{"id":1829,"date":"2022-06-29T13:38:27","date_gmt":"2022-06-29T03:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/?p=1829"},"modified":"2022-06-29T13:38:29","modified_gmt":"2022-06-29T03:38:29","slug":"the-temple-of-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/2022\/06\/29\/the-temple-of-history\/","title":{"rendered":"The temple of history"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is the text of a presentation I delivered as part of the History Australia<\/a> roundtable discussion ‘<\/em>Historians and the Archive: sacralization, democratisation, limits, and liberties,’ at the 2022 Australian Historical Association Conference (Deakin University, Geelong).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly five years ago, in September 2017, I attended Tom Griffiths\u2019 Ernest Scott lecture<\/a> at the University of Melbourne. It was an engaging, intellectual exploration of the craft of history and its role in the world. But there was a moment that gave me pause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I try to evoke the embodied experience of research, whether it\u2019s paying attention to Country, listening to locals, pulling on a strong pair of boots, or undergoing the rituals and protocols of archival access where the reverent quiet of the room, the whispered request for the librarian and the donning of white gloves are all purifying preparations for silent communion with fragile paper, where the magic begins.<\/p>Tom griffiths<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This description of archival access troubled me. The shift from active engagement\u2014paying attention; listening; pulling on boots\u2014to \u2018undergoing rituals and protocols\u2019 struck me as curiously out of place, though also I knew I had seen this sort of language in other historians\u2019 work too. \u2018There\u2019s an article in there somewhere,\u2019 I thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cut to early 2020, and the ANU\u2019s School of History where I was teaching an Honours and Masters course in Advanced Historiography with my colleague Ben Silverstein. The first reading for the class was the chapter \u2018Crying in the Archives,\u2019 from Ann Curthoys and Ann McGrath\u2019s How to Write History that People Want to Read<\/a><\/em>. It opened with an epigraph.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historians immerse themselves in context; they give themselves wholly and sensually to the mysterious, alchemical power of archives.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It was Tom Griffiths again, from his renowned book Slicing the Silence<\/a><\/em>. The same suggestion the archives were a mysterious space to which the historian must \u2018submit.\u2019 Why had Curthoys and McGrath chosen that, I wondered; and what were we telling our students by incorporating language like this into our courses?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also thought: \u2018It\u2019s really time I wrote that article.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result is \u2018The temple of history: historians and the sacralisation of archival work<\/a>,\u2019 published by History Australia <\/em>in December 2021. Though the article includes examples drawn from Griffiths\u2019 work the intention was not to focus on him. These moments were a catalyst for me to look at the tendency to sacralise archives and archival research more broadly, and to consider some of the potential implications of this recurring trope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the long hours many historians spend in the\narchives, most write very little about what they actually do there. As\narchivists like Brien Brothman and Terry Cook have pointed out, discussion of\nthis aspect of historical research is often relegated to brief descriptions in\nintroductions, prefaces, postscripts, and footnotes. Archival research has been\ncharacterised variously as the work of ransackers, grubbers, detectives, and\naddicts, searching for scientific truths, nuggets of certainty, masculine\nmastery, or the feverish pleasure of an archival \u2018hit\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The persistent use of religious metaphors for the historical\nresearch process does something more, perpetuating a disciplinary claim over\nthe physical spaces and intellectual interpretation of documentary archives.\nThe archive here is characterised both as a seat of authority, and as a\nrarefied, sacred space where only the initiated can reveal truths about the\npast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are numerous examples, starting in the nineteenth\ncentury, of historians revelling in sepulchral or cloistered archival spaces;\nof archives and libraries like temples, shrines, and cathedrals; of bookshelves\nlike altars, and research rooms like inner sanctums. Archival research becomes\na \u2018coming-of-age ritual,\u2019 the process of archival access like a purifying\npreparation, and historians the initiated. Archival records are \u2018relics\u2019 or \u2018manna\u2019;\nour encounters with them are described as \u2018spiritual\u2019 or presented as a form of\ncommunion. As for the work of history, it is a resurrectionary force, the\nhistorian breathing life into dead scraps, bringing the past back and making it\nspeak again. It is the historian\u2019s calling\u2014presented by some as a sacred,\nalmost spiritual quest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often these moments are relatively short, and singly it\ncould be argued they don\u2019t do much harm. I\u2019m also not suggesting they are more\nbroadly characteristic of the attitudes or beliefs of the historians and other\nwriters in whose work they appear. (In Griffith\u2019s case in particular they stand\nout to me in large part because they seem so uncharacteristic<\/em> of his broader work and interests.) But, with comparatively\nlittle still written by historians about the labour and specifics of archival\nresearch, cumulatively the message being conveyed here is, I think, problematic\nin a number of ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, there are many examples where these descriptions obscure the significance of archival work. Archivists are not just attendants or record guardians; the sliver of the documentary record that gets preserved is shaped by archival legislation, appraisal processes, retention and disposal policies, arrangement and description practices and more. Far from being blank or dead until the historian arrives, the meaning and context of archival records continues to develop, accumulate, and change through these processes, and as they are accessed by different communities of users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When viewed cumulatively these recurring descriptions also produce a sense that long periods of immersive work in physical archives is revered over and above other historical methods: oral history work, engaging with landscape and community knowledge, digital techniques, deep history work, cross-disciplinary collaborations and so on. None of these are described in such rarefied terms. This can have problematic consequences for parts of the discipline, and places pressure on students and precariously employed academics in particular. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is research showing students are often unsure about archival\nwork, not just because of the often-imposing spaces and protocols they need to\nnavigate to gain access, but also because they don\u2019t understand what the work actually is or how they should\ngo about it<\/em>. Rather than rites of passage, initiation, or attempts to\ninstill a sense of reverent awe, historians and other archives users should\nseek to help students and others understand how we do the work of history, and\nhow they can become actively involved in that work too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there are many, many users of archives for whom these\nare already deeply problematic, daunting, or traumatising spaces. First Nations\npeople. Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants. Refugees. Queer\ncommunities. Historians can help to demystify these spaces and, as frequent\nusers of archives, help to explain\u2014or better yet, help to change\u2014the protocols\nand practices that foster feelings of reverence in some, while generating at\nbest confusion in many others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The alternative is that those who have not been \u2018initiated\u2019\nwill continue to feel excluded and marginalised, and the legitimacy and\nauthority of this aspect of the history discipline will remain shrouded in mystery.\nGiven the many challenges that continue to impact humanities research, this is\na situation that benefits no one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Full article: ‘The Temple of History: Historians and the Sacralisation of Archival Work,’ <\/em>History Australia 18 (4): 676\u201393. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14490854.2021.1988650<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is the text from a presentation I delivered as part of the History Australia roundtable discussion ‘Historians and the Archive: sacralization, democratisation, limits, and liberties,’ at the 2022 Australian Historical Association Conference (Deakin University, Geelong). The piece introduces my article ‘The temple of history: historians and the sacralisation of archival work.’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1830,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,10,31,133],"tags":[165,282,283,284,137,281],"class_list":["post-1829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-archival-profession","category-archives","category-history","category-research","tag-archives","tag-historians","tag-historiography","tag-religion","tag-research","tag-tom-griffiths"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/The_National_Archives_copy-scaled.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2X6WE-tv","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1829"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1835,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829\/revisions\/1835"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mikejonesonline.com\/contextjunky\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}