Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
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 support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Oceania Publications, University of Sydney are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Archaeology in Oceania.
http://www.jstor.org
of
Theoryand thedevelopment
in Australia
historicalarchaeology
TIM MURRAY and JIMALLEN
Over the last decade, but especially in the last five
years, the material remains of human action in
Australia have begun to assume a greater importance in the minds of many Australians. Increased
public interestin Australian historyhas meant that
heritagehas become big business. Nevertheless,in
the academic arena, research into a wide range of
material remains has, with few notable exceptions,
provided littlemore than supplementaryillustrative
materialto a range of historicaldisciplines.
Interestin the historicbuilt environmenthas also
been translatedby groups such as the National Trust
conservationlobby. The recent
into a highlyeffective
outcry over the future of the First Government
House site in Sydney is testimonyto this. Indeed,
such is the zeal for heritage that ersatz 'historic
- and
places' can be established almost at will
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 history approach to the interpretationand display of
theirobjects.
Viewed superficially,the rise of 'heritage consciousness' seems to guarantee a bright futurefor
historical archaeology in Australia. Legislation
protectinghistorical material remains is either in
place or pending in most Australian States and
Territories.But while funding has increased for
archaeological contributionsto the recording,analysis,and restorationof historicstructuresand works,
the question remains: just how much impact has
nearly twentyyears of research into Australian historical archaeology had on the 'heritageconsciousness' of the AustralianPeople?
Our paper reviews some of the recent developments in Australian historical archaeology against
this background of increasing interest. Noting
changes in the orientationof historywriting,and
comparing the practice of historical archaeology in
Australia with that in the United States, we argue
that despite growth in the funding of heritage
surveysand impact mitigationexcavations,historical
archaeology has not yet realized its potential to
provide a unique and importantperspectiveon the
historyof Australian society.
Instead Australian historical archaeology,now 20
years old, continuesto justifyitself(in rare moments
of critical self-reflection)in terms of the aims of
other disciplines. By contrast, during the same
period in the United States it has been claimed that
'historicalarchaeology has been able to make conLa TrobeUniversity,
ofArchaeology,
Department
Bundoora,Victoria.3083
85
86
88
90
historical interpretation.
While an emphasis on the
analysis of documents has remained as the basic
skill of the historian,the task of interpretationand
explanation has been expanded by the introduction
of sociological and environmentalperspectives(see,
for example Tilly 1981). New time scales for history
writinghave also been used, most notably by the
Annales historians in France. Broader categories
such as class, gender,and the 'world economy' have
begun to receive more attention.At the same time
historians have also sought an understanding of
smaller-scale loci of human action such as the
family,the suburb,cityor region.
The general attack on logical empiricismthat has
been so much a featureof post-war social science
has also carriedover into history,where the previous
empiricistemphasis that securityof knowledgecould
be guaranteed only by direct appeal to empricial
data, has slowly been replaced by the view that
theoreticalknowledge also has securityand internal
coherence. Accordingly,historians have begun to
feel that the analysis of abstract categories such as
society,ideology and culture can also be practically
defended, as well as being meaningful. Historians
have begun to see the importance of theory,the
crucial role it plays in problem selection, analysis
and interpretation.
History has become more varied in its subject
matter.It has been broadened by its encounterwith
sociology,psychology,economics, semiology and, to
a lesser extent,archaeology. For the sake of convenience rather than strictaccuracy, these changes
can be generalized as social history. Asa Briggs
(1984:8) has described social historyas the historyof
society,being concerned with 'structuresand with
processes of change'. The foci of analysis - subsistence, technology,social organization, trade and
communication,cultureand demography,reflectthe
search for structureand process. Part and parcel of
this change in emphasis is a change in the data base
of history.No longer are writtenhistorical documents enough. Other sources of data such as
material remains need to be articulatedin analysis.
The territoriesof the historian and of the historical
archaeologisthave begun to shade into one another,
and the importance of the archaeologist's emphasis
on the behavioural interpretationof those remains
consequently increases. Historical archaeologists
should seize this opportunity.
In Australia social historyalso means Aboriginal,
women's, oral, medical, sports,immigration,urban
and labour history;popular culturehas also become
an importantfocus (e.g.,Alford1984,Davidson 1984,
Osborne and Mandle 1982, Sampson 1979, Spearitt
and Walker 1979, Sydney Labour History Group
1982). Trends towards social historyare also visible
in human geography(e.g., Jeans and Spearitt 1980,
Linge 1979). The search for interpretationin these
various facetsof Australian historyprovides another
spur to the developmentof archaeological problems.
If historians now recognize the importance of
other data bases, such as those of sociology and
archaeology, this surely implies that archaeologists
have even more reason for expanding the terms of
their investigationof that data. This is much more
91
References
An Economic
Alford,K. 1984. Productionor Reproduction?
Historyof Womenin Australia.Oxford UniversityPress,
Melbourne.
Allen, J. 1973. The archaeology of nineteenth-century
British imperialism: an Australian case study. World
Archaeology5:44-60.
Allen, J. (ed.) 1978. Report of the Project Coordination
Committee on Historical Archaeology. Report to the
InterimCommittee
of theNationalEstate. 153 pp.
Bairstow,D. 1984a. The Swiss Family Robinson Model: A
Comment and Appraisal. AustralianJournalofHistorical
Archaeology2:3-6.
Bairstow, D. 1984b. Historical archaeology at the crossroads. An appraisal of theoretical considerations.
AustralianArchaeology18:32-39.
Birmingham,J. 1968. Irrawang,an early colonial pottery
site.Pottery
in Australia7:14-17.
Birmingham,J. 1976. The archaeological contributionto
history; some Australian 19th century case studies.
WorldArchaeology8:306-17.
Birmingham,J. and James,P. (convenors). 1981.Industrial
and HistoricArchaeology.National Trust of Australia
(N.S.W.) Sydney.
Birmingham,J. M. and Jeans, D. N. 1983. The Swiss
Family Robinson and the archaeologyof colonisations.
AustralianJournalofHistoricalArchaeology1:3-14.
Briggs,A. 1984. A Social Historyof England. Book Club
Associates, London.
Clarke, D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen,
London.
Cleland, C. and Fitting,J. 1968. The crisis in identity:
theory in historic sites archaeology. Conferenceon
HistoricSitesArchaeology,
Papers 2(2): 124-128.
Connah, G. 1983. Stamp-collectingor Increasing Understanding?:The Dilemma of HistoricalArchaeology.AustralianJournalofHistoricalArchaeology1:15-21.
Culican, W. and Taylor,J. 1972.Fossil Beach CementWorks
MorningtonVictoria:an essay in industrialarchaeology.
RefulgencePress, Deception Bay, Queensland.
Davidson, A 1984. People s Historyand Popular Culture.
Labour History46:116-127.
Deagan, K. 1982. Avenues of inquiryin historicalarchaeology. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,
5:151-177.Academic Press, New York.
Dollar, C. 1968. Some thoughtson method and theoryin
historical archaeology. Conferenceon Historic Sites
Archaeology,
Papers 2(2):3-30.
Fontana, . 1965. the meaning of historicsites archaeoloev. AmericanAntiauitv31:61-65.
Frankel, D. 1972. Historical Archaeologyin Australia.The
Etruscan21(2):19-22.
FortNecesHarrington,J. 1957.New lighton Washington's
sity. Reprinted in Robert Schuyler (ed.), Historical
contriArchaeology:a guide to substantiveand theoretical
butions,op. 91-138. Baywood, Farmingdale (N.Y.).
Hrne, D. 1984. The great museum. Pluto Press, London
and Sydney.
Jack,R. I. 1985.The Archaeologyof Colonial Australia.In
S. L. Dyson (ed.), ComparativeStudiesin theArchaeology
of Colonialism,pp. 153-76.BAR S233, Oxford.
Jeans,D. N. and SpearittP. 1980.The open-airmuseum:the
culturallandscapeofNew South Wales. Unwin, Sydney.
Lewis, M. 1984. Historical Archaeology and Conservation
Projects. In M. Pearson and H. Temple (eds), Historical
archaeology and conservationphilosophy, pp. 19-25.
Heritage Council of N.S.W., Sydney.
Linge, G. J. R. 1979.IndustrialAwakening:A Geographyof
Australian Manufacturing 1788-1890. AN.U. Press,
Canberra.
Megaw, J. V. S. 1984. The Archaeology of Rubbish or
Rubbishing Archaeology:Backward Looks and Forward
92
Advertisement
---
Queensland
"L_~^;|Srch>eological
MBjjJTesearch
Volume2
1985
SAIO.OOper copy fromQ.A.R., Departmentof Anthropologyand Sociology, Universityof Queensland,
St. Lucia, 4067.
93