Bea,
I completely agree, however I do feel that the predominant area of study
for the 'industrial archaeologist' is that of the last 250 years. I do
not agree with this theoretically, but it is the main chronology of study
adopted but those interested in industrial remains.
Cheers,
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dobson Tel: +44 01904 433953
Experimental Officer Fax: +44 01904 433902
Department of Archaeology Email: [log in to unmask]
The King's Manor
University of York
York, YO1 7EP, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Bea Hopkinson wrote:
> Steve,
> Appreciated your analysis of current practice and have to say I have
> difficulty understanding the practice you describe as follows :
> > The more traditional definition of
> >industrial archaeology as being the archaeology of the last 250years would
> >in theory include any material culture up to and including the present
> >day, but in practice ends sometime around WWII. <snip> >Personally I favour
> >a thematic definition that is concerned with
> >the study of organised 'industrial' production of any period.
>
> I have always classified my own work as 'industrial archaeology' -
> that is, that part of my studies that relates to an ancient organized
> salt industry traceable to the 4th millenium BC in Mesopotamian and 1000
> BC in the UK. When this same industry continues into the historic period
> i.e. the Roman and mediaeval period I refer to it as a 'mediaeval
> industry' for which we do have archaeological remains, and thus is still
> 'industrial archaeology'. At the same time I have also referred to it as
> 'a historically ancient industry' because of the historic texts that
> relate to the site.
>
> In my mind the above can correctly be described as 'industrial
> archaeology' differentiated from the modern understanding of terms like
> 'industry' or 'industrial revolution' or the socio-ecomic aspects of the
> latter. If there is ressurrection of such modern sites in an
> archaeological sense then why not just say 19th century or 20th century
> industrial remains
>
> Bea
>
> -----------
>
> On 3/31/99 9:01 AM Steve Dobson writes:
>
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >Firstly, you may want to post your query to ind-arch the industrial
> >archaeology mailbase list.
> >
> >There is currently an ongoing debate between those archaeologists who
> >consider their research to be 'industrial' and generally form two
> >'camps' - thematic or period-based. The more traditional definition of
> >industrial archaeology as being the archaeology of the last 250years would
> >in theory include any material culture up to and including the present
> >day, but in practice ends sometime around WWII.
> >
> >Personally I favour a thematic definition that is concerned with
> >the study of organised 'industrial' production of any period. I am
> >co-organising a session at EAA 'Archaeologies of industrial labour' that
> >hopes to address this topic of discussion (there will be a call for papers
> >soon)
> >
> >In terms of references a couple of excellent texts are:
> >
> >Palmer & Neaverson's (1998) Industrial Archaeology: principles and
> >practice - Routledge
> >
> >SOCIAL APPROACHES TO THE INDUSTRIAL PAST / The Archaeology and
> >Anthropology of Mining Edited by A Bernard Knapp, Vincent C Pigott and
> >Eugenia W Herbert 1998 306 pp, 35 illus, 6 tables. HB Routledge,
> >London and New York.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Steve Dobson Tel: +44 01904 433953
> >Experimental Officer Fax: +44 01904 433902
> >Department of Archaeology Email: [log in to unmask]
> >The King's Manor
> >University of York
> >York, YO1 7EP, UK
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, P.M. Graves-Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone have any suggestions for recent and fairly comprehensive
> >> books on industrial archaeology? at the same time, I wonder why it is
> >> that there is something called "industrial" archaeology whcih seems
> >> to subsume any concern with anything relatively modern.
> >>
> >> Or to put it another way is the preservation of Paul McCartney's
> >> house or a WW2 site "industrial" archaeology, or is there a modern
> >> archaeology in the same sense that you can have medieval or roman or
> >> prehistoric archaeology. And (if you'll forgive me for going on) how
> >> do all these relate to the various academic forays into modern
> >> material culture?
> >>
> >> paul
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Beatrice Hopkinson 73071,327@compuserve
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|