Industrial Archaeology Patrick E. Martin Introduction industrialization. The archaeology of industry has not been a core thematic focus of historical archae- The Industrial Revolution is arguably one of the ologists over the four decades’ development of the most important social phenomena responsible for field, but recently it is drawing increasing attention shaping the modern world. Of course, some histor- and interest. While other scholars have found indus- ians and economists have long contended that this try a fertile field for study, mainstream archaeolo- was or was not a ‘‘revolution’’ in the strictest sense gists have come to it slowly. Any reader can examine of the word and scholars still debate whether the use the products of the Society for Historical Archae- of this metaphor is problematic. Most writers agree ology to evaluate this issue in a North American that this was not an event, but rather a process, with context, or the publications of the Society for Post- predictable precursors and variable rates of change Medieval Archaeology (SPMA) for insight into the from place to place. While earlier shifts in produc- situation in the United Kingdom. If industrializa- tive organization and technological sophistication tion is so important, why have members of these set the stage for the rise of manufacturing and all of two groups of archaeologists paid so little explicit its associated social dimensions, the changes in scale attention to it, and why are they coming to it now? and intensity of productivity, settlement patterns, This chapter will examine the premises laid out distribution, exchange, and control that character- above and attempt to explain the perceived lack of ize industrialized societies have had a profound and critical study, as well as some promising trends and lasting impact on the way we live today. These prospects for the future. It will review important forces have fundamentally shaped the scope and scholarship, institutions, and methods for the scale of the remains studied by historical archaeol- study of industrial archaeology (IA), embracing ogists. To ignore or discount the central role of the global orientation of the volume by integrating industrialization is to risk overlooking the obvious, case studies and examples from both North Amer- if not to doom any attempt at understanding from ican and international contexts. the outset. While most historical archaeologists would cer- tainly agree with the general sentiments expressed British Origins of Industrial above, the lack of focused attention on industrial matters within the practice of historical archaeology Archaeology (IA) begs explanation. The literature of historical archaeology in English is not bulging with examples The roots of IA as a formal practice are to be found of the study of industry, industrial sites, industrial in Britain, and are ably chronicled by Angus technologies, industrial societies, nor the process of Buchanan in Perspectives on Industrial Archaeology (Cossons, 2000) as well as others. I will merely P.E. Martin e-mail: [email protected] summarize some of the salient points. IA was T. Majewski, D. Gaimster (eds.), International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, 285 DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-72071-5_16, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009 286 P.E. Martin practiced first in the context of continuing educa- In addition to writers like Buchanan, another tion courses for adults. Michael Rix, a historian at very prolific contributor to the early IA literature the University of Birmingham, used the term in was Kenneth Hudson. Apparently something of a 1955 when he wrote on the Industrial Revolution polymath, Hudson studied and wrote in multiple in Great Britain, pointing out the usefulness of the interest areas, but left a large body of writing physical remains for understanding and appreciat- about IA that was very accessible and influential. ing the scope and scale of industrialization. The Two pieces deserve particular attention: Hudson’s Council for British Archaeology acknowledged a Industrial Archaeology, An Introduction (1963) was growing interest in the topic when they established widely distributed and his later World Industrial an Industrial Archaeology Research Committee in Archaeology (1979) particularly served to broaden 1958 (Buchanan, 2000:20). Fieldwork, in the form the scope of inquiry and awareness of industrial of site documentation and some excavation, was heritage. Barrie Trinder, a professor and productive practiced largely on an avocational basis by conti- writer on the scene at the beginnings of the Iron- nuing education students. The academic home of bridge Gorge Museum, has also played an essential the enterprise was tied more to English history or role in scholarship, education, and preservation in the history of technology rather than to archaeol- the United Kingdom. Among his many publications ogy in those days, but the field enjoyed some enthu- is the massive Blackwell Encyclopedia of Industrial siastic growth in the 1960s. A core development area Archaeology (1992), and a more recent piece that was in the Bristol region, where the new University reflects his attention to more recent industrializa- of Bath provided a base for Buchanan in the history tion is Twentieth Century Industrial Archaeology, of technology program, and the Bristol Industrial coauthored with Michael Stratton (Stratton and Archaeological Society (BIAS). BIAS was an acti- Trinder, 2000). Another influential writer who vist organization, promoting the preservation of began to produce good scholarship during this cri- important industrial monuments, as well as a scho- tical formative period and remains very active is larly base, publishing numerous books and spon- David Crossley, with excavation reports like his soring several formative conferences (called the Bewl Valley Ironworks (1975) and significant IA Bath Conferences) that led to the creation of the content in his more general book Post-Medieval Association for Industrial Archaeology (AIA) in Archaeology in Britain (1990). Sir Neil Cossons has 1973. been in many ways the most influential IA scholar in The combination of scholarship and activism the United Kingdom, from his formative role in the practiced by BIAS is typical of the IA scene in the Ironbridge Gorge Museum, a stint as director of the United Kingdom. The AIA is an association in the Science Museum of London, and chairman of Eng- strict sense, as it is made up of a group of affiliated lish Heritage. Cossons has been a staunch ally of societies and individuals, including many members industrial heritage preservation and an articulate of regional and thematic organizations who are spokesman for the cause, both to a professional primarily concerned with their specific interests, audience and to the public (Cossons, 1975, 2000). but band together around the common theme of heritage conservation. Many citizens of the United Kingdom are inten- sely proud of their nation’s role in fostering (or Early IA in the United States founding) global industrialization, and express this pride in a variety of ways, including the numerous Even before historical archaeology gained recogni- regional, canal, railway, and other enthusiast orga- tion or self-identification as a subdiscipline, archae- nizations that affiliate with the AIA. During the ologists were examining industrial components of 1960s this pride served to galvanize attention to North American sites. As early as the 1930s, archae- the physical remnants of industrialization in the ologists with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) context of preservation battles to save beloved encountered evidence of early American industry in monuments, such as the Euston train station, their excavations at Jamestown (Cotter and demolished in 1962 (Buchanan, 2000:18). Hudson, 1957). Those early excavations revealed Industrial Archaeology 287 remains of activities, such as pottery and glass man- educate the public and the government about the ufacture, brick and lime kilns, and even iron mak- values of preservation, and study of industrial sites ing. One could argue that these productive endea- (Hyde, 1991). vors were practiced at a craft level in Jamestown, The genesis of SIA followed fairly closely after but they paralleled similar activities in England and the creation of the Society for Historical Archaeol- certainly qualify as precursors to industry. The ogy (SHA) in 1967, and there was serious interesting point is that they were studied consideration given to being an affiliate of SHA. archaeologically. However, the perceived differences between consti- Contact with British activities through indivi- tuencies resulted in a separate society being formed. duals such as Smithsonian Curator Robert M. Even though there is and always has been consider- Vogel brought increased awareness of industrial able overlap in membership and goals, the two heritage to the United States in the 1960s, a time groups have significant differences as well, super- when the historic preservation movement was ficially symbolized in the divergent spelling of enjoying a significant upswing. While industrial archaeology (SIA eschews the second ‘‘a’’). A flurry sites did not generally draw significant attention in of published discussion between Robert Vogel and the preservation battles of the day, they did rise in Vincent Foley also marked the beginnings of IA and the sights of scholars and local activists who recog- characterized some of the differences (Foley, 1968, nized their significance