact

analysis,

excavation

techniques,

and

issues

of

cul-

tural

resource

management.

While

these

traditional

areas

of

interest re

still

the

preferred

ubjects

for

publication,

practitioners

ow

more

readily

discuss

issues of theorybuilding in general and method-

ology

n

particular.

The

major

result

of

these

discussions

is that

88



6/10

resource base. Conservation

archaeology

conducted

without his

perspective

s

thought ctually

to

inhibit

our

ability

to conserve a

meaningful

ample

of

the

archaeological

record.

Following

from

his t

can

be

proposed

that

if

archaeologists

continue

to use

theories

of

interpretation

which

cannot

be con-

vincingly

connected to

the

empirical

data

of the

record,

he

archaeological

significance

f

those

data

is reduced to a rump of information, cquired

through

he

use

of

archaeological

methods,

ut

given

whatever

significance

they

may

have

only

through

the

methodologies

or

interpretative

mechanisms of

other

disciplines.

These

may

be at best

dissociated

from

archaeology

and

at

worst,

inimical

to its

interests.

Lying

beneath the

surface of these

issues are

problems

that

were,

and

to

some extent till

are,

the

subject

of

acrimonious

debate

in

the United

States.

They

centre around the

issue

of

the

identity

f the

field

(Cleland

and

Fitting

1968,

Dollar

1968,

Fontana 1965.

Harrington

1957,

Noel

Hume

1969,

Schuyler

1970,

Walker

1967).

Historical archaeology is peculiarly prone to

disagreements

bout what

its

'proper'

orientation s

(or

should

be)

and what

might

be

considered

to be

its core

concepts, categories

and

preoccupations

-

hence the

identity

f the

field.

One reason for his

s

that

historical

archaeology

shares much

of the

instability

f

general

archaeology,

which is

the

result

of

nearly

two

decades of

hard-fought

attles

over

the

methodology

of

the

discipline,

and

the

purpose

of

studying

he

material

residues of

human

behaviour.

Despite

the

rhetoric

of

proposal

and

counter-

proposal,

the

community

of

archaeologists

has

remained

divided,

and

unconvinced

that

any

single approach encapsulates the identityof the

discipline.

We

regard

Bairstow's

1984a

and

1984b)

critique

of

Birmingham

and

Jeans

(1983)

as

an

example

of

these

more

general

debates.

While

major

conflicts

ave

resultedfrom

differing

interpretations

f

the

nature

and

implications

of

scientific

discourse

in

archaeology,

appropriate

theories

of

society

and

culture,

and

defensible

grounds

for

explaining

change

and

variability

n

human

action,

further

divisions

have

also

arisen

between

academic'

and

cultural

resource

manage-

ment

archaeology.

These

conflicts

have

made it

increasingly

ifficult

o

point

to a

body

of

concepts,

categories,

and

methodologies

that

are

held

to be

indisputable, right or 'proper'. Historical archae-

ologists

naturally

have

found

it

difficult

o

argue

forcefully

or the

value

of

an

archaeological

per-

spective

when

the

methodology

and

purposes

of

archaeology

tself

re so

much in

dispute.

Archaeologists

and

researchers in

cognate

dis-

ciplines

have

responded

to

this

difficulty

by

questioning

whether

historical

archaeology

can

be

considered to

be a

discipline

in

its

own

right,

nd

whether ts

development

n

Australia

should

be

fos-

tered

by

some

broader

field

of

inquiry

that

also

has

legitimate

nterests n

the

archaeological

data

base

-

be

it

history,

rehistoric

rchaeology,

sociology,

geography,

ngineering

r

architecture.

The disciplinary distinctiveness of historical

archaeology

is

an

issue

not

only

in

Australia.

Deagan (1982:156),

for

example,

when

speaking

of

89

largely

implicit understandings

of

approach

and

practice

have become

more

explicit.

This has

revealed that there are

divergent

positions

on

core

theoretical ssues

in

the

field,

both in

terms of

the

proper approach

to

theory

uilding

and of

method-

ology

(see,

for

example;

Bairstow 1984a and

1984b

attacking

substantive

aspects

of

Birmingham

and

Jeans

1983).

n

this

nstance,

mplicit greement

has

turned to explicit disagreementwhen particular

approaches

and their

justifications

are

made

manifest.

However,

a

perception

of

increasing divergence

within

he

community

f

practitioners

as not

been

the cause of the current

vogue

of

introspection.

Rather,

it is

the un-looked-forresult

of it.

One

popular

ustification

orcritical elf-reflections that

historical

archaeology

has

now been

practised

in

Australia for

twenty ears,

and it is felt that

some

stocktaking

s

necessary

as the field enters

ts

third

decade

(e.g.

Birmingham

nd Jeans

1983).

Another

ustification

eems to be

that the

motiv-

ation for so

much of

the

recording

nd research of

the last two

decades,

the

widely-perceived

eed to

find he dimensions

of

the

record

n Australiabefore

too much was

lost or

destroyed,

s

now

recognised

not

to have

exhausted

the

analytical potential

of the

material remains

of

human action

in historic

periods

see Birmingham

nd Jeans

1983,

Jack

1985).

Greater attention

to

theory building

is

therefore

considered

necessary.

The

third

ustification

tems from

a

growing

dis-

satisfaction

within

the

community

of

practitioners,

and

some

of

the academic

and

government

on-

sumers

of our

product,

withthe ack

of

substance,

et

alone theoretical

direction,

n

Australian

historical

archaeology.But where is this substance to come

from,

nd

how

do

we

release

ourselves from

tacitly

accepted practice?

A

concentration

n

description,

o the exclusion

of

explicit

archaeological

investigation

of

implicit

frameworks

f

understanding

and

problem

gener-

ation,

can

be

traced

to a narrow

reading

of

conservation

philosophy,

namely

that

the

recording

of

empirical

data

is

the

primary

goal

of the con-

servation

rchaeologist.

True to

form,

not

even this

narrow

eading

has received

xplicit

haracterization

or

defenceuntil recent

years

see

Connah

1983).

While this

approach

to conservation

archaeology

emphasizes

the

specifically

rchaeological

methods

ofexcavation, ield urvey nd artefact lassification,

it

largelyneglects

he

factthat

the

translation

f this

data into

significant

ultural

properties'

s

itself he

result of

interpretations

nd

questions

which

are

part

of

the

unexamined cultural

baggage

of the

conservation

rchaeologist.

Critics of

this narrow

reading (e.g., Birmingham

and Jeans

1983,

Murray 1984)

have drawn

support

for

a

broader

approach

from American

cultural

resource

management archaeology

(Schiffer

and

Gummerman

1977)

and from

he

ncreasing

range

of

interpretative

nd

explanatoryoptions

provided by

the

growth

f theoretical

rchaeology

over

the

last

twentyyears.

They

have

argued

that the

critical

assessmentofquestions and interpretations,hrough

the

process

of

theorybuilding,

is essential to the

growth

of

the field

and the

preservation

of

its



7/10

the American situation

has said: The firstformal

recognition

n

this

country

f historical

archaeology

as a

discipline

came

in

1960,

with

the establishment

of the Conference

n Historic Sites

Archaeology

nd

the

publication

of its

proceedings'.

Yet she

spends

the bulk of an

important

nd useful

survey

paper

arguing

the

variety

f

positions

American historical

archaeologistshave taken on this presumablynon-

negotiable

claim. In

the

end

Deagan

decides

that

historical

rchaeology

s

in

the

process

of

becoming:

Although Schuyler's

question

'is

historical archae-

ology

technique

r a

discipline?' 1979:202)

annot

be

finally

nd

conclusively

nswered

oday,

ontemporary

advances

suggest

hat a

distinct

discipline

is

indeed

emerging

1982:172).

Importantly,

hose

contemporary

dvances relate to

the

building

of

interpretive

nd

explanatory

heory

to solve

problems

that

have been

clearly

defined

by

historical

rchaeologists.

It is thus

still

a

moot

point

whether

historical

archaeology

needs to become

distinct

in

terms

f

its

disciplinary structure) from prehistory,history,

geography

or

any

other

perspective

on

human

material behaviour.

However,

we

do

agree

with

Deagan

that the

ability

to

produce

singular

inter-

pretations

or he material

t

aspires

to control

helps

to establish

the

equality

of

historical

rchaeology

as

a

field of

inquiry

with its more

established

com-

petitors.

We consider

that

a

perception

f

equality

s

vital

to

the

growth

of the

subject,

not

the

least

because

it

discourages

a subservient

ttitude

o

the

perspectives

f

other

disciplines

on

data

which

are

also

in the

purview

of historical

archaeology,

and

which

may

well

be

linked

to

general

archaeological

issues.

This

does

not

necessarily

ntail

the

rejection

of external theoriesor understandingssimplybe-

cause

they

come

from

outside

the field.

Rather,

t

means that their value for the

interpretation

f

archaeological

data,

and

the

solution

ol

archae-

ological

problems,

should

be

established

and

defended,

nstead

of

simply

being

assumed.

Explaining

the rise

of new

disciplines

is

more

complicated

than

tracing

the

search

for

an

identity

that can

be taken

seriously.

To

become

disciplines,

subjects

such as historical

rchaeology

must

develop

in two

ways.

First,

the

field

must

be

widely

recognized

as the

source of

a

body

of

specialized

knowledge

and skills.

Secondly,

the

field should

develop

into a

political

institution

demarcating

areas of academic territorynd arguingforclaims

on resources.

n this second

aspect

disciplinesshape

the

professional

dentity

f

practitioners,

heir hoice

of

problems,

methods

and

explanatory

deals.

The

genesis

of

new

disciplines

is

often the result

of

solutions

being

found

to

the

very problems

that

currently

ace historical

rchaeology

n Australia

-

identity, ignificance,

and

general

acceptance

of

methodology.

Australian

historical

archaeology

has not suc-

cessfully

followed either

pathway

to

disciplinary

distinctiveness. ntil

recently

he

abnegation

of

the

need

to build

theory

has

largely

taken care of the

first

aspect,

and the

extremely

slow

growth

in

professional nfrastructureas militated gainst the

other.

At

present

there are

no full-time

eachers

of

the

subject,

despite

the

fact that

the

University

f

Sydney

has

set.

up

an

Historical

Archaeology

unit

within

the

Faculty

of

Arts,

nd

limited

courses

are

regularly

ffered

t

La

Trobe

University

nd

at

the

University

of

New

England.

These

arrangements

have meant

that

multi-year

ourses,

so

necessary

o

the

development

of

an

adequately

trained

cadre

of

professionals,

have

not

been

possible.

Although

large numbers of studentshave enrolled in post-

graduate

study

(especially

at

the

University

of

Sydney),

only

a

handful

of

PhDs have

been

com-

pleted

or are

nearing

completion.

The situation

is

somewhat

better

on

the

public

side of

historical

rchaeology.

Organizations

such

as

the

National

Trust

have

long

been

involved

in

heritage

surveys

and

have

also

attempted

n

more

than

one

occasion

to

formalize

the

procedures

connected

with these activities

and

to

develop

the

rationale

of the

field

(see

Birmingham

and

James

1981).

The Australian

Society

for

Historical

Archae-

ology

has held

regular

conferences

at

which

practitioners

f

the

diverse

sub-fields

of

historical

archaeology have been able to meet to discuss

techniques

and

approaches

and

gain

some

measure

of

agreement

ver

policies.

With

he

recent

stablishment

f

he

Australian

ournal

of

Historical

Archaeology,

l

place

for

the

regular

publication

of

refereed

apers

has

been

found.

Other

papers

are

published

through

the

Newsletter

f

the

Society

and,

from

ime

to

time,

n

Australian

rchae-

ology.

Finally,

in those

States

that

have

passed

legislation

designed

to

preserve

the

non-Aboriginal

heritage,

there

has been

a

growth

n

numbers

of

historical

archaeologists

connected

with the

record-

ing,

assessment

and

management

of

cultural

resources.

Employment

prospects

and

professional

infrastructurere improving.

The

continued

expansion

of

archaeological

train-

ing

for

tudents

f

historical

material

remains

s one

way

of

developing

the

political

structure f

the

field,

of

being

able to defend

archaeological

incursions

into the

territories

f

the

prehistorian,

historian,

geographer

or

architect.

Unfortunately,

ithout

the

recognition

that

historical

archaeology

is

also

the

repository

f

specialized

knowledge

and

skills,

uch

incursions

are

likely

to

come

to

nothing.

The

legit-

imation

of

historical

archaeology

can

only

occur

if

its

practitioners

xpand

their

ntellectual

orizons

by

demonstrating

the

unique

value

of

the

archae-

ological

perspective

on

historic

material

remains.

This means that strategiesneed to be developed

which

allow

the

meaning

and

value

of

the

data

base

to

be

expanded

beyond

historical

supplementation.

The

building

of

new

theories

nd

the

rigorous

esting

of

existing

nes

are

obvious

strategies.

The

formulation

of

the

Swiss

Family

Robinson

model

by

Birmingham

and

Jeans

(1983),

despite

defects

dmitted

y

the

authors,

nd noted

by

others,

is the

first eal

attempt

o

do

this.

While

the

model

shows

strong

theoretical

influence

from

human

geography,

the

archaeological

data

assume

some

importance

s the

basis

on

which

the

predictions

f

the model

will

ultimately

e confirmed

r

rejected.

Birmingham

nd Jeans

have

signalled

the

need for

explanation,and the explicitdevelopment funder-

standings

that have been abroad in the

community

of

practitioners

or

over

a decade.

They

have also

90



8/10


9/10


10/10

Glances.

Australian

Journal

of

Historical

Archaeology

:

7-12.

Mulvaney,

D. J. 1981.

The historicvalue

of historicrelics:

a

plea

for

romantic

intellectualism.

n

J.

Birmingham

and P.

James

(convenors),

Industrial and

Historic

Archaeology.

National

Trust of

Australia

(N.S.W.),

Sydney.

Murray,

.

1983.

Relativism,

Conservation

Philosophy

and

HistoricalArchaeology. n M. Pearson and H. Temple

(eds),

Historical

rchaeology

nd

conservation

hilosophy

pp.

1-17.

Heritage

Council ot

N.S.W.,

Sydney.

Noel

Hume,

I.

1969.

Historical

Archaeology.Knopf,

New

York.

Osborne,

G. and

Mandle,

W. F.

(eds).

1982.

New

History.

Studying

ustralia

Today.

Unwin,

Sydney.

Pearson,

M. 1979.

Historic

Sites: themes and variations. n

P.

Stanbury ed.),

10,000

Years

of Sydney

ife,pp.

97-105.

Macleay

Museum,

University

t

Sydney.

Pearson,

M.

1981.The

National

Parks

and Wildlife Ser-

vice's

approach

to the

acquisition

and

interpretation

f

historic ites in

N.S.W. In

J.

Birmingham

nd P.

James

(convenors).

ndustrial nd Historic

Archaeology,

p.

9-13.

National Trust of

Australia

N.S.W.), Sydney.

Sampson,

M.

1979.

Recent

criticisms f Labour

History

n

Britain and Australia.Labour

History

6:70-93.

Schiffer,

M. and G.

J. Gummerman

(eds).

1977. Con-

servation

rchaeology.

cademic

Press,

New York.

Schuyler,

R.

L. 1970. Historical

and

historic ites

archae-

ology

as

anthropology:

basic

definitions

nd

relation-

ships.

Historical

rchaeology

:83-89.

Schuyler,

R. L.

(ed.).

1979. Historical

Archaeology:

guide

to substantive

nd

theoretical

ontributions.

aywood,

Farmingdale

N.Y.).

Spearitt,P. and Walker D. (eds). 1979.Australian opular

Culture.

Unwin, Sydney.

Sydney

Labour

History Group,

1982.

What

Rough

Beast?

The State

and Social Order

n Australian

History.

Unwin,

Sydney.

Tilly,

C.

1981.

Class

Conflict

nd CollectiveAction.

Sage

(published

in

cooperation

with the

Social Science

His-

toryAssociation), Beverly

Hills.

Walker,

.

C.

1967. Historical

archaeology

-

methods

and

principles.

Historical

Archaeology

:22-34.

Wesson,

J. 1983.

A First

Bibliography

of Historical

Ar-

chaeology

in Australia.

Australian

Journal

of

Historical

Archaeology

:22-34.

Wesson,

J. 1984. A First

Bibliography

of Historical

Ar-

chaeology

in Australia Continued.

Australian

Journal

f

Historical

Archaeology

: 13-16.

Archaeol.Oceania

21

(1986)

85-93.

Advertisement

---

Queensland

L_~^;|Srch>eological

MBjjJTesearch

Volume

1985

SAIO.OO

er copy

from

Q.A.R.,

Department

of

Anthropology

nd

Sociology,

University

f

Queensland,

St. Lucia, 4067.

93

Thi t t d l d d f 130 226 229 16 S 7 S 2014 11 43 37 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Theory and the Development of Historical Archaeology in Australia

Documents

Transcript of Theory and the Development of Historical Archaeology in Australia