Anton Howes, official historian at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, discusses the complexities of historical narratives and innovation. He delves into the contributions of Henry Court to the Industrial Revolution, challenging misconceptions about metallurgical processes. The conversation also tackles the myths around food canning and the economic roots of colonial resources, emphasizing the importance of rigorous historical scrutiny. Additionally, Howes highlights flaws in the peer review system and advocates for transparency in historical research.
Henry Court's innovations in metallurgy during the Industrial Revolution significantly enhanced the mass production of wrought iron, revolutionizing various industries.
Controversy over Court's contributions raises important questions about historical attribution and the role of marginalized groups in innovation.
The idea of 'open history' promotes transparency and collaboration among historians, aiming to build trust and improve the accuracy of historical narratives.
Deep dives
The Significance of Henry Court in Metallurgy
Henry Court is recognized as a pivotal figure in the advancement of metallurgy during the Industrial Revolution, particularly known for his innovations in the rolling and puddling processes. These processes allowed for the mass production of wrought iron from pig iron, increasing efficiency and lowering costs in iron manufacturing. Court's methods reshaped how iron was produced and processed, paving the way for the widespread use of iron in various industries and construction during that era. His techniques were so influential that they have often been cited as foundational to the subsequent developments in metalworking and engineering.
Claims of Innovation and Issues of Attribution
Recent scholarly work suggests that Henry Court may not have been the true inventor of the rolling process, raising questions about the authenticity of his contributions. An article by Jenny Bulstrode claims that the methods credited to Court may have originally stemmed from a group of black metallurgists in Jamaica, including enslaved individuals. This assertion, however, has sparked considerable debate regarding the lack of supporting evidence and references in the original publication. The controversy highlights the ongoing challenges in accurately attributing innovation in the context of historical narratives, especially regarding marginalized groups.
The Replication Crisis in Historical Scholarship
The discussion surrounding the inaccurate claims about Court's inventions ties into a broader phenomenon known as the replication crisis in historical scholarship. Historians often encounter persistent inaccuracies or 'zombie' narratives that refuse to die, complicating the understanding of past events. Examples cited illustrate how widely accepted historical facts can be challenged upon closer examination, revealing underlying misconceptions or unfounded assertions. This crisis emphasizes the necessity for historians to scrutinize sources meticulously and fosters a call for more reliable methodologies in historical research.
Open History and Public Accountability
A proposed solution to mitigate issues of trust and verification in historical narratives is the concept of 'open history,' which encourages the sharing of primary sources and transparent research practices. By making transcripts and notes available, historians can increase accountability while allowing their peers and the public to verify claims independently. This movement seeks to dismantle barriers to access and encourages collaborative exploration of historical evidence. Embracing transparency in scholarly work could significantly enhance trust within the discipline and promote more accurate interpretations of the past.
The Role of Peer Review and Public Discourse
The failings of the peer review process are scrutinized in light of the controversy surrounding Bulstrode's article, revealing its limitations in preventing the dissemination of misleading information. Critics argue that reliance on peer-reviewed status does not guarantee accuracy, as reviewers may overlook fundamental issues during evaluation. This situation underscores the importance of fostering open discourse and encouraging critical assessments among historians, rather than strictly adhering to peer-reviewed credentials. The balance between maintaining scholarly rigor and recognizing the inherent imperfections in the review system is crucial for the integrity of historical research.
This is Episode 399 of Historically Thinking. And whenever the dial turns to 100, my thoughts turn towards what this podcast is about. So it seemed to me a good time to talk with Anton Howes.
Anton Howes is official historian at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, a unique organization the subject his first book Arts and Minds: How the Royal Society of Arts Changed a Nation, which we’ll have to have a conversation about one of these days.
His substack is Age of Invention, which I highly recommend. Our conversation focuses on three essays he wrote nearly two years ago: "Cort Case"; "Does History Have a Replication Crisis?"; and "Open History".
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
