Urban Historical Geography, or Scholars and Social ScientistsAuthor(s): J. W. R. WhitehandSource: Area, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1974), pp. 254-256Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000893 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 04:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:14:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Urban historical geography, or scholars and social scientists

Report of the conference of the Historical Geography Research Group held at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor Great Park, 29-31 May, 1974.

Many of the IBG Study Groups have now been in existence long enough to have developed their own ethos. In spite of the urban theme, this country-house gathering, organized by J. H. C. Patten and E. J. Pawson (Oxford), could not by any stretch of the imagination be confused with a meeting of the Urban Geography Group and even less of the Quantitative Methods Group. The historical geographers are unmis takeably right of centre on the radical-conservative dimension, although I managed to resist the temptation to try passing off the Eysenck Social Attitude Inventory as an after-dinner party game. Surrogates such as dress, hair-style, mode of address, venue and use of English, all pointed in the same direction.

Discussion was gentlemanly, as befitted the drawing room at Cumberland Lodge, and almost unpunctuated by obscure first-name familiarities. It was good to know who was speaking, what was being spoken about (albeit at a small cost in formality) and to whom reference was being made; even better to have papers that had a beginning, a middle and an end, rather than that well-known variety that stops in mid-air when the time alloted (including that for discussion) has been exhausted. And there was plenty of time to intersperse paper sessions with croquet and walks in impeccably-kept landscape gardens.

The programme offered to the fifty or so participants was, from my point of view, a nice balance of scholarship and social science, although the conference as a whole took this distinction in its stride rather than made it the object of sharply-focused attention. Perhaps appropriately in a Group with a predominantly scholarly tradition and in the presence of several distinguished scholars (including H. C. Darby and

M. R. G. Conzen), the scholars provided the wide-ranging opening movement and finale while the social scientists sought more restricted and quantifiable foci for the core of the programme.

D. W. Meinig (Syracuse) in his after-dinner guest lecture on the first evening focused on the importance of the macro-scale (both temporal and spatial) and gave us cause to wonder whether we have our noses so close to the ground that we are missing concepts relating to events of major geographical consequence. Where are the heirs of Carl Sauer? This theme clearly rang a chord for many in the audience, not least those who found themselves struggling to communicate 'the historical geography of civilization in ten lectures ' and facing a dearth of geographical contributions to which their students might refer. Other disciplines appear to have cornered the market and historical rather than geographical perspectives prevail. This thesis provoked a lengthy and vigorous discussion in which almost inevitably attention was drawn to operational problems, especially in regard to evidence, in carrying out research at continental and world scales and covering lengthy periods of time. This introductory discourse reverberated in varying strengths in several subsequent papers and discussions and thus provided an admirable preface to the proceedings.

Although by comparison his areal scale could be regarded as no more than meso, in attempting comparative studies of the effects of park landscaping on towns over the

whole of Britain, T. R. Slater (Birmingham) was working at a large scale by the stan dards customary in British urban morphology. Windsor Great Park was an ideal setting for a presentation in which emparked-castle towns formed the basis for a schema of sequential development. In its emphasis on the general rather than the particular this

work still stands apart from most historical and geographical studies that use the

254

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:14:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Urban historical geography 255

landscape as a major source of inference, but at the same time maintains the high standards of exposition characteristic of the best work in this genre. In respect of research method (though not perhaps in purpose) this paper was in sharp contrast to that by J. W. R.

Whitehand (Birmingham) who drew attention to the almost insuperable problems facing those seeking to interrelate existing studies in urban morphology and suggested some of the advantages that might accrue from employing a deductive strategy. This

was illustrated from attempts to construct a theory of urban form relating intensity of land use to spatial and temporal variations in land values. A model of an aspect of the theory was tested using data relating to the development of the London suburb of Kensington during the 19th century.

This commitment to theory was scarcely apparent at all in the ensuing social geography papers which were primarily in the nature of progress reports on data processing. Each of these papers considered a sizeable urban area during the data-rich 19th century and it would seem that interest in this period among geographers and historians is now reaching boom proportions on this side of the Atlantic. None of these papers was especially concerned with techniques, although that of R. S. Holmes (Kent) was perhaps more so than those of R. Dennis (Sheffield) and G. C. Pooley (Liverpool), and the comparative lack of questions on statistical procedures suggested that the bulk of the audience, like the speakers themselves, had little stomach for this type of discou'rse. Holmes described a procedure for combining rate books and census returns and demonstrated for Ramsgate a correlation between rateable values and a number of important census variables. Dennis set out to examine changes in social interaction as cities underwent industrialization, but it was disappointing that the theoretical basis for this interesting work and the justification for the experimental design were given such cursory treatment. The analysis of mid-19th century marriage registers for Huddersfield suggested, perhaps surprisingly, a tendency for the intensifi cation of interaction over time in working-class communities, although there were difficulties in interpreting the results. Finally, Pooley reported on migration to Mersey side and the formation of residential areas in Liverpool: an interim paper on two aspects of a broader study of 19th-century Merseyside. This was based largely on Census data and brief comparisons were drawn with work on ethnic segregation in America.

The concluding papers brought the conference closest to the traditionally major historico-geographical issues in the shape of two contrasting studies of urban origins. A recurrent theme in historical, archaeological and geographical literature on settle ments has been the revival of urban life in Europe north of the Alps in the medieval period. In recent years some weight has been added to the argument in favour of proto urban settlements of some kind prior to the 11th century in some quite remote areas such as England and the Slav lands of Eastern Europe. In the light of this Conzen's commendation of comparative work was especially appropriate and left us in no doubt as to the wider significance of the paper by R. A. Butlin (Q.M.C.) who skilfully mas saged diverse evidence for town-like settlements in Ireland before the Norman Con quest. D. J. B. Shaw (Birmingham) was similarly conscious of the importance of comparison with other regions in his study of urban colonization in Southern Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries, drawing qualified parallels both with other parts of

Eurasia and the New World. Such wide-ranging comparisons were to the liking of Meinig although clearly caution was essential. However, in this case, given much greater archival evidence than Butlin, it was possible to focus on the functional basis of settlement and to describe the transformation of a 17th-century system of military control of the urban frontier to an 18th-century market economy. This was a most fitting closure to the formal proceedings and, perhaps some would argue, brought us to the threshold of Meinig's macro historical geography.

The last day involved a field excursion in central Reading led by D. C. Large and S. Blake (Reading), a visit to the Museum of English Rural Life and, for many of us, reflections on the proceedings as a whole. As is often the case, I found the discussions

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:14:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

256 Urban historical geography

at this conference were in several respects revealing in their omissions. In terms of my own predilections it was interesting, though not surprising, that the role of a deductive strategy was not pursued in spite of a specific attempt to direct attention to this. The audience, like most gatherings of English-speaking geographers and historians, had little taste for theory. Yet the problems faced in the 19th-century studies described at this conference served to confirm my own view that a thorough discussion of the theoretical issues involved would provide a much-needed basis for navigation. In this regard it is noteworthy that the scholars took the honours for purposefulness as well as the accolade for the unity and polish of their presentations, to which they are

more accustomed. Even if, in the very nature of things, they lacked definitive answers to the questions they posed, their themes were never in doubt.

The conference was widely judged a success. As a relative outsider I was impressed by the way in which the Group embraced diversities of tradition, method and scale with equanimity. While the locale undoubtedly played its part, the catholicity of viewpoints and interests was reassuring at a time of rapid development of specialized foci in the Institute as a whole.

J. W. R. Whitehand University of Birmingham

Geographical urban history, or history and space

Report of the annual meeting of the Urban History Group of the Economic History Society, held at the University of Bristol, 4-5 April, 1974.

There was no explicit theme to this year's Urban History Group meeting at Bristol. But at least one seemed to emerge which linked each of the sessions, and which might be attributed not only to the presence of a number of geographers playing an active part in debate, as in earlier years, but also for the first time their giving some of the papers. And the emerging theme was; what exactly do spatial patterns and spatial variation actually mean for historians? Are they simply a background-giving useful descriptions of distributions? Or, are they in themselves dynamic, having their own role in the interplay of forces moulding urban change and growth?

The meeting was divided into three sessions. The first was a lecture by Prof. Lawton and Mr Laxton (both of the Department of Geography, Liverpool) on The geographical dimension in the urban history of Modern Industrial Cities; it was followed by two seminars which were led by the authors of pre-circulated papers. One was on Victorian Seaside Resorts, and the speakers were Prof. Perkin (Lancaster), Mr Myerscough (Sussex) and Mr Walton (Hockerill). The other examined The provisioning of Towns through the papers of Prof. Everitt (Leicester), Miss Blackman (Hull), Mr Scola (Kent) and Mr Shaw (Department of Geography, Hull). This, too, concentrated on the 19th century. It is indeed to be expected that in the study of 19th century towns English

Urban Historians and Geographers (whether Historical Geographers, or not) will find much of common interest. This was certainly apparent during the last annual

meeting at Leicester (Area 5 (1973), 3, 229-30) where the constraints of often ' cross sectional ' 19th century sources were apparent to both.

The lecture by Lawton and Laxton provided, then, one 'keynote' theme for the meeting in their demonstration of those geographical factors that can not only aid the study of modern urbanism, but also act as dynamic forces in their own right; in

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:14:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions