This discussion (debate) goes way back in the history of the field. There 
was a debate on the issue in Volume 1 if the Newsletter of the Society for 
Industrial Archaeology between several people [see under Schuyler, 
"Industrial Archaeology as a Subfield of Historical Archaeology 1972 SIA 
Newsletter Vol. 1, No 6, p. 8] although I do not recall all the 
participants. It was in part the same debate as this one on our list.

I took the position that Industrial Archaeology was a subfield of general 
Historical Archaeology and as such was the archaeology of the Industrial 
Revolution and the period of ca. 1800 to the present. It should cover both 
the instruments of industry (machinery, factories, canals, railroads, mills 
etc) but also all other aspects of culture (e.g. workers housing, urban 
neighborhoods and even farms in the industrial era) - both, not one or the 
other.

However, I think I and others lost this debate and have gone on to just 
call such holistic industrial period archaeology, Historical Archaeology. 
Many do seem to want to keep the term IA to refer to the specific elements 
of industrialization and they have a point that most archaeologists are not 
experts on dams, canals, big gears etc. etc. Also most industrial 
archaeologists (based on publishing) are not archaeologists (diggers). One 
of the points in the old debate is that some of us (e.g. Ed Rutsch) wanted 
to get industrial archaeologists digging not just describing above ground 
features or just clearing them for a better view.

The key issue is that the two parts of the industrial picture (the 
instrumentation and the general socio-cultural context) must not get 
separated if we are to understand this period of the Modern World. I always 
liked the late Kenneth Hudson in that he mixed such different elements of 
the industrial past in his books.
                                                         Bob Schuyler

At 11:05 AM 9/28/2006, you wrote:
>One additional brief side remark; why is it that we are content to
>allow specialists to study the bumps and nicks in cow bones, the
>chemistry of glazes, and, heaven forbid, the details of sewing kits,
>but if someone is interested in big, heavy, hot metal, or gears and
>cogs, that is not allowable as archaeology?
>Patrick E. Martin
>Professor of Archaeology
>Department of Social Sciences
>Michigan Technological University
>Houghton, MI  49931
>phone 906-487-2070,email [log in to unmask]
>www.industrialarchaeology.net

Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

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