West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 5: Hunt
Whose handmaiden? Historical
approaches to the Middle Ages
and
1
archaeological
John Hunt
University of Birmingham
john@jrhunt.demon.co.uk
In some respects it is a matter of regret that it was thought necessary to address this issue at
all in 2003 - that of bringing closer together the disciplines of history and archaeology,
particularly within the context of the developing research framework for the west midlands.
However, it remains the fact that there continues to be a lamentable lack of understanding
between the two disciplines, around how each works, its parameters, and driving issues. To a
large extent, we lack a common framework, and often any real sense of where each of us are
around areas of common interest. This was to some extent recognised by Biddick in the
1980s, then still more acute in the North American context, when she pointed out that no
matter how fruitful co-operation may be, shared concerns and subject matter do not
automatically translate into a common language. There is a need to develop a discourse.
Questions around the relationship of the two approaches are age old, now increasingly
complicated by specialisms and developing methodologies. The debate can be readily traced
back to the mid-nineteenth century, for instance, within the context of the RAI. In 1850,
scholars like Hallam pointed out that the 'historian . . . must heartily admit the importance and
value of archaeological investigation without which his productions were little superior to
those of the writer of romance.' However, this viewpoint struggled against the primacy
accorded to narrative frameworks and documentary sources, and by 1856 the description of
archaeology as the 'handmaiden of history' had caught the mood of the time. Kemble alone, at
the RAI meeting in Shrewsbury in 1855, argued for the two disciplines as equal partners
rather than as mistress and servant. In his prophetic words, 'the historian and archaeologist
might be mutually benefited by a more intimate union of their methods of study . . . they had
not always given each other the help they might have done.'
It took until the 1920s for the force of Kemble's arguments to receive more than token
recognition, but still tensions remained. In 1983 the Society for Medieval Archaeology
celebrated and reviewed twenty-five years of its activities, and progress in the discipline.
Among the contributors were two prominent historians, both of whom reviewed the working
relationship between the two disciplines.
The first of these began by retreating from an earlier, in his words, 'unfortunate remark',
which had amounted to seeing archaeology as little more than an expensive demonstration of
the obvious. Even so, it betrayed a state of mind, and he went on to argue that archaeological
approaches to evidence, and the hypotheses formed from them, were often insufficiently
rigorous. He continued that archaeologists should concentrate on being archaeologists, and
resist the temptation to draw heavily upon other kinds of evidence, historical or linguistic.
The second contributor took a rather different stance, based on the notion of historians and
archaeologists as closely related fellow workers. In this, he was perhaps influenced by his
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 5: Hunt
2
own specialities in social and economic history. He reviewed what archaeology had added,
and pointed to potentially fruitful areas and methods of co-operation around the themes of
prices, population and towns. Then, he went on to point out that a major shortcoming was the
tendency not to have archaeologist and historian looking at common problems together, but
each doing their allotted 'bits'. But in contrast to the other speaker, he argued, 'why leave it to
the historians to fit the result of archaeological work into the general picture we have of the
life and society of the past? Be historians . . . But be archaeologists too'.
Now twenty years on, these two basic positions persist to some extent. For my part, I think
that this is born out of the difficulty for one discipline to fully grasp the methodologies,
limitations and agendas of the other. There are archaeologists who eschew historical and
documentary data when interpreting the archaeological record - arguments that are rooted in
notions of methodological purity, and on a need for the archaeological data to be seen as able
to stand alone. On the other hand, the mindset of some historians is revealed in the comments
of a reviewer on a piece of my own work in the late '90s, when he suggested that one strand
in it was more likely to satisfy the archaeologist than the historian. There are differences
between the two approaches, and how data and ideas are dealt with, but let us celebrate this,
and become more familiar with how and why these differences occur. If this is appreciated it
will facilitate the appropriate use of each others musings.
I would not wish to sound unduly negative. Progress has been made, much of it mediated
through the development of landscape history, and active focal points such as settlement
studies. Journals like Medieval Archaeology and Landscape History have helped to drive this,
but it is perhaps time for the impetus of another book like that of Colin Platt's 1978
publication on Medieval England.
What are the key problems of combining archaeological and historical approaches and data?
What is it that hinders the drawing together of these areas of study? They can perhaps be
summarised as relating to the following points  a 'simple' matter of understanding. That is, the failure of each discipline to be sufficiently
aware of the methodologies, limitations, applications, veracity and results of the other.
 A lack of awareness of how current research informs on each others work. This reflects
the inevitable delay between doing work and dissemination of it, even in periodical
literature, where two or three year delays are normal.
 A tendency on the part of archaeology to expect too specific a context from documentary
research. Similarly, historians are often unaware of the issues that surround
archaeological dating and phasing.
 it is frequently the case that historians and archaeologists focus on different kinds of
problem, determined by their data set or methodology, and when they are working on
common problems, it tends to be in a compartmentalised way.
 in reality, the opportunities to work together in today's world are relatively few. The
expertise that might be drawn upon is also more widely dispersed than once it was, no
longer the preserve of university departments. Indeed, current trends in university funding
and strategic planning tend to raise doubts on any future improvements in this regard.
 often it is simply a matter of differing expectations, based upon how ones own discipline
works, and how one thinks the other does, or should, operate.
None the less, in those areas where historical and archaeological research have marched
together, they have generally done so to very good effect. These are indicators of both what
has been done, and what might still be developed further. Archaeology informs well beyond
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 5: Hunt
3
the socio-economic agenda that historians frequently associate it with. Archaeological
approaches have combined with the work of historians to prompt significant reassessment of
such as the nature and role of definitive medieval institutions such as castles and monasteries,
and key contributions on urbanisation, rural settlement, landscape development and so on. It
is, at least to me, incomprehensible that such themes should be approached in anything other
than a multi-disciplinary way. The areas calling for such combined approaches are numerous.
There is a need for more studies of honors and honorial communities, which until recently
have been heavily dependent on documentary material, and therefore largely the preserve of
historians. However, work in Ireland and the west midlands, for example, has broadened the
way in which honorial communities might be approached. There is also scope to revisit those
honorial studies already in print where the emphasis has been entirely documentary, serving
as an entrée to archaeological and landscape examination. The contributions of the two
approaches working together here can be immense, and certainly has the potential of making
more intelligible those areas that might once have been neglected for lack of documents.
Within the context of such honorial, or alternatively, regional studies, there are many themes
that attract attention. For example  the relationship between towns and rural settlements, particularly within the context of
urban hinterlands, and a probable hierarchy of hinterlands. The identification of such
hinterlands.
 the development and exploitation of landscapes.
 the origins and growth of local market centres.
 the progress of urbanisation, and the associated progress of commercialisation.
 the nature of urbanisation and urban communities.
 industrial activity - its organisation, processes, products, impact.
 the forms, expansion and context of rural settlements (and their communities).
 tenurial and estate patterns, and their continuity.
 estate infrastructures, and specific features such as seigneurial centres.
 the study of specific medieval communities in different contexts.
 regionalism, economic and settlement regimes.
 local and estate economies - their nature, organisation, impact, landscape etc.
 more specific issues, such as moated sites; the progress and mapping of assarting; closer
examination of the nature of enclosed parkland.
These are all areas that potentially are informed by documentary sources, such as charters,
plea rolls, and surveys, and should be put alongside contributions from other quarters, such as
place names, environmental sciences, and art and architectural historians. In this way we are
moving towards a holistic and inter-related view of medieval society, less fragmented by
disciplines, or specialisms within disciplines.
How can we foster such collaboration? Certainly not by following the advice of the first of
our 1983 historical contributors. The suggestion that archaeologists should not draw on other
kinds of evidence, no doubt prompted by the view that they would not sufficiently understand
it, would tend to reinforce a sense of separation between historian and archaeologist.
However, in 1991 John Bintliff wrote an introduction to a book that he was editing that I
would suggests two key observations that may be helpful in this discussion. Since this
volume was entitled, The Annales School and Archaeology, this chapter, ipso facto, had the
relationship between historical and archaeological approaches at its heart.
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 5: Hunt
4
Firstly, and I think absolutely rightly, he emphasised that archaeology, as distinct from
documentary history or other areas of study, has its own disciplines to recover data.
However, this is but the first of a two phase process, the second being to interpret the
collected data, and that this interpretation calls for interdisciplinary collaboration. Since we
are all studying human societies, there is little justification for intellectual demarcation.
Secondly, Bintliff addressed the problems posed by the research paradigms applied to
different disciplines, their osmosis into related areas, and the time lapses that occur. His
purpose was to champion the approach of the Annales School and to seek its application to
archaeology. Although, as an approach, it is subject to critical review, debate and
modification, there can be no doubt that the Annales School has had a major influence on
twentieth century historiography. For medievalists, this is perhaps best reflected in books like
Marc Bloch's Feudal Society and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's Montaillou and Carnival. At
the core of the Annales approach is a structural history, and a multi-disciplinary collaboration
recreating the world as a 'participant/observer' would experience it. Its rather ambitious, and
indeed unattainable objective, is 'total history', but however critical or revisionist we are
about the approach, the fact is that it has left its imprint on many of our present generations of
historians, and particularly, I suspect, on those with an interest in archaeology; and, in the
pages of key journals like Past and Present. Each generation moves on, but even after critical
revision, there is potential here for a shared paradigm that might assist in the development of
a common discourse between historian and archaeologist, and facilitate both the
interpretation of data, and the formulation of common research agendas, and of new
collaborative methodologies.
Irrespective of whether or not we seek to operate within common paradigms, it seems
ridiculous to argue for anything other than interdisciplinary collaboration in the interpretation
of data collected with regard to themes or problems. Yet, this can only be really effective if
there is greater understanding between historian and archaeologist. How to foster this?
One might hope to see greater moves towards multidisciplinary institutes for teaching and
research in HE institutions, which might help to establish the integrity of such collaboration
and promote engagement with it. However, the real world is increasingly one where research
takes place on the edge of, or outside of universities, and it has to inform wider agendas, such
as day to day archaeological decision making around the planning process, conservation
issues, and county strategies. In this context, there is a need to foster development within
counties (perhaps organised around the SMR), and elsewhere, for ongoing collaborative and
advisory fora to address such issues, and to support both archaeological and historical work
in hand, and perhaps even to be a focus for it. Such long-term strategies seem more likely to
develop at local levels a more genuine understanding, discourse and working relationship
than short-term answers, such as 'buying in' jobbing historians. I also hope that it will remove
from archaeological reports the sometimes bland and boring historical overviews that all to
often fail to engage with wider historical issues, or even with the archaeology of the site. It
seems to me that there is an argument for putting the historical context at the end of the
report, or for integrating it with the discussion, rather than locating it in the opening pages as
a means of introduction.
Bibliography:
Biddick, K (ed)
Archaeological Approaches to Medieval
5
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 5: Hunt
Europe.
Kalamazoo
1984.
Bintliff, J (ed)
The Annales School and Archaeology
Leicester
1991.
Hinton, D.A. (ed).
25 Years of Medieval Archaeology. Sheffield.
Vyner, B (ed)
Building on the Past. Papers Celebrating
150 Years of the Royal Archaeological
Institute.
John Hunt.
University of Birmingham.
RAI.
1983.
1994.