Telling of the Anthracite: A Pennsylvania Posthistory

Philip Mosley’s Telling of the Anthracite: A Pennsylvania Posthistory asserts that the history of the anthracite coal region must continue to be told. Therefore, he has chosen to write a “posthistory” of the region, focusing on the period when the mining industry collapsed. Mosley acknowledges the environmental and social devastation that mining wrought, while also commending the region’s people, their work, and their values. To write anthracite’s posthistory, he compiled an impressive collection of what he calls “modes of recall” and “representational forms” that documents the region and its people (22). His analysis of these modes and forms is fascinating. Mosley concludes his posthistory by asserting that the anthracite story must not only be told but saved for future generations and offers suggestions how the telling and the remembering might be accomplished.As the subtitle of the book indicates, Mosley writes a posthistory, which he defines as “a discourse constructed from the moment of that symbolic ‘end’ of the industry” (16). He chooses 1960 as the beginning of the end. The year corresponds to two disastrous events, to changes in the study of history, and to the development of the heritage industry. Mosley identifies “the Knox Mine disaster (1959) and the start of the Centralia mine fire (1962)” as the catastrophic openings to anthracite’s posthistory (16). He dedicates chapter 2 to analyzing these disasters and how they have been portrayed by historians, filmmakers, and writers. The social history of the 1960s and the stress on memory also inform his posthistory. Finally, the rise of the heritage industry in the 1960s contributes to his decision to date anthracite’s posthistory to that decade.To explore anthracite’s posthistory, Mosley investigates modes of recall and representational forms. Modes of recall include “material culture in the form of sites, signs, souvenirs, and historical archaeology; interpersonal activity in the form of oral history, associations, festivals, gatherings, and Internet sites” (22). Representational forms involve “the cultural production of texts in literature and the arts (music, photography, film, mixed media, painting, sculpture)” (22). Mosley’s collection of these modes of recall and representational forms is impressive. The analysis of several of these sources are especially noteworthy. For example, he concludes his discussion of anthracite photography by noting, “In naming their works, these various photographers choose words suggestive of all that the anthracite industry has left behind . . . ‘remnants,’ . . . ‘relics,’ . . . ‘attic’ . . . These remainders are also reminders” (170). The photographs, like the books, films, signs, and souvenirs that Mosley details, are meant to convey the anthracite and remind the reader or viewer what once was and now is.Mosley concedes that numerous obstacles stand in the way of telling anthracite history and he worries about its being forgotten; however, he acknowledges that these hurdles can be overcome. The speed and dizzying availability of information in the digital age and a younger generation unaware of the significance of anthracite history are two impediments to remembering. Mosley sees the lack of a local history curriculum in schools, an undervaluing of the humanities, and historical trends that emphasize issues of race and sexuality as barriers to anthracite history. Although concerned with the stress placed on race and sexuality, his identification of this trend may inspire scholars of anthracite history to apply these perspectives to telling the region’s history. How did race impact who worked, lived, and leisured in the region? How did same-sex segregation impact mining, social and sexual relationships, labor, and play? Mosley recognizes that the same technology that overlooks the anthracite story might be leveraged by heritage scholars to share the region’s history via the internet and he looks to “groups of maverick adventurers . . . who enjoy exploring derelict and abandoned places in often physically daring ways” as inspirational historical guides (217). He also provides inroads into the region’s history by suggesting how ecological, environmental, social, and medical historical approaches can offer scholars new ways to study and narrate anthracite’s stories.Mosley’s book will inspire veteran scholars and new historians. His collection of modes of recall and representational forms are rich veins of research material. Due to the lack of an index and the absence of notes, a reader must labor to find some sources; that search might not bear fruit as Mosley’s collection is not comprehensive. One source that appeared to have been overlooked is Nancy McKinley’s St. Christopher on Pluto, an excellent collection of stories set in Northeast Pennsylvania.1 Given Mosley’s stress on tourism and adventure, other sources that might have been analyzed are amusement park rides, like Knoebel’s Black Diamond, which references the Centralia Mine Fire. Despite these editorial oversights, Mosley’s volume will be welcomed by historians of Pennsylvania, the anthracite region, and the postindustrial for showing how to write a posthistory, for its compilation of source material, and for its sharing of creative opportunities for future research.