Dear Ned, et al,
Thanks for the unecessary deference, Ned, but you will note that I
didn't ever use the term "industrial" in my initial query. The IA
dimension perhaps does deserve consideration with a site that
apparently only exists because of its industrial functions, and I do
maintain that attention to the domestic and commercial portions of
such a site can benefit from an approach that is informed by IA. But
that is not what really caught my eye. It was the implicit notion in
the original inquiry that archaeology was being carried out without
sufficient preparation, perhaps even without sufficient reason.
For your information, the original poster, Mr. Quertermous, answered
my questions thoroughly via a direct email note. He is not directing
this project, which is exploratory in nature, and is part of a Forest
Service Passport In Time (PIT) program. I am generally reassured by
his response. I do wonder sometimes about the volume of archaeology
being done under this program, especially the amount focused on
mining and industrial sites, and whether it always gets the same
consideration about conservation of resources that other categories
of sites get. Are the sites being dug thoughtfully and with good
reason?
NOTE: please don't read this as condemnation or even a criticism of
PIT projects on mining and industrial sites; I participated in one
during the 90s, at the Norwich/Ohio Trap Rock Mine on the Ottawa
National Forest and will testify that PIT is a great program. In this
particular case, it resulted not only in excellent
volunteer/professional interactions, and lasting USFS interpretive
activities, but also two excellent MS theses ( by Wendell Greek and
Kelly Dixon) and an award-winning published article (by David Landon
and Timothy Tumberg). A serious research design and background work
preceded the fieldwork, and publication was an expected outcome. I
wonder if this is the case with the numerous projects being
undertaken under the PIT banner these days. Looking over the
advertised list the last few years, they seem to be more and more
common.
Yes, in retrospect, I reckon I should just ask this question to the
responsible USFS parties rather than publicly question the motives of
a person who harmlessly asks for advice. Guilty as charged, and
cranky as ever. I will pursue a further answer privately and not
clog the list.
PEM
>Deferring, always, to Patrick Martin on the subject of Industrial
>Archaeology, I'd like to suggest phrasing the original question a bit
>differently.
>
>The subject site is a company store, not really "IA" in its classic
>sense of large machines that make noises. There are industrial
>questions to be asked, but they relate more closely to issues of
>worker welfare and domestic economy.
>
>Any site, of any sort, should be dug only by someone who is "well
>read" in the subject matter, as Martin suggests, but I have
>difficulty labelling a company store, or worker housing, as a
>subject for "Industrial Archaeology," when the term is used as a
>proper noun with capitalized initial letters.
>
>There are industrial questions everywhere in archaeology. Look at a
>tin can, and immediately you must comprehend a complex series of
>industrial changes in the evolving technology of can manufacture.
>Same with glass containers and pottery, and almost any other class of
>things people make.
>
>Those of us who study the archaeology of industrial processes have a
>great deal to contribute to the "mainstream" domestic
>pots-and-privies archaeology, but please, please, please, don't infer
>that domestic archaeology on an industrial site is, in any way, IA.
>
>Industrial archaeologists should concern themselves with the
>archaeology of the process, and its impact on the industrial
>community and society at large. But let's not call it industrial
>archaeology when we dig the ironmaster's household midden or the
>company store.
>
>
>
>
>At 1:50 PM -0700 6/15/02, Patrick E. Martin wrote:
>>Dear Grant,
>>
>>At the risk of being recognized (once again) as a terrible, critical
>>curmudgeon, I wonder what justifies excavation on this site by
>>persons and/or institutions who are admittedly "not as well read as I
>>should be in the area"? Is the site endangered? Is there a
> >compelling reason to dig without thorough preparation and planning?
--
*******************************************************************
Patrick E. Martin, Professor of Archaeology
Director of Graduate Studies in Industrial Archaeology
Editor of IA, Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology
Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295 USA
Telephone (906) 487-2070 Fax (906) 487-2468 Internet [log in to unmask]
SIA Website: http://www.sia-web.org
MTU Website: http://www.industrialarchaeology.net
*******************************************************************
|