Print

Print
I have it confess that my comments were directed primarily to 19th and 20th century railways,  rather than earlier wagon ways,  which are of course a variety of railway.   I have certainly never intended to imply that railway archaeology is not a legitimate subject for study or that valuable results cannot be obtained by archaeological methods.  My question was whether it required a fully constituted society,  with all the trappings that involves and whether a better solution might not be to form an autonomous section attached to one of the societies within whose scope the subject falls,  such as Railway and Canal Historical Society,  or Association for Industrial Archaeology.  I am also concerned at the proposal to publish a separate journal,  which will almost certainly have a very low circulation,  rather than provide articles for journals such as those of the Society's mentioned.   The latter course will bring the results of the work of Railway Archaeologists before a much wider archaeological and historical public.  Articles in a special Society journal will reach current Society members,  but be largely unavailable to any one else (including members joining later) as the periodical is unlikely to be taken by many libraries.  
 
Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]>Paul Vigor
To: [log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
Sent: 27 June 2001 23:33
Subject: Re: Railway Archaeology

Writing to Brian Longstaff, c/o the Ind-Arch List, Peter King appears to consider the archaeology of railways to be  "...relatively recent." Consequently the study of railways should be considered an historical discipline, rather than an archaeological one.
 
How "recent" are railways, and when do they first become a legitimate archaeological resource? According to Dr Barrie Trinder, primitive wooden railways were a feature of coal mining activities in eastern Shropshire as early as 1605. I believe that German usage of guided wagons (hunds?) in adits commenced even earlier. Have I read that German miners may have introduced primitive railway technology (hunds (?) with flangeless wooden wheels, running along wooden rails, guided by a wooden pin - not unlike toy slot cars?) to certain metal mines in the Lake District in the 16C? Who knows, perhaps the Chinese were merrily using primitive railways a thousand years before their "invention" in the West?!
 
Having gained some experience of railway archaeology whilst analysing/exploring various primitive railway systems in Shropshire (circa 1730s) and the Forest of Dean (post 1801), I can confirm that focused field analysis of the physical remains of early railways often provides more hard information than archive research.
 
Gaining a practical understanding of railways as linear transportation systems, and the ways in which they relate to the landscapes through which they pass can be an invaluable observational exercise. Archaeological information so gained can often dramatically improve one's understanding of a district's/region's industrial past.
 
I fully accept that thorough, archive-based investigation is a vital prerequisite of successful industrial archaeological fieldwork; however, the required documentary information has first to have survived the passage of time; and second, been deposited in an accessible archive. In practice, a substantial earthwork tends to be infinitely more durable than most paperwork!
 
Whilst the concept of an archaeology of railways may not be to everyone's liking, it does have its place. The existence of a Railway Archaeology Society, whether physical or virtual, must encourage original thought, and may initiate interesting research agendas. If Brian is prepared to put in the time and effort, surely we are honour-bound to support him as best we can?
 
Finally, if 1605 is considered too recent to justify valid archaeological interest, where does that leave the numerous topics and subjects discussed and debated by members of this List?
 
Regards
 
Paul H. Vigor.