Anita Cohen-Williams asked on 8/12/94:
"What is the difference between industrial archaeology and historical
archaeology? Is one a subset of the other? What are the current trends in
industrial archaeology?"
The answer, as always, depends upon with whom you are talking. My view of
industrial archaeology is that it is a subset of historical archaeology because
the methods used and materials recovered are so similar. One uses oral history,
archival research, and excavation to recover historical artifacts. Some of
those artifacts are commonly found on any historical site of the period under
investigation. What separates the two fields is that the industrial
architecture and materials can be quite different. While the two share the goal
of recovering items which will lead to functional and spatial interpretations,
the need for focus on process is perhaps more apparent in industrial
archaeology. What seems to left out of much industrial archaeology is the fact
that humans were present, due to the focus on architecture and the process.
However, the same can be said of some historical archaeology in general.
Perhaps the most salient difference is that industrial archaeology developed out
of two different disciplines, historical archaeology and historic preservation.
One IA conference I attended in 1978 had all its papers, with only one
exception, devoted to presenting historical research and adaptive reuse plans.
While these are important, I think that limiting industrial archaeology like
that is myopic. Industrial archaeology needs to include social history and
anthropology to flesh it out.
For example, when I investigated a cotton mill in Bay Springs, Mississippi, we
excavated the mill, but also half a dozen mill workers' houses, a general
store, and other building associated with the community. Mills were operated by
people and hence we need to focus on the entirety, not just the buildings and
machines.
William H. Adams
P.O. Box 1177
Philomath, OR 97370-1177 USA
503-929-3102 -3264 fax
[log in to unmask]
|
