As a mere Physicist, I tremble to get involved, I does seem to depend upon
how one defines industrialised. Certainly the textile industry around
Lavenham in Suffolk would probably have considered itself industrialised in
the 16th century, whereas my ancestors digging coal in North Staffordshire
were still working in groups of less than a dozen in the mid 19th Century.
Water power for such things as fulling mills have a long history.
By the way, what is wrong with Newtonian dynamics, unless you are
contemplating a trip to alpha centauri, he is quite accurate enough for
normal life on earth and a lot simpler and quicker to work out.
John Clare
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stafford M Linsley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Swaledale


> >>"if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
(Isaac
> >>Newton)
> >Rod Ireland
>
> >Fair criticism does not diminish the pioneering status of mining
historians
> >like Raistrick. He and others increased the profile of the subject
> >introducing many, like myself, to mining, but we cannot continue to
accept
> >their work without question.
>
> >Peter Claughton
>
> My thoughts exactly, but I wish to go further.
>
>
> I am pleased to note that Martin Roe concedes that historical 'facts' do
not
> have an independence entirely distinct from historical/archaeological
> interpretation and re-interpretation.   I long ago came to believe that
all
> historians/archaeologists ought to be allowed the privilege of recanting
on
> some of their earlier writings, and I have personal evidence that Arthur
> Raistrick did, on occasions, do just that.
>
> I invite Martin to consider a re-interpretation of the following
statements
> (facts?) in his email:
>
> 1.  'Raistrick was an enginer [sic] not a trained historian.'
>
> Was he also Reader in Applied Geology at King's College/The University of
> Newcastle?
>
> 2. 'Compare the material in his Swaledale books with Bernard Jennings MA
> thesis from 1959 and you will find a lot of
> common ground. You will therefore see much of his Swaledale book was based
> on research over 20 years old (conducted by another researcher) ...'
>
> Is it conveivable that Raistrick helped Jennings with his MA, maybe even
> supervised it?
>
> 3. ' Martin Roe (Quite capable of progressing my carear [sic] without a
hand
> up from Arthur Raistrick)'
>
> Putting on one side the despicable and arrogant attitutude here displayed,
> can it be shown that Martin (who is perhaps a trained historian and, one
> hopes, a trained human being) has not already received a hand-up from
Arthur
> Raistrick?  Is it possible that Raistrick helped create a climate of
opinion
> which fostered a more widespread understanding and appreciation of the
> subject of industrial history and archaeology, thereby enabling some
people
> to make  a carrer out of it?
>
> 4.  And here is one from Martin's web pages:
>
> 'The textile industry was probably the first to be industrialised and the
> earliest factory buildings developed to house particular machinery and
> processes, with spinning and weaving the easiest to identify. Spinning was
> the first to leave a domestic setting in the mid 18th century but it was
> nearly 50 years later that weaving moved to the factory. Even then the
> domestic hand weaving tradition continued right through to the mid 19th
> century.'
>
> Ignoring the clumsy sentence construction, consider the following:
>
> Was the coal industry industrialised before the textile industry?
>
> Was the iron industry (eg the Crowley works on Tyneside) industrialised
> before the textile industry?
>
> Did the fulling of cloth leave its domestic setting before the spinning of
> fibres?
>
> Did any domestic hand weaving continue beyond the mid 19th century?
>
>
>
>
> Stafford M Linsley
> Lecturer in Industrial Archaeology
> The University
> Newcastle upon Tyne
> England
> NE1 7RU
> Tel. 0191-222 6795