We should also recall that the Society for Historical Archaeology presented
the US Forest Service with an SHA Award of Merit for their impressive
involvement of the public in historical archaeology via the Passport In
Time (PIT) program.
                                        RL Schuyler

P.S. I disagree with Ned's comments on Industrial Archaeology (or at
least I think I do) but we have already killed off that horse for
discussion in an earlier HISTARCH talk.

Patrick - Has it stopped snowing in Houghton yet for the season? Perhaps
that is why you are cranky.



At 01:14 PM 6/16/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>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
>*******************************************************************
>
Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
33rd & Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]