On 1/10/2000 6:05 AM Jason Siddall writes:
>
>Question.
>
(snip)
>Should we not at least try to describe the post mediaeval,
>modern and industrial with as much care as the prehistoric?
>maybe we should split the medieval, post medieval and modern
>up in descriptive or functional sub sets?
The term 'industrial' nowadays seems to be taking on the
meaning of 'modern industrial'. However, there were also numerous 'Iron
Age industrial' salt sites and these are rarely if ever so designated
(except
perhapsfor Olduvai in the paleolithic!). Pottery centers seem to fair
better
and they also are industrial sites. Either so designate all prehistoric
industrial sites as well as modern - or not at all.
My own thinking is that '1940's industrial site' is as explicit as
'Iron Age
industrial site' - but to use the term 'Industrial' as a period of
archaeology
in the modern age is confusing.
Bea
>
>ie
>
>16th century
>18th century
>
>or
>Early Norman
>Elizabethan
>Industrial
>
>Jason A. Siddall
>Acting SMR Manager
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Beatrice Hopkinson 73071,327@compuserve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|