Historical Archaeology of the Irish Diaspora

189 Historical Archaeology of the Irish medicine, and the more or less steady process(es) Diaspora: A Transnational Approach whereby a socially excluded group gradually Stephen A. Brighton became part of mainstream American society. Indeed, it is in his analysis of the material cul- University of Tennessee Press, ture of both the Irish and American sites that Knoxville, 2009. 256 pp. $49.95 his text is at its most confident and informative, cloth. considering the subtle nuances of the presence of at least one serving dish at both Roscommon The “Irish diaspora” is a phrase which has cottages, or the shift to “granite” tableware in gained widespread political and social currency, America. The clear importance of tea consump- particularly since its use was popularized by tion at some of the lowest levels of Irish society Irish president Mary Robinson (1990–1997). As will also be striking to some readers. Stephen Brighton points out, however, it is a As might be expected of such a wide-ranging concept that has received comparatively little text addressing topics that have hitherto received academic attention generally, and few historical little academic attention, the book has its faults. archaeologists have addressed the topic at all. The occasional confusion of the townland of Bal- Given this dearth of previous research, his book lykilcline with the barony of Ballintober North is addresses the issue on two levels, discussing defi- unfortunate but hardly vital. Rather more worry- nitions and the potential to create an “analytical ing is the comment that Tara and “New Grange discourse” on the subject, before moving on to [sic]” date “as far back as the second half of address general and specific features of the Irish the first millennium B.C.” (activity at both sites diaspora in America. To do this, he focuses on extends back at least into the late 4th millen- four sites closely associated with Irish and Irish nium). When dealing with 19th-century evidence, American communities in the 19th century––two some statements about the “high” politics of the in the Five Points area of Manhattan, New York, period are simply incorrect. No amount of legis- and two in the Dublin section of Paterson, New lative activity in 1801 could have made Ireland Jersey. At the heart of Brighton’s thesis is the part of “Great Britain” (“officially” or otherwise), entirely reasonable idea that members of the nor can the event realistically be said to have Irish diaspora in America were not tabulae rasae, forced Ireland’s entry into the British Empire. but rather brought long-established social values, If, indeed, this act made Ireland “a subordinate beliefs, and practices with them. Bearing this in colony,” then it should be remembered that it mind, this work also discusses two 19th-century was the only one in the empire which had the Irish sites––a pair of tenant’s cottages in the right to elect MPs, and indeed peers, to West- townland of Ballykilcline, County Roscommon, minster. By the same token, there is no way in then part of the Mahon Estate, centered on which Gladstone’s 1886 Home Rule Bill can be Strokestown House. As Brighton himself points said to have proposed “the restoration of Irish out, the limited number of sites examined is a representation at Westminster.” Of course, Brigh- reflection of the relative novelty of the subject ton’s objective is not to summarize these events, area, particularly in Ireland where excavations of but rather to focus on the “proletarian dias- material postdating 1750 remain very much the pora”—those with few or no skills who occupied exception rather than the rule. a place close to the bottom of the social ladder Brighton’s work is in no way an attempt to in both Ireland and in America––and who have identify a specifically “Irish” or “Irish American” been ignored by many later historians. Nonethe- material culture, but presents a far more subtle less, this lack of concern for basic historical, reading of the archaeological evidence from all geographical, and political information does not six sites, discussing such things as increasing inspire confidence in Brighton’s analysis of other, mass production, wealth, consumerism, diet, less-widely known information. Historical Archaeology, 2011, 45(2):189–190. Permission to reprint required. 190 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 45(2) Many readers will also be perplexed by Brigh- As Charles Orser points out on the book’s ton’s discussion of “New History,” or revision- fly cover, this work represents an extension of ism. Drawing heavily on Bradshaw, he presents the “archaeology of transnationalism” and offers the school as an essentially political movement, a new, “archaeologically meaningful” theory of anglophone in temperament and approach, which diaspora, with the latter, in particular, having seeks to dismiss nationalist concerns and agenda the potential to extend well beyond the 19th by “evading” key issues such as the Great century, and indeed the Irish American experi- Famine. Given his obvious interest in challenging ence. The book’s concluding pages comment on normative American historical narratives and his the potential for similar approaches to the Irish keen awareness of the importance of myth and diaspora in other parts of the world, or indeed mythmaking to the Irish American community, the experiences of Indian migrants within the Brighton’s absolute rejection of the revisionist British Empire. As one of the first contributions school’s role in assessing and seeking to move to this important subject, some allowances must beyond Irish historical “myth” and grand nar- be made for its less felicitous phraseology and rative is mystifying. While it may very well occasional errors. Undoubtedly, this book will be a “truism” that “the social structure created form a starting point for any future research unequal relations of power based on social dif- and/or debate on this subject, on which note, its ferentiation,” his contention that any historian, or bibliography provides an excellent introduction to indeed archaeologist, working with 19th-century this complex subject. Irish material has ever been in a position to ignore this fact is highly questionable. It is by Stephen h. harriSon no means clear why revisionists in particular School of archaeology UniverSity college DUblin should be singled out as unsympathetic to Irish belfielD, DUblin 4, irelanD social issues, and many historians may take issue with this point. 191 Writing About Archaeology archaeological author, each allows different liber- Graham Connah ties and imposes different constraints. This advice Cambridge University Press, is valuable to both new and seasoned writers. The second half of the book deals with prac- Cambridge, UK, 2010. 224 pp., 31 tical, nuts-and-bolts advice and suggestions. b&w illus., 3 maps. $24.99 paper. These range from a discussion of differences among what Connah calls “mosaic,” “narrative,” Simply conducting fieldwork, laboratory and “argument” structures; to the importance of analysis, or any of the other practices that drafts; to voice and word choice; and to the characterize archaeology is not enough to chal- occasional agonies of dealing with publishers and lenge assumptions about the past or aid in referees. Connah acknowledges throughout the understanding the present. Those goals require book that writing can be an idiosyncratic process, that the work not only be done, but also be and thus he is able to strike a careful balance in presented––ideally in ways that are faithful to this section. There are few if any specific direc- the data, while also engaging and accessible to tions; rather, the author references a common the intended audience. That is Graham Connah’s problem (writing while also working fulltime) premise in Writing About Archaeology, and he and draws on his own experience at solving it undertakes the work with the goal of encourag- (waking up early each morning and writing for ing archaeologists to think more critically about three hours, fortified by a large mug of tea). This what and how they write. is not portrayed as the only way to solve prob- The first two chapters comprise an extended lems of time, merely one that might work for elaboration of Connah’s assertion that writing is the individual writer. Similar examples abound. at least as important to the discipline as excava- His point in this large section on mechanics, as tion. The basis of what archaeologists think they elsewhere in the book, is not to instruct how to know about the past rests on more than a cen- write, but to foreground issues for critical consid- tury of published writing. Previous writers have eration, to raise possibilities, and to push writers contributed to this archaeological canon, which to think about their work holistically. means one who wishes to improve his or her A recurring theme is the importance of illus- own archaeological writing has a vast storehouse tration as an aid to, as Connah puts it, “visual of examples to rummage through. Connah’s first explanation.” He devotes an entire chapter to and perhaps most important piece of advice is to illustrations as not only an aid to writing, but a read widely and critically within this canon. He critical part of translating archaeological data for samples selections from 25 archaeological writers readers. In this sense, it is as important to know over six centuries to illustrate varied approaches to when and how to communicate visually as it is the difficult task that such writers face. For read- to use the written word. He includes 31 figures ers, this serves as an effective retrospective, but from published literature to show examples of even more so as a useful “further reading” list. good practices in photography as well as com- Connah seems to view writing as a synthetic puter and hand-drawn illustrations.

Load more