The point I'm trying to make on scale is, I think, very important.  There is a
substantial difference between the Oxford Iron Works, near Lynchburg, Virginia
and the iron operations at Montpelier or Monticello Plantations or the cooper's
shop in Williamsburg.

Oxford, during our War for Independence, was running at least two blast furnaces
and a forge.  It produced 1600 tons of pig iron a year and hundreds of tons of
bar iron.  It also produced cast iron objects such as stoves, firebacks,
kettles, etc.  Much of the pig iron was shipped to forges for conversion into
bar iron or to Westham Foundry to cast cannon and shot for the war effort.

Monticello was primarily producing iron goods for the plantation, but also
produced goods (especially nails) for sale to other people in the area.
Montpelier had a large blacksmithy.  Way too big for just its own needs.  But,
its primary goal was to supply Montpelier and excess goods were sold locally.
That a condsiderable amount of excess capacity was deliberately built into both
does not make them "industrial".  I see plantations as an outgrowth of the Roman
Villa system.  The idea was selfsufficiency, but over capacity was a great way
to generate income.

The size of an "industrial" site has changed over time.  An iron/steel plant
today employs hundreds or even thousands of individuals.  2,000 years ago it
would have been considerably smaller.

There may also be a substantial social difference between an "industrial site"
and a site at which something is produced.  Iron plantations in Colonial America
involved, with families, a couple of hundred people.  There was usually
"company" housing, a company store, flour mill, smithy, often a saw mill.  It
involved wheelwrights, smiths, founders, colliers, miners, millwrights,
farriers, drovers, farmers,...  An iron works owned thousands of acres of land
to make charcoal.  This is very different from a cooperage with living
accomodations over top or in the back.  There is a "big house" for the
ironmaster or manager.  In America, especially the south, there were slaves.
The relations between the manager/master and workers was very different at an
iron works than that between a master and journeymen and apprentices in a small
shop.

Jamie Brothers

Jeff Morris wrote:

>  I have been following this thread with some interest and would like to add
> the following; Paul Courtney raises the point of whether or not an Industrial
> revolution took place based upon economic growth figures, I have always
> personally perceived the IR in Britain as being a technological event, that
> paved the way for later economic development during the 19th century.. I agree
> with James H. Brothers IV as industrial archaeology being associated with
> processes rather than a specific period.  Unfortunately many of us 'old
> worlders' still have some attachment to the 3 age system and its continuation
> into later periods and we tend to forget about the different chronology for
> the rest of the world :-) I am not sure if the scale of operation is
> important, rather the rationale behind it, the end product be it salt, iron,
> shoes etc., has to be made with a view to it being for commercial sale. As a
> closing point, I personally believe the industrial age in the Western world
> came to an end with the introduction of the transistor and the development of
> micro-technology, the impact of these in modern society must have been similar
> to the introduction of metals during the prehistoric period (depending on
> wherever and whenever this occurred). Jeff Morris



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%