Thanks. Replies from histarch will enhance my current Camford University study
in contemporary and historical archaeology entitled 'internet discussion lists
and differing perceptions of irony'

But seriously, the discussion of industrial archaeology has been fruitful,
inasmuch as it has demonstrated that it is vitally important to document the
physical traces of industry, as surviving features that need to be managed, and
to construct an understanding of the flow of processes that occured at sites.
 
In the UK we now record some workplaces before they close- by means of video and
sound recordings- so as to show the flow of processes as they happen. This can
include interviewing workers and asking them to describe their jobs. 

I agree with you whole heartedly that it is tremendously important to find the
people that were involved in these processes. This brings up the related
questions of domesticity and scale. When people mention industry we can become
fixated with the idea of the 'heroic' male worker labouring in the factory, or
foundry. Industrial archaeology - or at least the archaeology of
industrializing societies - must also involve the study of craft production
within the home and many other seemingly 'unindustrial' activites. In London
and Nottingham in in in the UK the production of clothes, and lace, were
undertaken by female out-workers in their own homes.This was also part of
industrial production and fuelled the growth of the industrial economy, in
between child rearing, cooking, and cleaning.This brings me to conclude that we
should properly be studying entire industrial societies,through the means
available historical archaeology. Call it what you will...



Quoting geoff <[log in to unmask]>:

> Who says we went "wrong"? aren't we getting closer to the "people" we're
> supposed to be digging up, and away from the treasure that doesn't really
> tell us much & distorts the public's perceptions & expectations?
>