I think this discussion is excellent.
Scholar A publishes a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Scholar B retorts
with his thoughts and opinions (and references!) in a public venue created
specifically to discuss / debate points in historical archaeology.
Discussion, point and counterpoint ensues. Except for a couple of
pseudo-snarky remarks, discussion was polite and professional.
Thank you!
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:38 PM George Miller <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> *Some thoughts on Michael P. Roller’s article “The Archaeology of Machinic
> Consumerism: The Logistics of the Factory Floor” by George L. Miller. June
> 11, 2019*
>
> Roller’s article appears to place more value on theory than on other types
> of research. I am glad to see all of the references he provided on the
> ways that society is changing. It appears to me that Roller constructed
> his model of “Machinic Consumerism” and then went to web sites to pull
> together information on some of the artifacts from privy fill that dates
> from ca 1910 to ca 1959 that he excavated in Lattimer, Pennsylvania. This
> family that was associated with this household most likely were coal miners
> or involved later in the textile manufacturing.
>
>
>
> Roller’s use of the information from the web sites has some problems. For
> example on page seven he mentions “two or three” plates marked MADE IN
> JAPAN. He cites a web site by Jan-Erik Nilsson that “Such patterns largely
> date to the period after the Second World War, when Japanese-made import
> ceramics were required to be marked as such.” Page 23 of the Nilsson web
> site clearly states that the 1892 McKinley Tariff required all imported
> ceramics to have a mark as to the country of origin. Japanese ceramics
> until 1921 were marked made in Nippon, after that date they were required
> to be marked made in Japan. Following the Nilsson comments on the marking
> of Japanese ceramics he shows several plates marked “MADE IN OCCUPIED
> JAPAN” and states that this mark was used from 1946 to 1952. This
> information clearly suggests that the Japanese plates from the privy date
> from before WWII.
>
>
>
> That is a minor mistake, however, the discussion of the take off period for
> glass containers is more problematic. On page eleven Roller states:
> “Recovered glass bottles demonstrate characteristics from semi-automatic
> machining processes, such as Owens suction scars from the first decades of
> the 20th century (SHA 2014). These are followed, by fully automatic
> examples from the 1940s and with base knurling and stippling that not only
> provide traction for conveyor-belt production, but also served to conceal
> the signs of production of the finished product.”
>
>
>
> This statement is used to describe the takeoff of mass production. It is
> wrong on a couple of points. One is that the Owens machine was the first
> fully automatic bottle-blowing machine to be invented and put into
> production. The Owens machine lowered the cost and greatly accelerated the
> production glass containers. The average labor cost for a gross of
> bottles before the Owens machine in 1902 was $1.53 per gross. The Owens
> Company was quoted as reducing labor cost to $0.06 per gross (Miller and
> McNichol 2012:81). In 1903 it was stated that the early Owens machine
> could produce ten bottles per minute (Miller and McNichol 2012:83). The
> fifteen-arm Owens machine that was developed later could produce 350 gross
> pint bottles in 24 hours or a rate of 20 bottles a minute (Miller and
> Sullivan 1984:86).
>
>
>
> After the Owens machine was patented in 1903 they incorporated the Owens
> Bottle Machine Company (Miller and McNichol 2012:78). The Owens Bottle
> Machine Company did not sell their machine to other glass manufacturers,
> but only leased them with limits on what the lessee could produce on the
> machine. These were licensed to the major glass producers as shown below.
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Company
>
> Leased to produce
>
> 1904
>
> Baldwin-Travis, later merged with Thatcher Manufacturing Co.
>
> Milk bottles
>
> 1904
>
> Ohio Bottling Co.
>
> Beer, porter and Soda bottles
>
> 1905
>
> Owens European Bottle Machine Co.
>
> Bottles for the European market
>
> 1906
>
> Greenfield Fruit Jar Co. to Ball Bros in 1909
>
> For fruit jars
>
> 1907
>
> Rhein-Ahr Glasfabrik Co.
>
> Apollinaris and mineral water bottles
>
> 1909
>
> Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
>
> For packers ware
>
> 1909
>
> H. J. Heinz Co.
>
> For Heinz Company products
>
> 1909
>
> Whitney Glass Works
>
> Ammonia bottles and prescription ware
>
> 1910
>
> Illinois Glass Co.
>
> Whiskeys
>
> 1910
>
> Charles Boldt
>
> Whiskeys
>
> 1913
>
> Maryland Glass Co.
>
> For blue glass containers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A more complete list of licenses for the use of the Owens machine can be
> found on Miller and McNichol 2012:93-95. From the above list of firms
> using the Owens Automatic Bottle Blowing machine, it is clear that glass
> container production began to take off in the first decade of the 20th
> century. An excellent understanding of the impact of machine production of
> glass containers can be found in Scoville’s *Revolution in Glass Making*.
> Web sites such as the SHA one for Bottle Dating are a great source for
> identification but are not a substitution for research and going back to
> the cited articles from the web sites.
>
>
>
> Roller’s description of bottles recovered from the privy, as
> being from fully “automatic examples from the 1940s and with base knurling
> and stippling” is interesting. The introduction of beer cans in 1935 led
> to the glass industry developing light weight beer bottles that were
> throwaway products to compete with the canned beer (Miller and McNichol
> 2012:89). Archaeological assemblages have a problem in documenting
> changing consumption patterns of beer bottles because beer bottles used
> before Probation carried a 2-cent deposit per bottle and they would be
> rarely discarded unless broken. After the development of the throwaway
> bottle it would appear the beer consumption increased, but that would be a
> factor of the change to throwaway in containers. There are other areas
> where archaeological assemblages fall short in the studies of consumption
> patterns.
>
>
>
> Much has been made of the differences between bottles made on
> semi-automatic versus fully automatic machine-made bottles. Our ability to
> identify bottles made on the two processes is very limited. The Owens made
> bottles are an exception because of the suction scar. Here are some
> comments on this from my 1984 article with Catherine Sullivan.
>
>
>
> “All glass-blowing machines (semi-automatic and automatic) that have been
> successfully taken into production, have involved three separate molding
> steps. These involve a ring mold which shapes the finish, a parison or
> part-size mold to give initial shape to the hot glass, and a blow mold or
> full-size mold to form the container’s final shape, size and any embossed
> letters or designs it might have.”
>
>
>
> The parison and blow mold lines will be together where they meet the ring
> mold, but often are not together at the base of the container that is
> caused by movement from the parison mold to the blow mold. Add a feeder to
> a semi-automatic machine and it becomes a fully automatic bottle-blowing
> machine with no changes in the mold lines.
>
>
>
> There are a number of underutilized sources that anyone studying 20th
> century consumption patterns one might want to consult. The *International
> Scientific Committee on Price History* was organized in 1929 and later
> received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation (Cole 1938:XXI). Funding
> for price histories of many cities in America, Europe and elsewhere were
> the results. This study was thought to be helpful in understanding the
> Great Depression and other economic events. This type of research focused
> on gathering raw data fell out of favor with the rise of a new paradigm
> that was reflected in Koopmans 1947 article “Measurement without Theory.” A
> number of academic disciplines moved toward a theory approach to data
> (Fischer 1996:Appendix O.) Fischer provides an excellent discussion of the
> shift toward the role of data in research. Fischer makes excellent use of
> data from the *International Committee on Price History* showing the value
> of such information and its usefulness in constructing and understanding
> price cycles through history. Fischer’s book is very readable volume and
> helped my research. He shows that data are forever and theory comes and
> goes.
>
>
>
> During World War I the United States government established the *War
> Industry Board* under the direction of Bernard M. Baruch that worked to cut
> down on waste by reducing the variety of things in production. For example
> “The number of colors on typewriters ribbons was reduced from 150 to 5;
> Styles of pocket knives were cut from 6,000 to 144” (Hession and Sardy
> 1971:568). The War Industry Board papers from the meetings held by many
> manufacturers of various commodities are held in the National Archives.
> These
> provide an insight into these industries at a point in time. Later during
> the Great Depression, Hoover continued this effort to reduce the variety of
> products and to standardize sizes to help with economic recovery.
>
>
>
> During the Depression in 1938 Congress established a committee
> titled the *Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power: Hearings
> before the Temporary National Economic Committee of Congress of the United
> States*. The volumes containing the testimony of industrial leaders before
> these committees and they reveal a great deal of information on
> development, restraints of trade, patents and other information. David
> Lynch’s 1946 book *The Concentration of Economic Power* provides an
> excellent overview of the hearings and the contents of the various volumes.
> These volumes are a gold mine of information. We could use another
> congressional committee looking into the concentration of economic power in
> our present economy.
>
>
>
> Last but not least are the reprinted catalogs such as the 1896
> Montgomery Company and later ones by Sears and Roebuck. Looking at the
> great variety of goods available suggests that this may reflect a take off
> an age of mechanical production. An excellent study by Emmet and Jeuck
> titled *Catalogues and Counters*: *A History of Sears, Roebuck and Company*
> provides an insight into the use of their economic power to make large
> purchases to reduce prices of things like bicycles, sewing machines and
> cream separators that speeded up the consumption of these items and many
> others. In short, the lowering of prices created a series of horizon events
> in consumption. This is an excellent read and well worth adding to your
> library if you are a student of 20th century material culture.
>
> I wanted to bring these sources to the attention of those doing
> research on 20th century material culture. It is time to stop being held a
> prisoner by the assemblage you are working with and to expanding your
> research. Come on in, the water is fine. I find that theory research
> being valued over other types of research to be irritating. Roller’s paper
> falls short of his Marx.
>
>
>
> Peace,
>
> George L. Miller.
>
>
>
> Cole, Arthur Harrison Cole
>
> 1938 *Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States
> 1700-1861*.
> Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
>
>
>
> Emmet, Boris and John E. Jeuck
>
> 1950 *Catalogues and Counters: A History of Sears, Roebuck and
> Company*. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
>
>
>
> Fischer, David Hackett
>
> 1996 *The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhyme of History*.
> Oxford
> University Press, New York.
>
>
>
> Hession, Charles H. and Hyman Sardy
>
> 1971 *Ascent to Affluence: A History of American Development*. Allyn
> and Bacon, Inc, Boston.
>
>
>
> Koopmans, Tjalling
>
> 1947 Measurements without Theory. *Review of Economic Studies*
> 29:161-172 as cited on page 313 of David Hackett Fischer.
>
>
>
> Lynch, David
>
> 1946 *The Concentration of Economic Power*, Columbia University Press,
> New York.
>
>
>
> Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko and Andrew Madsen
>
> 2000 Telling Time for Archaeologist. *Northeast Historical Archaeology*
> Vol 29:1-24.
>
>
>
> Miller, George L. and Tony McNichol
>
> 2012 Dates for Suction Scarred Bottoms: A Chronology for Early Owens
> Machine-Made Bottles. *Northeast Historical Archaeology* Vol 41:75-95.
>
>
>
> Miller, George L. and Cathrine Sullivan
>
> 1984 Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Mouth-Blown
> Bottles. *Historical Archaeology* Vol 19(2):86.
>
>
>
> Roller, Michael P.
>
> 2019 The Archaeology of Machinic Consumerism: The Logistics of the
> Factory Floor. *Historical Archaeology* Vol. 53, 1:3-24.
>
>
>
> Scoville, Warren C.
>
> 1948 *Revolution in Glass Making: Entrepreneurship and
> Technological Changes in the American Industry 1880-1920.* Harvard
> University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
>
> ########################################################################
>
> Access the HISTARCH Home Page and Archives:
> https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=HISTARCH
>
> Unsubscribe from the HISTARCH List:
>
> https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
>
> ########################################################################
>
########################################################################
Access the HISTARCH Home Page and Archives:
https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=HISTARCH
Unsubscribe from the HISTARCH List:
https://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1
########################################################################
|