Waste landscapes by Jonathan Gardner
Historical Archaeology, 2024
In this article, I undertake an archaeology of urban “wastelands.” In doing so I ask how
such pla... more In this article, I undertake an archaeology of urban “wastelands.” In doing so I ask how
such places are materially and conceptually “made”
and examine the efects that such labeling has on how
postindustrial urban sites are used and valued. Taking examples from the capital cities of England and
Scotland (London and Edinburgh), I show that the
meaning of “waste” at such sites is temporally and
socially contingent. Establishing certainty between
which landscapes are “wasted” and which are not
can prove difcult, and, in some cases, archaeologists
themselves may be implicated in labeling and then
“cleansing” wastelands, with archaeology operating
as a form of waste management. While wastelands
may appear as dissonant and associated with negativity or decay at frst glance, I show that these places
can also facilitate surprisingly generative and creative
uses and provide new forms of heritage value.
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2024
This photo essay describes how a COVID-19 lockdown led to the creative investigation of an unlike... more This photo essay describes how a COVID-19 lockdown led to the creative investigation of an unlikely archaeological site: Royston Beach on the shoreline of north Edinburgh (Scotland).
Much of the Beach and the land behind it was reclaimed from the tidal estuary of the Firth of Forth between the 1950s and 1990s using vast quantities of demolition rubble produced by the reconstruction of the city. This material – most likely produced from ‘slum’ clearance and factory demolitions – comprises a heterotemporal jumble of hundreds-of-thousands of bricks, eighteenth and nineteenth century sandstone building fragments, mid-twentieth century concrete foundations, asbestos, plastic waste and much else besides. While some of the reclaimed land was built upon in the 1970s, a large part of this dumped material is now eroding into the sea as tides and storms grow more extreme.
Royston Beach became part of my research project (a three-year, cross-UK comparison of waste-modified terrain entitled, ‘Reimagining British Waste Landscapes’) as a result of travel-restrictions due to lockdowns. Though emerging from a period of restricted movement, my experiences investigating the Beach fundamentally shaped my approach to understanding the archaeology of waste landscapes and my methodological approach for this ongoing project.
Using a combination of traditional archaeological photography and creative research, in this paper I explore the site and follow the complex spatio-temporal ‘itineraries’ of waste materials.
Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2023
Waste creates and reshapes our contemporary landscapes in many different ways. Often, such landsc... more Waste creates and reshapes our contemporary landscapes in many different ways. Often, such landscapes are regarded negatively as places to avoid if possible: garbage dumps, sewage infrastructure, mine heaps or, at smaller scales, rubbish-strewn streets or plastic-choked waterways. That said, given the variety of materials that make up different waste landscapes and the degree of intentionality involved in their deposition, some waste landscapes can go surprisingly unnoticed. For example, land reclamations using waste rock or rubble can come to be mistaken for “natural” terrain after decades of familiar use. In other cases, waste-modified landscapes, such as industrial spoil heaps, are seen as eyesores and removed or reshaped better to resemble natural landforms. Whether perceived negatively or not, waste landscapes can nonetheless sometimes become social, material, ecological, creative and politically generative terrains, allowing opportunities for new activities and valuations to take place. It is the investigation of these complex associations and the valuations of such waste landscapes that the papers of this special issue of the Journal of Contemporary of Archaeology address.
Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, Oct 25, 2023
Vast quantities of waste rubble produced through demolition, natural disasters and con... more Vast quantities of waste rubble produced through demolition, natural disasters and conflict form part of the globe-spanning, anthropogenic deposit that has been called the “archaeosphere”. Whilst such material is often considered “waste” and of little value in the immediate aftermath of deconstruction or destruction, rubble rarely remains “wasted” for long and becomes reused in new cycles of construction. While architectural salvage and spolia are relatively well studied, the reuse of demolition rubble in the creation of new terrain (reclamation) is rarely discussed.Responding to this, I discuss how World War II bomb rubble was used to reclaim ground from Hackney Marsh and Leyton Marsh in East London. This waste material not only provided valuable new terrain for leisure facilities, but also led to a broad array of unexpected and emergent uses and valuations, including as site of footballing heritage and place of remembrance and contestation.
Toxic Heritage: Legacies, Futures, and Environmental Injustice, 2024
This chapter explores the changing human valuations of oil shale waste – blaes – in the district ... more This chapter explores the changing human valuations of oil shale waste – blaes – in the district of West Lothian, Scotland. Around 150 million cubic metres of this material remain here in vast heaps known as bings, the remnants of a short-lived but globally significant oil industry, active between 1851 and 1962. In following the changing perceptions and uses of blaes through its creation, exploitation, discard, and reuse, it becomes apparent that it is not easy to definitively apply the categories of ‘toxic’ and ‘non-toxic’ to such materials and their heritage associations. In exploring the shifting valuations of blaes and bings over the last 170 years, the chapter proposes a geosocial understanding of the heritage of hydrocarbon exploitation and its waste in the Anthropocene and suggests that such materials may yet prove useful to us in the face of the climate crisis. CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
Mega events by Jonathan Gardner
A Contemporary Archaeology of London's Mega Events. From the Great Exhibition to London 2012, 2022
A Contemporary Archaeology of London’s Mega Events explores the traces of London’s most significa... more A Contemporary Archaeology of London’s Mega Events explores the traces of London’s most significant modern ‘mega events’. Though only open for a few weeks or months, mega events permanently and disruptively reshape their host cities and societies: they demolish and rebuild whole districts, they draw in materials and participants from around the globe and their organisers self-consciously seek to leave a ‘legacy’ that will endure for decades or more. With London as his case study, Jonathan Gardner argues that these spectacles must be seen as long-lived and persistent, rather than simply transient or short-term. Using a novel methodology drawn from the field of contemporary archaeology – the archaeology of the recent past and present-day – a broad range of comparative studies are used to explore the long-term history of each event. These include the contents and building materials of the Great Exhibition’s Crystal Palace and their extraordinary ‘afterlife’ at Sydenham, South London; how the Festival of Britain’s South Bank Exhibition employed displays of ancient history to construct a new post-war British identity; and how London 2012, as the latest of London’s mega events, dealt with competing visions of the past as archaeology, waste and heritage in its efforts to create a positive legacy for future generations.
This book offers significant new directions for the study of mega events in its comparison of how three mega events changed London over three centuries. Drawing on a varied selection of theoretical and methodological frameworks and a rich array of sources, it demonstrates the great potential of contemporary archaeology for re-examining recent processes of urban transformation.
Critical Perspectives on Cultural Memory and Heritage: Construction, Transformation and Destruction, Feb 18, 2020
Download the rest of the book free from: https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/118162
Co-curating the City: Universities and Urban Heritage Past and Future, May 2022
This chapter explores how the development of UCL East and the other emerging cultural institution... more This chapter explores how the development of UCL East and the other emerging cultural institutions of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (Stratford, London) have been shaped by the area’s historical development and the mega event that precipitated their emergence – the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It locates this inquiry within a longer-term historical perspective on the relationship between large-scale educational initiatives that emerged as a form of ‘legacy’ from other, earlier, ‘mega events’ like the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Roche 2000) which have traditionally been seen as key signifiers of London’s modern urban development and, increasingly, as part of its heritage (see Johansen 1996). By examining the historical context of UCL East and the Olympics’ development, along with these older events and their educational legacies, this chapter will challenge the often solely future-oriented visions that can characterise university and other cultural initiatives’ development (e.g. UCL 2018). Fundamentally, it asks how far developments like UCL East are relying on particularised or limited conceptualisations of their host site and city’s pasts – both reified as ‘heritage’ or otherwise – within this future-oriented vision. This research draws upon a fundamentally archaeological approach: an excavation literally and figuratively of both the traces of the historic landscapes that large-scale educational developments are built upon, and of their relationship to former cultural and educational ventures in their host cities. The discussion focuses on three questions: • How does the history of sites like Stratford and Queen Elizabeth Park contribute to their representation and mobilisation as ‘useful’ or otherwise desirable for university-led urban development, and what are the implications for the perceived legitimacy of such schemes amongst existing communities (e.g. Strohmayer 2013)? • What does the longer history of London’s mega event development such as the Great Exhibition of 1851 (and the frequent subsequent use of such sites and venues for educational purposes both in operational and legacy phases) bring to current mega-scale educational developments such as that being witnessed in the Olympic Park? • What mechanisms could UCL East, and other universities expanding their presence in their host cities, utilise to engage proactively and sensitively with the history of their new sites and develop them as a focus for heritage-led activities for both their users and surrounding populations in future? The chapter takse London 2012 and The Great Exhibition as its key case studies given both events intentionally-created, large-scale, educational legacies (e.g. the Exhibition funding of ‘Albertopolis’ in South Kensington), with supplementary evidence from other mega events like the 1951 Festival of Britain. The research utilises a mixed contemporary archaeology and critical heritage methodology (e.g. Harrison and Breithoff 2017), employing analysis of excavation and survey records, non-intrusive site investigation and photography, and detailed critical discourse analysis of a variety of archival material (see Gardner 2018). It suggests that institutions such as UCL need to be aware not only of what came before at site- and city-wide scales, but also their own institutional histories and those of previous large-scale educational endeavours, if they are to succeed in their self-proclaimed mission to be relevant, sustainable, and welcoming to both new and existing communities. In densely occupied and contested environments like the East End and Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for example, such a history encompasses the ancient development of London’s hinterland, past industrial glory followed by deindustrialisation, a story of change led by the Olympic mega event itself, and a controversial failed attempt by UCL to build an earlier campus on the nearby Carpenter’s Estate. The chapter argues that an awareness of the complicated synergy of event, ‘legacy’, and education can potentially assist in managing present-day developments, and provide a deeper understanding of how such ventures succeed or fail at engaging audiences and, attempt to operate sustainably. It proposes that if UCL East is to truly succeed in playing ‘a central role in the sustainable development of the local area’, and act as ‘a radical new model for how a university campus can be embedded in the community’ (UCL 2018), it must actively build upon a legacy not only of the 2012 Games and the history of its host site, but also learn from London’s previous examples of mega-event led educational development in the longue durée.
Gardner, J. 2018. Beneath the Rubble, the Crystal Palace! The Surprising Persistence of a Temporary Mega Event. World Archaeology (online first). Harrison, R. and Breithoff, E., 2017. Archaeologies of the Contemporary World. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46 (1): 203–221.
Johansen, S. 1996. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Precipice in Time? Victorian Review, 22 (1): 59–64.
Roche, M., 2000. Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge.
Strohmayer, U., 2013. Non-events and their legacies: Parisian heritage and the Olympics that never were. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (2): 186–202.
UCL, 2018. UCL 2034: a new 20-year strategy for UCL. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/2034/.
Archaeology International, 2019
Investigating several modern ‘mega events’, including World’s Fairs and Olympic Games, this paper... more Investigating several modern ‘mega events’, including World’s Fairs and Olympic Games, this paper discusses the complex relationship such events and their sites have often had with ‘the future’. Such events are frequently associated with demonstrating progress towards future ‘utopias’ (for example ‘The World of Tomorrow’ theme of the 1939 World’s Fair in New York) or leaving a tangible positive social and economic ‘legacy’. However, other uses of mega event sites have also frequently manifested darker, more anxious ideas about that which is yet to come. In this paper I discuss three forms in which mega events’ sites relate to the idea of the future: before, during, and after they take place. In discussing these relationships, I demonstrate how traces of ‘past futures’, when investigated archaeologically, provide a diverse means by which to understand how societies have related to the idea of the future through the modern era.
World Archaeology, 2018
This paper considers the archaeological traces of some of the largest temporary gatherings imagin... more This paper considers the archaeological traces of some of the largest temporary gatherings imaginable: modern cultural mega events such as World's Fairs, Expositions and Olympic Games. Focusing specifically on what is widely accepted as the ‘first’ such event, The Great Exhibition of 1851, its aftermath and the rebuilding of its host structure, the Crystal Palace, the author investigates how mega events’ archaeological traces can provide alternative accounts of the history of temporary spectacles. The author also highlights how an event sometimes becomes conflated with its structure, showing how the Crystal Palace’s materials persisted long after the original gathering was over. Even after event sites take on radically different uses or their structures are moved, altered or totally destroyed, their scant traces can still inspire a desire for resurrection.
In this paper I explore the concept of the lost river and the implications this term has for our ... more In this paper I explore the concept of the lost river and the implications this term has for our understanding of the history of changing urban environments. In taking a voyage down one of the London 2012 Olympic Park’s now-filled waterways, the Pudding Mill River, charting it and the surrounding area’s diverse history, I explore how rivers end up becoming losable. Drawing on diverse methodologies from archaeology and geography and with a particular emphasis on mapping, I argue that a literal and metaphorical exploration of such a rapidly changing environment reveals a multitude of buried narratives and fluid histories. This research suggests that the labelling of a river as lost is not a politically neutral act and that, with its romantic connotations, the term may actually serve to legitimise insensitive and contentious changes to our environment.
An important though often overlooked part of the London 2012 Olympic Games' Stratford site are th... more An important though often overlooked part of the London 2012 Olympic Games' Stratford site are the numerous fences that have surrounded it. As an archaeologist excavating inside these fences in 2007-8, I began to think about how enclosure affected perceptions of the project, how it could be interpreted archaeologically, and how this might question the Games' legitimacy.
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 23(1), 1-22, Aug 2013
Considering the successive iterations of the fence surrounding the London 2012 Olympic site in St... more Considering the successive iterations of the fence surrounding the London 2012 Olympic site in Stratford, east London, I demonstrate that during the five periods of enclosure considered, these boundaries have highlighted the London Games’ contested past, present, and future. An examination of the material and discursive constructions of each of these boundaries shows the Janus-faced nature of their relationship to the wider ‘mega-event’. I conclude that though the purpose of such enclosures may initially seem obvious, in actuality they, as parts of a wider assemblage, can act unpredictably both to support and challenge the Olympic brand and its existence in this part of east London.
Papers - commercial archaeology/CRM by Jonathan Gardner
IA: The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology, 2020
[Author's accepted version. Part of special issue on 'Intangibles'.]
In this paper I investigate... more [Author's accepted version. Part of special issue on 'Intangibles'.]
In this paper I investigate the archaeology industry, the commercially driven sector of our discipline that excavates and surveys sites in advance of development as a part of the wider industrialized world. Through examination of the multiple elements of commercial archaeology (Cultural Resource Management-CRM) operations, using the UK heritage management context as a case study, I examine the industry's similarities with other sectors such as mining or manufacturing that are more the traditional focus of industrial archaeology. I explore the raw materials, processes, labor, tools, and products of archaeological practice. I also reflect upon the history of the discipline and the traces that archaeologists themselves leave behind following the completion of their work. I contend that, by consideration of the commercial archaeology industry in such a way, we can spark new debates and suggest new avenues of study for industrial archaeology as a whole.
https://www.sia-web.org/publications/ia-journal/ia-volumes-41-present/
Reviews by Jonathan Gardner
Conference Presentations by Jonathan Gardner
[presentation video]
A summary of the idea that commercial archaeology is itself an industrial pr... more [presentation video]
A summary of the idea that commercial archaeology is itself an industrial process.
What role can the material-traces of the past
play in situations of rapidly changing urban
develo... more What role can the material-traces of the past
play in situations of rapidly changing urban
development? Mega-projects in London, such
as the transformation of the docklands and
the Olympics in Stratford, are often framed as
unproblematic ‘regeneration’ of former industrial
areas, and hence, often ignore the complex and
complicated heritages linked to these landscapes
and their populations, past and present. This
presentation challenges such narratives, and
explores how archaeological investigation and
archival analysis can trouble simplistic discourses of
‘industrial wasteland’ or ‘brownfield’ that are often
presented by developers (and sometimes local
and central government) in such places. I argue
that, in using such methods, we can demonstrate
radical and hidden histories that remain beneath
the surface and in the archive, and that knowledge
and dissemination of alternative visions of the past
- as ‘heritage’ or otherwise - can act as a powerful
challenge to those redevelopment projects which
employ selective and simplistic visions of the past
to gain legitimacy.
Discussion of the ethics of commercial archaeology practice are currently rarely discussed in nor... more Discussion of the ethics of commercial archaeology practice are currently rarely discussed in northern Europe, despite the field having seen critique in places like Canada, Spain and Latin and South America (Hutchings and LaSalle 2015; papers in Resco 2016). This stands in contrast to ethical critique building within public archaeology and conflict archaeology especially, within academia. Though there are a few notable exceptions to this, critiquing practices of development-led/commercial archaeology (e.g. Ronayne 2008), it currently seems that the engagement of developer-funded archaeologists is often treated unproblematically, despite the fact that there may, in some cases, be an ethical argument for changing our relationships with particular projects, both at an individual and organisational level. Using case studies from the UK, where development-led practice drives the vast majority of projects, I explore why we rarely consider the ethical implications of commercial archaeology, and if there are alternatives to taking the money and running.
Resco, P.A., ed., 2016. Archaeology and Neoliberalism. Madrid: JAS Arqueologia. Hutchings, R. and La Salle, M., 2015. Archaeology as Disaster Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19(4), 699–720. Ronayne, M., 2008. Commitment, Objectivity and Accountability to Communities: Priorities for 21st-Century Archaeology. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 10(4), 367–381.
[presentation video]
This paper considers interlinked processes of waste production and managemen... more [presentation video]
This paper considers interlinked processes of waste production and management as an example of heritage creation and maintenance. Building upon recent studies of processes of decay and waste heritage management (e.g. DeSilvey 2017, Buser 2016), through examination of several former industrial sites in East London, I explore how waste can be seen as a raw material that can be utilised to literally and figuratively underpin heritage narratives across different landscapes. East London’s terrain has been radically modified since the 18th-century as a result of interlinked processes of industrialisation and urbanisation. Waste materials produced through these processes have played a crucial role in shaping the area’s topography and built environment. These materials’ uses ranged from clay produced by dock excavation utilised in brickmaking, to the dumping of hundreds-of-thousands of tons of rubbish to reclaim land for new buildings. Such processes show that waste can be valued not only as a useful construction material but also for its ability to facilitate new visions of how a district should be (re)developed and indeed, how such transformation becomes part of the heritage of an area. This paper presents the results of a pilot study into this topic and explores how the idea of ‘waste heritage’ connects with broader materialist concepts in recent debates in the geohumanities. Buser, M., 2016. Rubbish Theory: The Heritage of Toxic Waste. Reinwardt Academy. DeSilvey, C., 2017. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. University of Minnesota Press.
[presentation video]
This paper examines how (post)industrial spaces become labelled as ‘disused’... more [presentation video]
This paper examines how (post)industrial spaces become labelled as ‘disused’, ‘wastelands’, or ‘brownfields’ in processes of urban redevelopment. Taking a broad overview of different examples across sites in Edinburgh and London (UK) I ask how understandings of waste and value are produced and contested through industrial processes themselves (the production of by-products, contamination etc.), mitigation measures (including environmental cleanup and archaeological interventions) and at a socio-cultural level (natural and cultural heritage preservation campaigns, and legislation for example). I aim to problematise the strict differentiation between which industrial landscapes can be considered ‘waste’ and which are seen as valuable heritage sites. In particular I will discuss the material and discursive transformations of several London and Edinburgh dockside sites from places of heavy industry, transport and labour into spaces of consumption, luxury accommodation and leisure.
Uploads
Waste landscapes by Jonathan Gardner
such places are materially and conceptually “made”
and examine the efects that such labeling has on how
postindustrial urban sites are used and valued. Taking examples from the capital cities of England and
Scotland (London and Edinburgh), I show that the
meaning of “waste” at such sites is temporally and
socially contingent. Establishing certainty between
which landscapes are “wasted” and which are not
can prove difcult, and, in some cases, archaeologists
themselves may be implicated in labeling and then
“cleansing” wastelands, with archaeology operating
as a form of waste management. While wastelands
may appear as dissonant and associated with negativity or decay at frst glance, I show that these places
can also facilitate surprisingly generative and creative
uses and provide new forms of heritage value.
Much of the Beach and the land behind it was reclaimed from the tidal estuary of the Firth of Forth between the 1950s and 1990s using vast quantities of demolition rubble produced by the reconstruction of the city. This material – most likely produced from ‘slum’ clearance and factory demolitions – comprises a heterotemporal jumble of hundreds-of-thousands of bricks, eighteenth and nineteenth century sandstone building fragments, mid-twentieth century concrete foundations, asbestos, plastic waste and much else besides. While some of the reclaimed land was built upon in the 1970s, a large part of this dumped material is now eroding into the sea as tides and storms grow more extreme.
Royston Beach became part of my research project (a three-year, cross-UK comparison of waste-modified terrain entitled, ‘Reimagining British Waste Landscapes’) as a result of travel-restrictions due to lockdowns. Though emerging from a period of restricted movement, my experiences investigating the Beach fundamentally shaped my approach to understanding the archaeology of waste landscapes and my methodological approach for this ongoing project.
Using a combination of traditional archaeological photography and creative research, in this paper I explore the site and follow the complex spatio-temporal ‘itineraries’ of waste materials.
Mega events by Jonathan Gardner
This book offers significant new directions for the study of mega events in its comparison of how three mega events changed London over three centuries. Drawing on a varied selection of theoretical and methodological frameworks and a rich array of sources, it demonstrates the great potential of contemporary archaeology for re-examining recent processes of urban transformation.
Gardner, J. 2018. Beneath the Rubble, the Crystal Palace! The Surprising Persistence of a Temporary Mega Event. World Archaeology (online first). Harrison, R. and Breithoff, E., 2017. Archaeologies of the Contemporary World. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46 (1): 203–221.
Johansen, S. 1996. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Precipice in Time? Victorian Review, 22 (1): 59–64.
Roche, M., 2000. Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge.
Strohmayer, U., 2013. Non-events and their legacies: Parisian heritage and the Olympics that never were. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (2): 186–202.
UCL, 2018. UCL 2034: a new 20-year strategy for UCL. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/2034/.
Papers - commercial archaeology/CRM by Jonathan Gardner
In this paper I investigate the archaeology industry, the commercially driven sector of our discipline that excavates and surveys sites in advance of development as a part of the wider industrialized world. Through examination of the multiple elements of commercial archaeology (Cultural Resource Management-CRM) operations, using the UK heritage management context as a case study, I examine the industry's similarities with other sectors such as mining or manufacturing that are more the traditional focus of industrial archaeology. I explore the raw materials, processes, labor, tools, and products of archaeological practice. I also reflect upon the history of the discipline and the traces that archaeologists themselves leave behind following the completion of their work. I contend that, by consideration of the commercial archaeology industry in such a way, we can spark new debates and suggest new avenues of study for industrial archaeology as a whole.
https://www.sia-web.org/publications/ia-journal/ia-volumes-41-present/
Reviews by Jonathan Gardner
Conference Presentations by Jonathan Gardner
A summary of the idea that commercial archaeology is itself an industrial process.
play in situations of rapidly changing urban
development? Mega-projects in London, such
as the transformation of the docklands and
the Olympics in Stratford, are often framed as
unproblematic ‘regeneration’ of former industrial
areas, and hence, often ignore the complex and
complicated heritages linked to these landscapes
and their populations, past and present. This
presentation challenges such narratives, and
explores how archaeological investigation and
archival analysis can trouble simplistic discourses of
‘industrial wasteland’ or ‘brownfield’ that are often
presented by developers (and sometimes local
and central government) in such places. I argue
that, in using such methods, we can demonstrate
radical and hidden histories that remain beneath
the surface and in the archive, and that knowledge
and dissemination of alternative visions of the past
- as ‘heritage’ or otherwise - can act as a powerful
challenge to those redevelopment projects which
employ selective and simplistic visions of the past
to gain legitimacy.
Resco, P.A., ed., 2016. Archaeology and Neoliberalism. Madrid: JAS Arqueologia. Hutchings, R. and La Salle, M., 2015. Archaeology as Disaster Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19(4), 699–720. Ronayne, M., 2008. Commitment, Objectivity and Accountability to Communities: Priorities for 21st-Century Archaeology. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 10(4), 367–381.
This paper considers interlinked processes of waste production and management as an example of heritage creation and maintenance. Building upon recent studies of processes of decay and waste heritage management (e.g. DeSilvey 2017, Buser 2016), through examination of several former industrial sites in East London, I explore how waste can be seen as a raw material that can be utilised to literally and figuratively underpin heritage narratives across different landscapes. East London’s terrain has been radically modified since the 18th-century as a result of interlinked processes of industrialisation and urbanisation. Waste materials produced through these processes have played a crucial role in shaping the area’s topography and built environment. These materials’ uses ranged from clay produced by dock excavation utilised in brickmaking, to the dumping of hundreds-of-thousands of tons of rubbish to reclaim land for new buildings. Such processes show that waste can be valued not only as a useful construction material but also for its ability to facilitate new visions of how a district should be (re)developed and indeed, how such transformation becomes part of the heritage of an area. This paper presents the results of a pilot study into this topic and explores how the idea of ‘waste heritage’ connects with broader materialist concepts in recent debates in the geohumanities. Buser, M., 2016. Rubbish Theory: The Heritage of Toxic Waste. Reinwardt Academy. DeSilvey, C., 2017. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. University of Minnesota Press.
This paper examines how (post)industrial spaces become labelled as ‘disused’, ‘wastelands’, or ‘brownfields’ in processes of urban redevelopment. Taking a broad overview of different examples across sites in Edinburgh and London (UK) I ask how understandings of waste and value are produced and contested through industrial processes themselves (the production of by-products, contamination etc.), mitigation measures (including environmental cleanup and archaeological interventions) and at a socio-cultural level (natural and cultural heritage preservation campaigns, and legislation for example). I aim to problematise the strict differentiation between which industrial landscapes can be considered ‘waste’ and which are seen as valuable heritage sites. In particular I will discuss the material and discursive transformations of several London and Edinburgh dockside sites from places of heavy industry, transport and labour into spaces of consumption, luxury accommodation and leisure.
such places are materially and conceptually “made”
and examine the efects that such labeling has on how
postindustrial urban sites are used and valued. Taking examples from the capital cities of England and
Scotland (London and Edinburgh), I show that the
meaning of “waste” at such sites is temporally and
socially contingent. Establishing certainty between
which landscapes are “wasted” and which are not
can prove difcult, and, in some cases, archaeologists
themselves may be implicated in labeling and then
“cleansing” wastelands, with archaeology operating
as a form of waste management. While wastelands
may appear as dissonant and associated with negativity or decay at frst glance, I show that these places
can also facilitate surprisingly generative and creative
uses and provide new forms of heritage value.
Much of the Beach and the land behind it was reclaimed from the tidal estuary of the Firth of Forth between the 1950s and 1990s using vast quantities of demolition rubble produced by the reconstruction of the city. This material – most likely produced from ‘slum’ clearance and factory demolitions – comprises a heterotemporal jumble of hundreds-of-thousands of bricks, eighteenth and nineteenth century sandstone building fragments, mid-twentieth century concrete foundations, asbestos, plastic waste and much else besides. While some of the reclaimed land was built upon in the 1970s, a large part of this dumped material is now eroding into the sea as tides and storms grow more extreme.
Royston Beach became part of my research project (a three-year, cross-UK comparison of waste-modified terrain entitled, ‘Reimagining British Waste Landscapes’) as a result of travel-restrictions due to lockdowns. Though emerging from a period of restricted movement, my experiences investigating the Beach fundamentally shaped my approach to understanding the archaeology of waste landscapes and my methodological approach for this ongoing project.
Using a combination of traditional archaeological photography and creative research, in this paper I explore the site and follow the complex spatio-temporal ‘itineraries’ of waste materials.
This book offers significant new directions for the study of mega events in its comparison of how three mega events changed London over three centuries. Drawing on a varied selection of theoretical and methodological frameworks and a rich array of sources, it demonstrates the great potential of contemporary archaeology for re-examining recent processes of urban transformation.
Gardner, J. 2018. Beneath the Rubble, the Crystal Palace! The Surprising Persistence of a Temporary Mega Event. World Archaeology (online first). Harrison, R. and Breithoff, E., 2017. Archaeologies of the Contemporary World. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46 (1): 203–221.
Johansen, S. 1996. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Precipice in Time? Victorian Review, 22 (1): 59–64.
Roche, M., 2000. Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge.
Strohmayer, U., 2013. Non-events and their legacies: Parisian heritage and the Olympics that never were. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (2): 186–202.
UCL, 2018. UCL 2034: a new 20-year strategy for UCL. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/2034/.
In this paper I investigate the archaeology industry, the commercially driven sector of our discipline that excavates and surveys sites in advance of development as a part of the wider industrialized world. Through examination of the multiple elements of commercial archaeology (Cultural Resource Management-CRM) operations, using the UK heritage management context as a case study, I examine the industry's similarities with other sectors such as mining or manufacturing that are more the traditional focus of industrial archaeology. I explore the raw materials, processes, labor, tools, and products of archaeological practice. I also reflect upon the history of the discipline and the traces that archaeologists themselves leave behind following the completion of their work. I contend that, by consideration of the commercial archaeology industry in such a way, we can spark new debates and suggest new avenues of study for industrial archaeology as a whole.
https://www.sia-web.org/publications/ia-journal/ia-volumes-41-present/
A summary of the idea that commercial archaeology is itself an industrial process.
play in situations of rapidly changing urban
development? Mega-projects in London, such
as the transformation of the docklands and
the Olympics in Stratford, are often framed as
unproblematic ‘regeneration’ of former industrial
areas, and hence, often ignore the complex and
complicated heritages linked to these landscapes
and their populations, past and present. This
presentation challenges such narratives, and
explores how archaeological investigation and
archival analysis can trouble simplistic discourses of
‘industrial wasteland’ or ‘brownfield’ that are often
presented by developers (and sometimes local
and central government) in such places. I argue
that, in using such methods, we can demonstrate
radical and hidden histories that remain beneath
the surface and in the archive, and that knowledge
and dissemination of alternative visions of the past
- as ‘heritage’ or otherwise - can act as a powerful
challenge to those redevelopment projects which
employ selective and simplistic visions of the past
to gain legitimacy.
Resco, P.A., ed., 2016. Archaeology and Neoliberalism. Madrid: JAS Arqueologia. Hutchings, R. and La Salle, M., 2015. Archaeology as Disaster Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19(4), 699–720. Ronayne, M., 2008. Commitment, Objectivity and Accountability to Communities: Priorities for 21st-Century Archaeology. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 10(4), 367–381.
This paper considers interlinked processes of waste production and management as an example of heritage creation and maintenance. Building upon recent studies of processes of decay and waste heritage management (e.g. DeSilvey 2017, Buser 2016), through examination of several former industrial sites in East London, I explore how waste can be seen as a raw material that can be utilised to literally and figuratively underpin heritage narratives across different landscapes. East London’s terrain has been radically modified since the 18th-century as a result of interlinked processes of industrialisation and urbanisation. Waste materials produced through these processes have played a crucial role in shaping the area’s topography and built environment. These materials’ uses ranged from clay produced by dock excavation utilised in brickmaking, to the dumping of hundreds-of-thousands of tons of rubbish to reclaim land for new buildings. Such processes show that waste can be valued not only as a useful construction material but also for its ability to facilitate new visions of how a district should be (re)developed and indeed, how such transformation becomes part of the heritage of an area. This paper presents the results of a pilot study into this topic and explores how the idea of ‘waste heritage’ connects with broader materialist concepts in recent debates in the geohumanities. Buser, M., 2016. Rubbish Theory: The Heritage of Toxic Waste. Reinwardt Academy. DeSilvey, C., 2017. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. University of Minnesota Press.
This paper examines how (post)industrial spaces become labelled as ‘disused’, ‘wastelands’, or ‘brownfields’ in processes of urban redevelopment. Taking a broad overview of different examples across sites in Edinburgh and London (UK) I ask how understandings of waste and value are produced and contested through industrial processes themselves (the production of by-products, contamination etc.), mitigation measures (including environmental cleanup and archaeological interventions) and at a socio-cultural level (natural and cultural heritage preservation campaigns, and legislation for example). I aim to problematise the strict differentiation between which industrial landscapes can be considered ‘waste’ and which are seen as valuable heritage sites. In particular I will discuss the material and discursive transformations of several London and Edinburgh dockside sites from places of heavy industry, transport and labour into spaces of consumption, luxury accommodation and leisure.
‘Mega events’, temporary large-scale cultural spectacles of the modern era (such as the Great Exhibitions, World’s Fairs and sporting events like the Olympic Games), have often been presented by their organisers, commentators and subsequent historiography as unified, progressive and unproblematic urban interventions which yield only benefits for the cities and nations that host them. Scholarship along with the work of journalists and activists has challenged this overwhelmingly positive narrative almost immediately from such events’ emergence in the mid-19th century, criticising, amongst other issues, mega events’ tendency to reinforce narratives of national and imperial exceptionalism, legitimise racism, destroy communities, expend vast sums of public money, and destroy environments. Building on this critique, this paper explores how we might reconsider the material legacy mega events leave as a form of both intentional and unintentional preservation: i.e. their physical structures and material culture as both ‘monuments’ and ruins. Focussing on London in particular, I show how such spectacles have left near-permanent landscape changes which we can see as an often-unnoticed preservation strategy despite the temporary nature of the events themselves. I also examine how, in their aftermath, often these events seem to exhibit a close connection to literal ‘ruination’ and rubble in the way their sites are reused: for example, the reuse of both the Hyde Park site of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and that of its translocated structure (the Crystal Palace) in Sydenham for the dumping of Blitz rubble (which remains there today), or in the erasures of homes and businesses recently wrought by the 2012 Olympic Games in Stratford. The paper therefore shows how a tension between creation and destruction is inherent within mega events and that this ultimately produces uneven and unexpected forms of preservation. In examining the materials that emerge from this tension (landscapes, rubble, artefacts etc.) both as a form of ‘dialectical image’ in Benjamin’s sense, and as literal archaeological material, I argue that the discarded or forgotten remains of these events can be rehabilitated as a useful archive of preservation which may allow us to rethink the nature of these events and their value as heritage in today’s urban societies.
Tracing the history of a 1950s Civil Defence Corps training facility, Bully Fen, located within today’s Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Stratford (east London), this paper examines how such sites were used to prepare urban civilian populations for potential nuclear armageddon and what, if anything, of them lingers today. I will discuss how such a place is all but forgotten by the narratives of the mega event which was built over its site, yet how such a facility nonetheless appears to have shared some of the characteristics of international competitions like the Olympic Games and indeed, their current commitment to the idea of ‘legacy’ and spectacular demonstrations of material change to urban environments. Ultimately, I seek to explore how older preparations for the end of the world continue to have a resonance in our current era.
Investigating ‘mega events’, such as World’s Fairs and Olympic Games, I discuss the complex relationship they have demonstrated with regard to the idea of the future. Such events are frequently associated with demonstrating progress towards future utopias (for example, ‘the World of Tomorrow’ theme of the 1939 World’s Fair in NYC), but they have also frequently manifested darker, more anxious ideas of that which is yet to come. Both of these visions can be investigated archaeologically through the traces of their structures, exhibits, and from archival material. This paper identifies three ways in which the tension between events’ utopian dreams, and dystopian nightmares are
exhibited. Firstly, these events tend to be built on sites considered of little value and used prior to their events as places used to mitigate anxious futures: environmental degradation (e.g. garbage dumps) or warfare (e.g. civil defence sites). Secondly, the events
themselves, during their operation, often conceptually frame promised utopian futures by referencing the past and the future in anxious or negative terms, in order to justify the need for ‘progress’, lest disaster strike. Lastly, following closure, mega event sites are frequently left to decay and can become poignant symbols for a future that did not arrive as promised. In discussing these three types of relationship, I demonstrate how an archaeological investigation of such events can be useful in examining how societies have related to, and continue to relate to, the idea of the future and to identify the types of traces this process can leave behind.
Ultimately this discussion will seek critical insights into the area of being an archaeologist in a milieu of non-human actants and in particular those which are potentially lethal to us, and therefore, the implications of such material being considered artifactual.
How can we, in investigating such material using an archaeological methodology, not only draw evidence to interrogate the grand ideological narratives linked to the hosting of such events such as nationalistic fervour or capitalistic bombast, but also to reveal discrepancies within these ideologies and alternative stories that mainstream discourses elide or ignore?
I will demonstrate how certain narratives about the past in these places also shape their formation and future/legacy usages.
Taking a contemporary archaeological and critical heritage studies approach, I argue that such mega events – defined as a genre of large, transitory and internationally-focussed cultural spectacles – leave a unique set of traces upon their host societies and that, as a result, we can observe several key ‘signatures’ which characterise all mega events and their long term roles in society. These signatures include a quixotic and tense relationship with a variety of conceptualisations of the role of the past in the present – both in terms of mega event site histories, and more broadly, national and imperial ‘stories’; a concern with their own historicity and a sense of exceptionality – the ‘largest’, ‘the first’ for example; and, despite their often future-oriented rhetoric, a key concern with using heritage narratives and the selective visions these can offer to legitimise an event’s presence and to counter opposition.
Each case study is examined in detail using a broad variety of archaeological and heritage methodologies using London’s events as a prism through which to see the changing role of mega events in western modernity more broadly over the last two centuries. I demonstrate for the first time that such events must not be seen simply as one-off temporary spectacles, but rather are drastic and often devastating interventions in the urban environment that can have a dramatically impact of a broad variety of forms of heritage over the long term. Overall, I argue that if we are ever to create a more ethically engaged model for the hosting of future events, mega events must be subjected to long-term critical examination and that we must realise that even when events officially close for good, their continuing roles and importance should not be ignored.
In this paper I investigate the archaeology industry, the commercially-driven sector of our discipline that excavates and surveys sites in advance of development, as a part of the wider industrialised world. Through examination of the multiple elements of commercial/CRM operations using the UK heritage management context as a case study, I examine the industry's similarities with sectors such as mining or manufacturing that are more the traditional focus of industrial archaeology to explore the raw materials, processes, labour, tools and products of archaeological practice. I also reflect upon the history of the discipline and the traces that archaeologists themselves leave behind following the completion of their work. I contend that, by consideration of the commercial archaeology industry in such a way we can spark new debates and suggest new avenues of study for industrial archaeology as a whole.