Leicestershire (The East Midlands)was very pastorally orientated from the
late Middle Ages
with Leicester having industries such as hosiery and boot and shoe.
Northampton ?30 miles to the south was the nation's boot and shoe capital
from the C17. There was also a stong regional tradition of cottage
outworking associated with the hosiery industry dating from the C17 onwards.
The factory system only really developed in hosiery at the end of the 19th
century. I presume bone buttons were lesser status compared to the brass
buttons which Birmingham (not very far westward) was turning out by the
million. There is a paper on the Birmingham button industry in Post-Med Arch
for 1977.

paul courtney
Leicester
UK


----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy James Scarlett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bone buttons - understudied artifact?


> This leads to a terrific problem in modern archaeology!  Following Mary
and
> Paul, buttons of bone and shell serve as wonderful examples of something
we
> really don't quite understand well.  Cottage work slowly evolved into
button
> manufacturing industries over the 18th and 19th century, and these
> industries siphoned off volumes of what we consider foodways "waste" into
> productive-economic activities.  At the household level, the
> trade/production probably provided supplemental income.  Industrially, the
> developing industries, ranging from buttons to soap, leather, candles, and
> yes, even POTTERY.  We understand that the various industries evolved
> parallel to the developing industrial food network (see Claassen 1994 and
> Landon 1996 for excellent examples!).  We also know that we should study
> these processes as taphonomic forces effecting our studies of food
remains.
> Has anyone really nailed down the nature or extent of the trade in such
> "waste" products?  Differences between local/urban contexts?  Considered
> this from a household perspective?
>
> We have studies of the bone buttons, their use, how they served as
referents
> of identity, etc. (although I agree we may not have enough yet on this
> topic).  We have studies of foodways.  Has anybody linked them
> systematically, at either household or regional levels?  Claassen and
Landon
> both provide good places from which to leap, but will this will be
difficult
> to make operational at the household level!
>
> Tim
>
>
> Refs:
> Claassen, Cheryl (1994) "Washboards, Pigtoes, and Muckets: Historic
> Musseling in the Mississippi Watershed."  _Historical Archaeology_ 28(2).
>
> Landon, David L. (1996) "Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zooarchaeological
Study"
> _Historical Archaeology_ 30(1)
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Timothy James Scarlett
> Assistant Professor of Archaeology
> Program in Industrial History and Archaeology
> Department of Social Sciences
> Michigan Technological University
> 1400 Townsend Drive
> Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295 USA
> Tel (906) 487-2113 Fax (906) 487-2468 Internet [log in to unmask]
> MTU Website: http://www.industrialarchaeology.net
> SHA Website: http://www.sha.org  SIA Website: http://www.sia-web.org
> ********************************************************************
> "What drives graduate students to immerse themselves in some little known
> field of study is not expectation of reward-- though we may hope for it.
> The driving force is passion.  And passion cannot be judged, graded, or
put
> on a salary scale."
>      -- Philip Brady, "Tom Clancy and Me" NEA Higher Education Journal
2002.
>