Michael Roller responded on June 17th to my comments on his paper “The
Archaeology of Machine Consumerism: The Logistics of Factory Floor in
Everyday Life” published in *Historical Archaeology* Volume 53 No. 1, 2019



            Here is a summary of some of the points I made on his article
on HISTARCH on June 13, 2019.  First in review:

In my comments on Roller’s article I speculated that it appeared that he
placed more value on theory than other types of research.  I stand by that
observation.  My main reason for that observation was the limited knowledge
presented on the glass bottles recovered from the privy excavated in
Lattimer, Pennsylvania.   Dr. Roller goes on to say that my “larger
argument that my analysis has been clouded by (“marxist”) theory” I never
said or implied that!  My point was that Roller’s research favored theory
over research on the recovered objects from the privy.  I made the mistake
of a bad pun in the conclusion of my HISTARCH post with the statement that
“Roller’s paper falls short of his Marx.”  Sorry about that.

My comments on Roller’s article was to correct some of his information
about the development of glass technology and that given the introduction
of the Owens automatic bottle-blowing machine and its extensive impact in
bottle production during the first decade of the 20th century.  Roller’s
implies that the takeoff of when machine consumer was in the 1930s and
1940s, which is 20 to 30 years later.[i]
<https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn1>  Clearly, there is a difference in
terms of the mechanization between our positions.   Roller then states “I
will no chastise him for the self-aggrandizing bibliographic references.”  The
reason for citing my two articles was because our fellow archaeologists
probably have them in their library or can easily get to them.  Those
interested in following up on this research can use the references cited in
my articles to find the older sources.

I had not taken any position on theory other than to say that it is often
given more value than other types of research.  Theory backed up by
knowledge of the historical events, economic history and technological
changes involved would provide a stronger case of the theory’s value and
applicability.



Now let’s get back to the amount of research Roller has done on
machine-made glass containers.  Roller states “Perhaps it was not clear
when I referred to “fully” automatic examples of bottles I was
differentiating those made on conveyor belts with clear post 1930s
morphology from merely “automatic” or semi-automatic” machines.”  All
bottles whether mouth-blown or machine made have to be sent to an oven to
go through an annealing process.  Otherwise they would be fragile and could
break when exposed to temperature shock or being bumped.  The conveyer
belts take the completed bottle from the blowing machine to the oven for
annealing.  During the pre machine period when bottles were mouth-blow the
factories hired large numbers of boys to carry the bottles between the
blower and the ovens for annealing.   For example, Michael Owens began
working in a glass factory at age 10 in 1869 and by age 15 he had become a
journeyman glass blower.[ii] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn2>  By 1903
he had patented the automatic bottle-bowing machine.



*Bottles were not made on conveyer belts*.  Conveyer belts attached to
bottle blowing machines eliminated the need for this child labor.  “Owens
invention put an end to the abuse of children in the bottle industry.  In
1880, 25% of the labor force in American glass factories was younger than
16 years; in 1919 they made up less than 2% of the work force.”[iii]
<https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn3> John Spargo’s book *The Better Cry of
the Children* has a chapter “A Glass Factory by Night” that describes boy
laborers in a glass factory.[iv] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn4>  The
first Owens machines had conveyer belts taking the bottles from the machine
to the ovens for annealing.  Here is a description of an exhibition run of
an Owens machine in 1903:



“During the past week a Budget [*National Glass *Budget] representative
visited the former works of the Toledo Glass Co. … he was privileged to
thoroughly observe the machine in operation for more than three hours
during which time it made over 8 bottles per minute ….

            At present, we desire to say that, the Owens bottle blowing
machine is a mechanical marvel which is certain to rapidly revolutionize
the entire bottle, jar and prescription industry, and most effectively and
economically solve the problem of automatic vacuum glass gathering, blowing
and finishing, without any skilled workmen whatever.  The machine gathers
or fills its molds with glass, forms the ring, transfers the blank from the
blow mold, blows the bottle and automatically delivers the finished bottle
on manual or mechanical lear (sic) conveyor without the touch of a human
hand.” [v] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn5>



Some conveyer belts for other glass machines can be seen on page 423 of
Hodkin and Gousen’s *A Textbook of Glass Technology*.[vi]
<https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn6>  For some reason Dr. Roller assumed
that the conveyer belts were part of the production machines producing the
bottles. As I said in my first set of comments, more research should be
done on the history of glass technology to balance the theory discussion.  One
good source that provide excellent summary of the machines is Hodkin and
Gousen’s 1925 *A Handbook of Glass Technology*.  It has great pictures of a
number of semi and automatic bottle blowing machines and descriptions of
how they worked.  See footnote 5.  A second source is the 1953 *Handbook of
Glass Manufacture: A book of references for plant executive, technologist
and engineer* that was compiled and edited by Fray V. Tooley.[vii]
<https://mail.google.com/mail/#_edn7>  Johan Soetens provides an excellent
history of the development of bottle blowing machines with great pictures
of them.



Peace,

George L. Miller



------------------------------

[i] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref1> Roller, Michael

2019        The Archaeology of Machinic Consumerism: The Logistics of
Factory Floor in Everyday Life.  *Historical Archaeology* Vol 53 No. 1,
pages 11

[ii] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref2> Paquette, Jack K.

2010        *The Glass Makers*. Xlibris Corporation.

[iii] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref3> Soetens, Johan

2001        *In Glass Verpat: Packaged in Glass, European Bottles, Their
History and Production*.  DE Bataasche Leeuw, Amsterdam page 430.

[iv] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref4> Spargo, John

1906        *The Bitter Cry of the Children*. Pages 204-206.

[v] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref5> *National Glass Budget* August
15, 1903 courtesy of Gail Bardhan of the Corning Glass Museum

[vi] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref6> Hodkin, Fredrick William and
Arnold Gousen

1925        *A Handbook of Glass Technology*.  A. Van Nostrand Company, New
York.

[vii] <https://mail.google.com/mail/#_ednref7> Tooley, Fay V. Compiler and
Editor

1953                *Handbook of Glass Manufacture: A book of references
for the plant executive, technologist and Engineer*. Ogden Publishing
Company, New York.

########################################################################

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

########################################################################