Does any of it matter much? I suppose everyone concerned is studying the
past and everyone is doing so for a variety of reasons. It would be a bit
difficult to argue that one reason for doing it is better than another or
that one way of doing it is better than another.
I have a vague recollection of our discussing this before, the main point
then being whether or not local history was chiefly there for the purpose
of feeding into regional and national history or whether national and
regional history was there to provide a context for local history. Not
surprisingly, no conclusion was reached.
And for those who like this sort of debate, where does archaeology fit
in? The local history of my home town has recently been added to in two
cases by artefacts being found with makers' marks on them which change the
history of two local firms. In one case a plate adds something to the
general history of art manufactures and transport history. So is the
information from these artefacts archaeology or history? And are the plate
and the lock concerned artefactual or documentary evidence? And is the
information from the plate, local or regional or national history? Or is
it the case that, if I am studying a locally based company that operated
all over the world, I am doing world history? Or not, or what?
I have an idea this is all a matter of definitions. And what the best
definition of anything is tends to depend on the purpose of the definition.
Frank Sharman
Wolverhampton
01902 763246
|