I was trawling the net and came upon some papers which talked about the
“unusual” approach of using archaeological techniques to study industrial
heritage sites which made me wonder about the issue.

I find it odd that some would refuse to use the term ‘historical
archaeology” because it might be applied to Medieval archaeology (or even
classical archaeology) but surely any field where there is archaeological
and documentary evidence is where historical archaeological techniques are
applicable. Similarly the confining of Industrial archaeology to a set time
period is odd, presumably a study of gun flint making at Brandon is
industrial archaeology whereas a study of Aborigines who made the bifacial
pressure flaked Kimberly points isn’t industrial archaeology. 

I rather like the idea that industrial archaeology as the archaeology of
work because of its inclusion of lots of things that are generally not seen
as purely industrial. 

As for the need for more theory in industrial archaeology (apart from all
that chemical theory, physics, theory of structures …etc) let me remind you
that William Blake’s Dark Satanic Mills  are thought to refer to Oxford and
Cambridge Universities, need I say more.

 

Dr Iain Stuart

(Histarch rejects my logo)

[log in to unmask]

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006