An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for The East Midlands during the modern period ( 1750 - 2000 ) Garry Campion

The diversity and survival of both documentary and physical evidence from this period introduces specific challenges for archaeologists, not least because the role of fieldwork may be viewed as a secondary means of confirming or enhancing historically-based perspectives. Equally, opinions differ about the term ‘Industrial Revolution’ (Clark 1999), and for this reason ‘the archaeology of industrialization’ may be a more appropriate term within a multi-period overview when describing sometimes muted or neutral responses to new technology and working systems (Beckett & Heath 1988; Palmer 1999). However, identifying industrialization as the primary period theme (in the academically restricted sense of ‘industrial archaeology’) may obscure or exclude other aspects of social archaeology and tend to reinforce traditional perceptions about the archaeology of the last 200 years or so as being exclusively about industrial activity. That said, it would be unwise to assume a clearly demarcated transition from the post-medieval, and sites of this period should not be seen as divorced in any sense from the broad continuum of earlier regional development. This is particularly pertinent in urban excavation contexts where more recent deposits may be deemed of relatively little significance in comparison with those of earlier periods. It is important to note the often-strong archaeological connections between this and the preceding period (Courtney in this volume). Nationally, as an archaeological period it has received less comprehensive academic attention and therefore lacks a mature theoretical tradition: Grant (1987), an historical geographer, highlights potential solutions that remain pertinent. Three broad disciplinary strands are prominent for this period’s study: postmedieval, industrial and historical archaeology, pursuing differing research agendas. The Post-Medieval Archaeology journal originally featured articles up to the period 1750, but has covered topics concerning C19 ‘industrial’ themes. Crossley (1990) addresses a range of social and cultural themes including industrialisation, but generally not post-1750 themes. Conversely, the Industrial Archaeology Review has articles on industrial themes, broadly, but not rigidly 1750-1950. Recent texts on industrial archaeology reflect a maturing discipline: Cossons (2000) is an important milestone; Palmer considers its academic context (1990), setting out research priorities for the Association for Industrial Archaeology (AIA) (1991). Palmer & Neaverson (1998) provides a ‘guide’ to its present status, and English Heritage (1995) sets out their role and perspective. Trinder (1992) provides both national and international perspectives. Despite progress, theoretical and methodological issues remain to be properly addressed in terms of social context, material culture and environmental evidence (flora, fauna). Finally, historical archaeology (‘the archaeology of the recent past’) has its roots in North American, Canadian and Australian scholarship addressing aspects of ‘colonialism’, evolving a rich, if contentious, theoretical foundation (Campion 1996; Clark 1999). Research is not confined to industrial themes alone, but investigates relationships between notions of ‘identity, power and meanings’. Tarlow & West (1999) is an important collection of nascent British historical archaeological research, covering the period 1500 to the present (but not East Midlands topics). The discipline’s theoretical approach allows for a more consistent progression from that of earlier periods, suggesting potentially rich avenues of exploration within the archaeology of this period, which necessarily embraces a wider remit than the theme of industrialisation alone permits.