Review Article

Diverse histories and meta-narratives

Christopher Evans
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology,
University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, UK
(Email: cje30@cam.ac.uk)

Books Reviewed
Click to buy

PETER ROWLEY-CONWY. From Genesis to prehistory: the archaeological Three Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. xx+362 pages, 55 illustrations. 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 978-0-19-922-774-7 hardback £65.

Click to buy

MARGARITA DÍAZ-ANDREU. A World history of nineteenth-century archaeology: nationalism, colonialism, and the past (Oxford Studies in the History of Archaeology). xiv+486 pages, 5 maps. 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 978-0-19-921717-5 hardback £70.

Evans image

The sheer bulk of the 2006 revised second edition of the late Bruce Trigger's A history of archaeological thought - almost double the length of the 1989 original and with many additional references - tells of what a blossoming there has been in the history of archaeology over the intervening decades. Whereas once only a very occasional theme of TAG conferences, the subject is now firmly on the agenda, has fully taken root and 'arrived'. Indeed, as well as to Alain Schnapp (e.g. 1993) and the AREA archives project (see Antiquity 76 special section edited by Schlanger 2002; also Schlanger & Nordbladh 2008), its fostering certainly owes much to Bruce. As opposed to Daniel's (e.g. 1975) and Klindt-Jensen's (also 1975) earlier 'meta-narratives', amongst the key tenets of this matured 'new' historiography is that it is now a matter of histories, with the emphasis on the plural attesting to the diversity of approaches.

Rowley-Conwy's and Díaz-Andreu's volumes well reflect this, if for no other reason than that they differ so much from each other. Invariably there is overlap between the two: the interrelationship between archaeology and nineteenth-century nationalism is central to both and, indeed, Rowley-Conwy's theme - the diverse reception and uptake of the Three Ages System in Denmark, England, Scotland and Ireland - is also covered in Díaz-Andreu's volume, but there in less than ten of its 400+ pages of text.

In contrast to the dense 'packing' of the latter, Rowley-Conwy's From Genesis to prehistory proceeds at almost a leisurely pace, having sufficient space to thoroughly explore its themes and is well-illustrated throughout. Let's not beat around the bush, it is a fine and mature work, and its story unfolds with the kind of subtlety you would expect from an author versed in the primary sources and fluent in Danish (it includes appendices of hitherto untranslated source-material). Aside from its primary source-detail, what makes this a 'new history' is its underlying emphasis on scholastic networks as well as the technologies of the day (i.e. print runs and railway networks) - in short, the wider social context of knowledge production.

Given the pivotal status of its theme, the bare bones of the story will be familiar to most, but there is much here that is new: the apostatising role of Worsaae as the prime propagator of Thompson's system (the 'predator' in the assault against schools of thought rooted in ancient history or the mythological past); or the importance of Steenstrup's environmental chronology (time depth as reflected in the forest-succession record of Scandinavia's bogs as opposed to the dominant Brixham Cave or French quarry-gravels 'deep time' narrative). Underpinning the 'Three Ages tale' is its subsequent Four Nations-acceptance, and the varying role of the past in the constitution of their respective nationalisms: from the near-parallel cases of Denmark and Scotland (both falling just beyond the pale of the Roman world which otherwise separates prehistory from the historical/medieval present), to the extreme reliance on 'native' written sources in Ireland, whose textual conservatism resulted in the non-acceptance of the 'the system' until the 1890s. With its burgeoning overseas empire, England proved typically idiosyncratic (and is duly awarded two chapters as opposed to the other nations' one each). Until the 1850s, emphasising ethnology, England proved unreceptive; thereafter, with the 'deep time' revolution of Prestwich/Evans and Lubbock, the Three Ages System helped to fill the resultant 'time gap' and was widely accepted, albeit almost incidentally via the chronological backdoor.

If prompted to identify an ancestor for Rowley-Conwy's volume, Piggott's well-crafted essays (e.g. 1976) might be cited. What then of our second book, A World history of nineteenth-century archaeology? Though Rowley-Conwy's' history still has its 'heroes' - Thompson, Worsaae and Greenwell - this is not true of Díaz-Andreu's. One can only admire the incredible range of her scholarship and acknowledge the ambition of the book's academic project: 'This book offers a comprehensive history of global archaeology, that is, one that considers all its fields throughout the world, during the nineteenth century' (p. 22). By necessity it proceeds at a relentless pace amid a whirlwind of sources, leaving little space for digression or detail. Accordingly, even when something outside the expected nationalist/imperialist norm occurs, such as Mexico's International School of Archaeology and Ethnology of 1911-14, it affords no scope to explore what it actually involves.

While having distant affinities to such works as Wolf's great Europe and people without history (1982) or even Hobsbawm's Nations and nationalism since 1780 (1990; and, obviously, also Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983), in many respects the book is most akin to Said's Orientalism (1978), which is widely cited in Díaz-Andreu's text (with Murray's Encyclopaedia of 2001 a 'disputed' ancestor-text). Yes, certainly a thorough survey of its themes, but one that is judgemental, condemning most of the discipline's achievements for its complacency within the state/imperialist enterprise. Unlike the first book reviewed here, A World history is simply not a pleasure to read. Keeping to its tight schedule, by the time its final conclusions are reached you don't feel that you've actually learned much (it is not propelled by curiosity), nor had your disciplinary world-view seriously shaken.

Its problems are essentially two-fold and relate to matters of content and conviction. First, there is the determination of its scope. Its breathless survey-coverage means that, for the most part, the text is list-like: nothing can be considered in any detail (apart from a handful of maps, the volume is completely unillustrated). Only in the final chapter does agency get a mention and the interrelationship between the individual scholar/archaeologist and the state explored; archaeological content and any generation of 'knowledge' are given short-shrift and, instead, socio-political context is well-nigh all. Given the volume's breadth - from Japan to Mexico - it is inevitable that much of it must rely upon secondary sources and, however necessary, unfamiliarity with primary materials results in rather generic modes of interpretation.

Secondly, as a scholar, Díaz-Andreu is prone to hard-edge categorisation and accordingly pronounces upon 'civic' and 'ethnic' nationalisms, 'formal' and 'informal' imperialism/colonialism (with Britain - alongside America - again proving atypical), and variously 'hybrid' archaeologies. Yes, there must be broader trends and not everything can amount to an individual/national case-study. Yet such pigeon-holing results in analytical categories made up of just two or three elements and can seem arbitrary; such a basis can only suggest propensity but certainly not support firm conclusions.

It is also difficult to understand Díaz-Andreu's motivation: what is archaeology damned by? Is it merely by its position within contemporary history? Even more telling is Díaz-Andreu's ambivalent attitude towards later nineteenth century science and positivism. They are, of course, indicted as a singularly western modes of discourse, but ultimately provide the one mechanism to escape the cultural relativism of interpretation - measured from a western and/or 'high civilisations' perspective - whether by indigenous/national or international/colonial 'players'. What makes the book a 'new history' (aside from its underlying agenda) is its focus on the response of the non-western 'other' to the importation of archaeology. This is a theme that clearly warrants much more detailed study in the wake of Díaz-Andreu's thrust and is undoubtedly a promising perspective on the development and spread of archaeology. Let us hope this will be a task widely shouldered by non-western scholars, for, in the end, A World history is itself another meta-narrative (if one antithetical to earlier celebratory readings of the discipline's history). It essentially remains a single-strand story and admits little diversity, with the unifying thread being the imposition of archaeology as a western project.

There we have it: Rowley-Conwy's close-scoping as opposed to Díaz-Andreu's wide-ranging 'motivated' survey, and it is hard to imagine two more different histories of archaeology concerned with the nineteenth century. Age-perspective will probably determine which you would prefer to read. Yet no participant in this growing field can afford to ignore either, and their variance does itself attest to the current vibrancy of the discipline's historiography - amazingly, there is suddenly a choice of historical approaches! Certainly Oxford University Press must be applauded for having embarked upon a publication series dedicated to the subject, just as it must now be acknowledged that Durham University (where both authors work) has forged itself into a leading centre for the study of archaeology's historiography.

References


Oxbow books logo