HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert L Schuyler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:23:11 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
Ned: A final, final parting shot.

        I agree with most of what you have to say; however, none of it is
excluded by a holisitic, anthropological definition of Industrial
Archaeology. The problem is that all your arguments could just as easily
apply to any specialization in archaeology. They are all
"inter-disciplinary", depend, in part, on experts outside of archaeology
and anthropology and could be seen [but not productively] as fields that
stand on their own with multiple feet in multiple disciplines.

        Industrial Archaeology, as a part of historical archaeology,
should be seen as the study of a major stage in human culture history in
all of its aspects. [A stage, not a "period."]

        What about Johnny Ward's Ranch (1860s to early 20th century)
excavated by Bunny Fontana et al in Arizona? It is an isolated site but
is, in my opinion, very much the subject matter of industrial archaeology
(as well as general historical archaeology). Almost its entire
archaeological assemblage is clearly a product of the Industrial Revolution
from its mass produced cut and wire nails to its tin cans. Also such 19th
century ranches and farms in the later 19th century American West were
very directly tied into the industrial capitalistic market place. Of
course it would be nice to have people who knew something about 19th
century ranches, or even present day ranchers, involved in the site, just
as an expert or two on nails would not hurt. Indeed, most of these topics
were so under studied in 1962 (when the site report was published) that
Fontana had to do the basic footwork and JOHNNY WARD'S RANCH became a
"guide to 19th artifacts" for the entire field.

        The problem with your definition (and I do not reject most of
its elements) is that, although it is the definition that has and does
structure the field, and that has greatly helped it to become
established via groups like the SIA, this same definition could eventually
 push Industrial Archaeology off into a corner of scholarship and so greatly
limit its growth and future.


        This is the final parting shot!

                                        Bob Schuyler

ATOM RSS1 RSS2