Whisky Party

After reading John Lamond’s post at Whisky Pages, “Whisky Collectors; to be praised or pitied?”  I had some new thoughts on the topic.  As I’ve already noted in my repsonse to Mike’s post from a few weeks back, I think its a great idea to stash rare or interesting bottles to be opened at later, better times.  This may look like collecting to some, but its just thoughtful drinking, really.  For me collecting for its own sake seems a bit empty, but if there is a purpose then it can’t be knocked.

What Lamond suggests in his post is that one benefit to collecting whisky (which could be either purposeful or unintended) is the preservation of the material culture that will one day be all that is left from earlier periods of the whisky industry.   Collectors thus serve as sorts of “archaeologists of whisky.”  As an archaeologist myself, I took note of his point.  However, after Lamond brought this conceptual link to my attention, I realized that there is far greater parallel between antiquities collectors and whisky collectors (not surprisingly).

Yes it is true that both types of collectors often provide the future with priceless assemblages of well-stored and maintained artifacts that sometimes make their way to the public via museums.  And it is arguably the case that some of these incredible and intellectually valuable artifacts would not otherwise survive or reach the future public.  But the western antiquities market is actually destructive to both our cultural heritage (such as, eg, the site of ancient Babylon) and to the value of the objects collected.

Clearly, whisky collection causes none of the underlying cultural destruction that antiquities collection does.  But there is a salient relationship there.  The destructive thoughtlessness of the antiquities dealers and collectors is not so evident among whisky collectors, but the idea that oneself is a better steward of cultural heritage than the collective community is a problematic approach to material culture.  The underlying point that Lamond raises is the question of whether we have adequete recording of the whisky industry as it unfolds without whisky collectors.  I think that this is a rich discussion and one that will ultimately lead to better ongoing efforts to document the development of one of the most enjoyable global pastimes.

Not having been to Scotland yet myself, I cannot vouch for the completeness of the various museums and whisky exhibits there.  However, a quick google search suggests that the passing of knowledge about whisky traditions from one generation to the next is alive and well:

Whisky Heritage, Dufftown Museum, et al.

These small museums have no doubt benefited from private collections.  But is that their most significant attribute?  Taken ad infinitum, the practice of storing whisky privately with the idea that it will one day express to a new generation what was once enjoyed does not have much significance if no one ever consumed any of that whisky.  I hope that the public will trust in legitimate archaeological work for the preservation of all of its material culture, even strong drink.  Here’s an excellent example:

The Spirit of George Washington

For those who’d like a more academic view of the excavation results:

Whiskey on the Rocks: Excavating and Interpreting the

Archaeological Remains of George Washington’s Distillery by Eleanor Breen

No related posts.