The 2005 Rolt memorial lecture. Industrial archaeology or the archaeology...

The 2005 Rolt memorial lecture. Industrial archaeology or the archaeology of the

industrial period? Models, methodology and the future of industrial archaeology

Nevell, MD

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174581906X106570

Title The 2005 Rolt memorial lecture. Industrial archaeology or the archaeology of the industrial period? Models, methodology and the future of industrial archaeology

Authors Nevell, MD

Type Article

URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/10811/

Published Date 2006

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for noncommercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, pleasecontact the Repository Team at: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXVIII: 1, 2006

© The Association for Industrial Archaeology DOI: 10.1179/174581906X106570

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a contribution to the debate onthe nature and future of Industrial Archaeo-logy that has emerged since the Associationfor Industrial Archaeology set out an agendafor the discipline in 1991.1 This debate hastaken two distinctive forms.

First, what might be termed an inward-looking, reflexive, approach that has doubtedthe very validity of industrial archaeologyin the context of archaeological studies in theearly 21st century. This is best exemplifiedin the doubts about industrial archaeology’sfuture by the first-generation industrialarchaeologists Sir Neil Cossons and thelate Kenneth Hudson, and most recently byDavid Cranstone.2

Secondly, there has emerged from thesecond and third generation of industrialarchaeologists a more progressive approachthat seeks to place industrial archaeologywithin the wider social and landscape metho-dological traditions of archaeology, whilstacknowledging the primacy of industrialisa-tion as a concept.3 Recent studies along theselines include Marilyn Palmer and Peter Nea-verson’s work on the textile industry of thesouth-west of England, Jim Symond’s workon the cutlery industry in Sheffield, and theauthor’s own work with John Walker on theindustrialisation and urbanisation of Tame-side and our subsequent development of theManchester Methodology as a way of lookingat the Industrial Revolution from a differentarchaeological viewpoint.4

What both strands of thought have incommon is the recognition, articulated byMarilyn Palmer in 1991 and by Kate Clarkin 1999,5 that industrial archaeology needsto engage more fully, firstly with the widerarchaeological discipline in terms of metho-dological and theoretical approaches, andsecondly and more immediately, with theoverlapping but complimentary branches ofpost-medieval and historical archaeology.

The purpose of this paper is thereforethreefold; briefly to review industrial archae-ology’s development; to provide an overviewof its relationship with economic history andpost-medieval archaeology, and the currenttheoretical and methodological approachesof industrial archaeologists; and finally, tooutline some possible future directions ofthe discipline. Unlike some commentators,6

I do not see the need to abandon the termindustrial archaeology. What is needed, how-ever, is a clearer focus on what that termmeans in the context of the early 21st century.In 2006, according to the United Nations, forthe first time more than half of the world’spopulation will be living in towns and citiesas a direct result of the industrialisation ofcountries such as Brazil, China, and India.Understanding archaeologically how thisdramatic change to our lifestyles has occurredinvolves understanding the process of indus-trialisation in the world’s first industrialsociety; Britain. I hope to show that modernindustrial archaeology, with its growingemphasis on landscape and social context, is

The 2005 Rolt Memorial LectureIndustrial Archaeology or the Archaeology of theIndustrial Period? Models, Methodology and theFuture of Industrial ArchaeologyMICHAEL NEVELL

This paper outlines in brief the development of Industrial Archaeology in Britain as a mainstreambranch of archaeology over the last 50 years, before then reviewing some of the recent methodologi-cal developments in IA. The author argues that whilst Industrial Archaeology embraces both thearchaeology of technology and the archaeology of industrialisation, it is the latter strand that is thedefining feature of much modern IA work. A wide range of techniques emphasising both landscapeand social change, linked to technological development, have been developed by those studying thephenomenon of British industrialisation since 1991. It is argued that the radical changes to theproduction, consumption, and urban nature of this newly industrialised society is best studiedarchaeologically through the medium of this new Industrial Archaeology. Furthermore, this socialand landscape approach, coupled with the study of technological change, could be used to comparethe different rates and geographical location of industrialisation around the globe from a distinctivearchaeological perspective.

4 NEVELL: THE FUTURE OF INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY

best placed to provide a framework for justsuch an understanding.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

It is 50 years since the term industrial archae-ology was first used in a modern sense. Thiswas in a 1955 article entitled ‘IndustrialArchaeology’ in The Amateur Historian byMichael Rix, then teaching with the Workers’Educational Association at BirminghamUniversity; but the term had probably beencoined a few years early by his colleagueDonald Dudley.7 The term was quickly adop-ted by amateur and professional museum-based archaeologists; the Council for BritishArchaeology (CBA) set up an industrialarchaeology research committee in 1959, thefirst book on the subject was published byKenneth Hudson in 1963, the first nationaljournal was founded in 1964, supportedby the Newcomen Society, and in 1965 theNational Record of Industrial Monumentswas transferred from the CBA to the Centrefor the Study of the History of Technologyat the University of Bath. By the early 1970sformal training in industrial archaeologywas being provided by the Ironbridge Insti-tute in collaboration with the Universityof Birmingham, and in 1973 the Associationfor Industrial Archaeology (AIA) wascreated. Therefore, as a branch of academic

archaeology the discipline has existed sincethe late 1950s, making it slightly older butbroadly contemporary with its sister disci-pline post-medieval archaeology (the Post-Medieval Society was founded in 1967 fromthe earlier Post-Medieval Ceramic ResearchGroup), and older by a decade than theacademic study of historical archaeologywhich was developed in the USA in the late1960s.8 From the very beginning the termindustrial archaeology was applied to thephysical remains of the Industrial Revolution(Figure 1), although there was, and continuesto be, a recognition that the industrial archae-ology of the manufacturing process applies asmuch to Neolithic hand axes as to steamengine production.9 The early decades ofthe discipline were spent arguing as to whichof these two intellectual strands would pre-dominate. However, the decline of many ofthe classic 18th- and 19th-century industriesin mid-20th century, and the growing recogni-tion of the historic value of textile mills,ironworks, transport networks, and the widerindustrial landscape of these centuries, led toa general acceptance that industrial archaeol-ogy meant the Archaeology of the IndustrialRevolution.10

During the 1980s the study of industrialarchaeology in Britain diverged from thestudy in north America, where a strong tradi-tion of social archaeology was applied to theinvestigation of society during the 18th and

Figure 1.An iconic symbol of‘first generation’industrial archaeology— Darby’s furnace atIronbridge.

INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, XXVIII: 1, 2006 5

19th centuries under the broad heading ofhistorical archaeology.11 In contrast, Britishindustrial archaeology remained focused onmanufacturing processes.12 The disciplinewas, however, far from stagnant for duringthis decade there was a significant shifttowards the thematic studies of monumenttypes. This was led by the Royal Commis-sions on the Historical Monuments, butparticularly that for of England, and keyfigures such as Keith Falconer, and resultedin the founding of three textile mills surveysin Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and east-ern Cheshire (Figure 2).13 Their thematicwork continued into the 1990s with subjectsranging from planned farmsteads to hospitalsand workhouses, and this methodologicalapproach was continued by English Heritageafter its merger with the RCHME in 1999,as well as by the Scottish and WelshCommissions.14

Nevertheless, it was not until the 1990sthat serious thought was given in Britainto industrial archaeology’s potential widerrole in providing a distinctive archaeologicalperspective on the Industrial Revolution(Palmer 1991; Gould 1995). This culminatedwith the publication of Marilyn Palmer andPeter Neaverson’s academic study IndustrialArchaeology. Principles and Practice,15 whichset out an intellectual and methodologicalframework for the discipline firmly focusedon the industrial transition and the changes

that this process wrought on society, the land-scape, and above all the archaeologicalrecord. Since 1998 the central role playedby industrialisation during the 18th and19th and into the 20th centuries, and itssocial consequences (in particular urbani-sation and the consequent changes in livingand working conditions), is a theme that hasbeen enthusiastically followed by a number ofresearchers, in particular Garry Campion,Shane Gould, David Gwyn, Colin Rynne, andJim Symonds.

INDUSTRIALISATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL

THEORY AND MODELLING

The impact of industrialisation has been stu-died by historians since the French coined theterm ‘the Industrial Revolution’ in the 1820s.Only more recently have industrial archaeolo-gists focused on this theme as a key issue forthe industrial transition.

The contributions to the debate made byarchaeologists in Britain in the late 20th cen-tury leant towards studies of the mechanics,or physical character, of individual industriesor structures, what we might term a techno-centric approach, with a consequent lack ofsynthesis. This trend amongst British archae-ologists was understandable given the volumeof the available archaeological database, his-torical record, and the depth of the theoriesof economic and social historians. Yet, as

Figure 2.The Gidlow mill inWigan — themonument-basedthematic surveydeveloped in the1980s by the RoyalCommissions.


both the Association for Industrial Archaeol-ogy and English Heritage observed in the1990s, this trend may have meant that thecontribution of archaeologists to the debateon the validity and origins of the IndustrialRevolution as a concept has not been untilrecently as great as it could have been.16 Inparticular there was a lack of debate aboutone of the key features of the phenomenon ofindustrialisation; the rapid shift from a ruralto an urban-based society with a consequentchange in working and living patterns.

We can contrast this techno-centric appro-ach to industrial archaeology prior to 1991with the many ways in which economic histo-rians have debated the industrial transitionduring the late 20th century, all of whichaddress, to some extent, the key questions —what do we mean by an Industrial Revolu-tion? And how can we identify its time andplace?17

The idea that there was one period whichsaw a take-off in industrialisation has beendebated since the 1820s when French com-mentators coined the term the IndustrialRevolution to describe what they saw asthe economic transformation of England.18

In the late 20th century economic historiansattempted to refine the empirical database19

in order to address the view that majorsectoral, regional, and institutional changes,represented by an overall discontinuity inthe economic database, marked the take-offperiod for the Industrial Revolution asoccurring in the years c. 1780 to c. 1800.

The lead sector hypothesis was proposedby Rostow in the mid-20th century whoargued that the main momentum for eco-nomic growth in 18th-century England camefrom a few manufacturing sectors (cottonand iron) which were the motors of growthfor industrial take-off.20 This theory has beensuperseded by later studies which showed thatin Britain there was a widely diffused patternof growth with many sources of momentum.21

The ‘long view’, or proto-industrialisationtheory, was revived by Franklin Mendelsin 1972, who argued that much of the indus-trial expansion in Britain before 1800 camefrom handicraft industries using enhancedartisan technology (in domestic textiles, smallmetal wares and even coal mining);22 it is aconcept which has been explored by economichistorians ever since.23

Finally, amongst the latest of the manytheoretical strands studied by economic andsocial historians is the concept of marginality,the view that industrialisation and growthfirst took off in the marginal zones of Europe.Professor Sidney Pollard demonstrated theimpact upon growth of two main types ofmarginality during the industrial transition:political and economic.24 Firstly, politicalmarginality saw a tension between the centre

which sought to open up, subject, and colo-nise the fringe, and the fringe which mightcome to dominate the system of which itwas a notional periphery. Secondly, in pre-industrial, non-urbanised societies, economicmarginality was the result of having pooragricultural land. Many of the marginal landsof Europe with their mountains (Scandina-via), forests (France and Belgium), fen ormarshland (Holland) were to take the lead indeveloping an industrial base. Thus, many ofthe chief centres of industrialisation in Britain(the Glasgow region, North-East England,North-West England, Yorkshire, and sou-thern Wales), were in terms of agriculturalproductivity just such marginal zones priorto industrialisation.

Since 1990 there has emerged amongstthe latest generation of British archaeologistsa more theoretical approach to the industrialtransition from an agrarian, rural-based, soci-ety, to an industrial, urban-based, society.Initially this was led by historical and post-medieval archaeologists, giving rise to a splitbetween the study of the archaeology of con-sumption (post-medieval archaeology) andthe archaeology of production (industrialarchaeology), and an absence of discussionon the issue of urbanisation. But since 1998a new generation of industrial archaeologistshave started to reclaim the debate as theirown by attempting to re-unite the two sidesof this argument, whilst putting the changesin living and working practices represented byurbanisation at the forefront of their research(Figure 3).

This renewed interest in the industrial tran-sition began in 1990 with the publicationof Post-Medieval Archaeology in Britainby David Crossley (1990) which broughttogether the results of large numbers of indi-vidual archaeological studies conducted onremains dating from 1500 to 1800. Whilstlooking at the development of early industry,crafts, and technology, this work demon-strated that local variations were often sig-nificant in promoting proto-industrialisation,whilst various types of archaeologicalremains seldom figured in the historicalrecord, meaning that the lives of themajority of the population living in 16th-,17th-, and early 18th-century England werebarely touched upon by the written word(Figure 4).25

An Archaeology of Capitalism publishedin 1996 by Matthew Johnson (1996) is themost explicitly theoretical of the 1990s post-medieval archaeology volumes and appearsto echo a wider trend in archaeology inexplaining how the rise of the concept of theindividual, seen by some as crucial to indus-trialisation, can be demonstrated by changesin a wide range of physical remains. Johnson’sworks throughout the 1990s (Housing Culture


in 1993 and ‘Rethinking historical archae-ology’ in 1999) drove forward the debate onthe social origins of capitalism and its link-ages with colonialism and the archaeology ofconsumption rather than the archaeology ofproduction or urbanisation. An Archaeologyof Capitalism never really addressed thewider issue of industrialisation in Britain,and thereby demonstrated that capitalismand industrialisation are related but separatephenomenon.

A major conference between the Post-Medieval Society of Britain and the HistoricalArchaeology Society of the USA in 1997continued the theoretical development ofideas about the industrial transition. Theconference reflected the approach of NorthAmerican Historical Archaeology, with theemphasis on craft production and materialculture, the social use of space and expres-sions of authority, and the role and survivalof ethnicity. The resulting publication, Oldand New Worlds, contained only two paperson industry and its link to social andlandscape change,26 with the other papersfocusing largely upon the material remainsof consumption and none on the issue ofurbanisation.

In a similar way to the Old and New Worldsconference, the volume The Familiar Past?,

edited by Tarlow and West and published in1999, brought together contributions by someof the most active British post-medieval andhistorical archaeologists during the 1990s.27

As with the Old and New Worlds monograph,most of the individual studies dealt withparticular aspects of the material culture ofthe industrial transition in great depth, ratherthan focusing on more explicit industrialarchaeology sites or landscapes, which wastouched upon in only two papers. Some con-tributions explored aspects of the relationshipbetween the material culture of the periodand its social structure; others demonstratedthe relationship between structures (theirlayout and planning) and contemporarysocial issues. This technique of access analysishas been picked up by several researchersstudying industrial-era buildings from ShaneGould and Garry Campion, to most recentlyJim Symonds, and Marilyn Palmer and PeterNeaverson. Also in this volume Sarah Tarlowdrew attention to two areas where archaeolo-gists were at the time trying to make a contri-bution to the debate. Great attention wasbeing paid to how individuals in the pastestablished and demonstrated their identityin various material ways such as buildingplans or funerary monuments. This interest in

Figure 3.Excavating the18th-/19th-centurysocial landscape, inthis case housing, asoda works and ahatting works atHardman Street,Manchester.


Figure 4.An emphasis on social archaeology does not require us to neglect the archaeology of technology, as in this engine base at PortwoodMill, Stockport.


issues of identity was moving archaeologiststowards a more subtle notion of social struc-ture beyond seeing the recent historic pastas consisting merely of large contendingclasses, and crucially was starting to addressthe social changes engendered by rapidurbanisation. Tarlow also emphasised that anarchaeological approach demanded, by thevery nature of the discipline, the use of longtimescales and broad concepts of a type thatare not usually found in historical studies. It isthus ironic that this volume only addressedthe issue of social change, virtually ignoringthe chief motor for change; the rise of massproduction and the industrialisation process.

By the end of the 1990s Charles Orser,in reviewing the progress of historic archae-ology in Britain and America, could arguethat post-medieval archaeology was now partof a wider historical archaeology which itselfhad become centred upon four main con-cepts: a global view, an emphasis upon pastsocial relations, the study of social relation-ships across space and through time, and awillingness to comment upon today by draw-ing from the recent past. As far as the indus-trial archaeologist is concerned, however,such concepts seemed to avoid the crucialissue of why and how industrialisationoccurred and whether this was a regional,national, or international phenomenon repre-sented by a rise in mass production anda rapid growth in urbanism.

The publication in 2004 of a set of papersfrom a joint conference held in 1999 by theSociety for Post-Medieval Archaeology andthe Association for Industrial Archaeologyentitled The Archaeology of Industrializationarguably embodies a statement of post-medieval archaeology’s view on the issueof industrialisation as developed sinceCrossley’s 1990 work, Post-Medieval Archae-ology. Yet this monograph marks an oppor-tunity missed in terms of uniting both thepost-medieval archaeology and industrialarchaeology intellectual traditions. Despitethe promising title and many good individualpapers, the volume fails to debate the archae-ology of industrialisation even in historicalarchaeology terms. Too many papers dealexclusively either with the archaeology ofconsumption through material culture orwith management and conservation issueswithout any direct reference to production,social change, or landscape development.Moreover, of the 23 papers in the volume,four were written for publication as part of anearlier conference and so do not address theissue of industrialisation at all. Nor is thereany coherent discussion by the editors of whatwas meant by the concept of industrialisation.There are, nevertheless, a few articles whichshow methodological and theoretical devel-opment of the utmost importance for all

industrial archaeologists. Anna Badcock’sand Brian Malaws’ paper in particular pro-vides an approach that allows researchersunfamiliar with the manufacturing process torecord such activities in an informed and fullyunderstood way and as a partner to the build-ings archaeology of manufacturing industry.This can be done through oral and pictorialhistory allied to traditional recording tech-niques which allowed the work practices tobe related to the evolving layout of factory,both in terms of its technological and socialdevelopment. Paul Courtney’s article, whilstreminding us how the ceramic industry canbe seen as a marker of industrial, technologi-cal, and social change, is most notable forits study of one industry over several centu-ries, thus introducing into industrial archae-ology the 20th-century French concept of thelongue durée and the wave or cyclical patternof historical, economic, and archaeologicaldevelopment. Finally, David Gwyn’s articledeals directly with the issue of landownershipand social identity during industrialisationthrough the authorship of the new monumenttypes of the industrial period.28

In my opinion, this volume indicates thatthe intellectual vibrancy of post-medievalarchaeology seen in the 1990s has starting torun out of steam, at least as regards the debateon the industrial transition. Ironically, thisis just at the time when industrial archaeo-logists, spurred by the historical archaeologydebate, have been developing a more expli-citly theoretical approach to the industrialtransition. The unifying themes of this appro-ach are an emphasis on the industrial transi-tion and its transformation of British societyduring the 18th, 19th and 20th centuriesas seen through the archaeology of massproduction, consumption, and urbanisation.

This shift began with the publication ofthe Association for Industrial Archaeology’sresearch agenda in 1991.29 This set out thescope and priorities for industrial archae-ology from training, preservation, and con-servation to recording and research. Thesubject was approached as a period disciplinerunning from the early 18th century up tothe late 20th century with the theme of indus-trialisation at its heart and key researchissues focused upon conservation of sitesand monuments, understanding technologi-cal innovation, and recording landscapechange.

It was not until the end of the 1990s thatthe next major step forward occurred with thepublication of Industrial Archaeology, Prin-ciples and Practices by Marilyn Palmer andPeter Neaverson.30 This volume, a work thathas had the greatest methodological impacton industrial archaeology so far, widenedthe horizons of the industrial archaeologistthrough its emphasis on the social relationsof production and consumption. This was


Figure 5.Late 18th-centuryworkers’ housesat Deansgate,Manchester.

done by relating industries to their associatedhousing, transport networks, and wider land-scape context, and by placing aspects of thematerial culture of industrial production inits social context. The authors introducedideas about the social controls which are bothexplicit and implicit in the architecture andspatial organisation of industrial buildings,and the way in which social relations wereboth constructed and expressed in the hou-sing built to accommodate those involved inindustrial production.

The author’s own work on the TamesideArchaeology Survey, particularly as pub-lished in two volumes entitled Lands andLordships in Tameside and Tameside inTransition, was arguably the first to take anexplicitly theoretical archaeology approachto industrialisation on a regional basis, in thiscase North-West England. The focus in thesetwo related works was on landscape changeand social archaeology in the period 1348to 1870. The rate of archaeological changewas studied through the temporal occurrenceof sites as defined in English Heritage’sThesaurus of Archaeological MonumentTypes. This was taken a step further, how-ever, by putting each of these monumenttypes in their social context through assigning

their ownership or authorship to one of threecontemporary social groupings; lords, free-holders, or tenants, an approach that hasbeen termed the ‘Manchester Methodo-logy’.31 One of the consequences of using thismethodology is that it allows a greater under-standing of the nature and causes of urbani-sation in specific localities and the linkage ofthat phenomenon to mass production. Thiscan be done by breaking down the archaeo-logical database of any given urban area intothese separate monument types and thenlooking at their spatial and social distribu-tion. In this way the chronology and nature ofthis urbanisation phenomenon can be tracedin the new industrial hamlets, villages andtowns of the industrial transition.

Also worthy of mention at this point is an,as yet, largely untapped source of landscapearchaeological research for industrial archae-ology. The twin techniques of Historic Land-scape Characterisation and Extensive UrbanSurvey were developed by English Heritagein the 1990s primarily as conservation tools.32

However, they provide archaeologists witha powerful landscape research tool thatcan be used to study the industrial transitionand in particular the nature of urbanisation.When allied to the Manchester Methodology,


by linking spatial ordering and hierarchy inthe urban and rural landscape to individualmonument types and their chronologicalspread, it should be possible to chart the phy-sical changes of the industrialisation processin immense detail and on a highly local basis,whilst setting them in their social context. Theuse of both the Manchester Methodology andHistoric Landscape Characterisation mayalso serve to highlight how during the indus-trial transition some existing towns andcities reflected but were by no means entirelydependent upon the process of industriali-sation for their continued existence. This kindof study has been hinted at by Colin Rynne’srecent work on the limited urbanisation ofnucleated centres in Ireland during the 18thand 19th centuries.33

The most recent explicit attempts to marryindustrial and historical archaeology to atheoretical view of the industrial transitioncan be found in three volumes published inthe last five years with varying success. First,in Richard Newman, David Cranstoneand Christine Howard-Davis’s impressivesurvey of The Historical Archaeology ofBritain, c 1540–1900;34 although within this

impressive volume there is a contradictionbetween Cranstone’s approach, which fol-lows Tom Rolt’s dogmatic assertion thatindustrial archaeology can only ever be aboutthe manufacturing process, and the rest of thevolume which tries, largely successfully, tointegrate landscape, historical, and industrialarchaeological approaches.

Secondly, a volume of papers entitled FromFarmer to Factory Owner: Models, Methodo-logy and the Archaeology of Industrialisationpublished in 2003 provide a focused approachto the issues of landownership, monumentauthorship, and the development of industry.Whilst the Manchester Methodology featuresprominently and includes a study of theindustrial development of the historic urbancentre of Manchester, this monograph alsoencompasses studies exploring the themes ofindustrial marginality, social change, and thearchaeology of urban work in the 19th andearly 20th centuries.35

Thirdly, a volume entitled IndustrialArchaeology. Future Directions, edited byEleanor Casella and James Symonds, pub-lished early in 2005, deals explicitly with thelinkages between historical archaeology and

Figure 6.Sacred relic ratherthan icon — in its ownreliquary. Theconstruction of theshelter over the Darbyfurnace at Ironbridge.


industrial archaeology.36 Sixteen papers aredivided into three sections which deal withcurrent theories on industrial archaeology,the conservation of monuments and land-scapes, and the archaeology of factories andmines. All three works are united by an inter-est in social archaeology, the landscape trans-formation of the industrialisation process(both urban and rural), and the issues of con-sumption and production as revealed throughthe archaeological database.

Three other recent publications also dem-onstrate the landscape and social develop-ment of recent industrial archaeology studies.First, by Michael Bailey and John Glithero,is a study of the engineering history, archae-ological integrity, and conservation of Ste-phenson’s Rocket.37 This is an exemplar ofhow a piece of machinery should be studiedas an archaeological artefact, bringing toge-ther two characteristic strands of industrialarchaeology research; artefact recording andanalysis, and setting that record against thecontext derived from the contemporary docu-ments. Secondly, Trinder’s study of the spa-tial and social archaeology of 18th- and 19th-century market towns allows us to explorewhat was common place and what was new inthe context of social archaeology and indus-trialisation amongst the lesser market townsof this period.38 Thirdly, the growing researchinto the linear monuments of the industrialperiod is typified by the recently publishedcomprehensive survey of the Welsh section ofThomas Telford’s London to Holyhead turn-pike road, which provides a framework forthe future study of such monuments in theirlandscape setting.39

REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION? FUTURE

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

Since Marilyn Palmer and Peter Neaversonpublished Industrial Archaeology. Principlesand Practices in 1998 a variety of studieshave marked the emergence of a new indus-trial archaeology focused upon the conceptof industrialisation; the processes of theindustrial transition which in Britain turneda rural, agrarian, community, into an urban,manufacturing-based, society. This freshapproach is characterised by an ability todevelop new methodologies or to adapt anduse existing models and methodologies fromother branches of archaeology, without com-promising the traditional emphasis on thedetailed recording and analysis of manu-facturing industry. There is now a growingconsensus that the key issue for industrialarchaeologists looking at the industrial tran-sition is the long-term impact, and ultimate

destination, of the industrialisation process.40

The theme of industrialisation is not exclu-sively concerned with changes in technologyand consumption, but also with the new socialrelations of the period as expressed throughbuildings and the use of space, landscapechange both in the countryside and throughurbanisation, and the control and ownership(two different things) of monuments andlandscapes and how this might reflect themovement of capital. As it is rooted in thesurvey and excavation techniques of Britisharchaeology this new way of looking at indus-trial archaeology emphasises the primarynature of archaeological evidence drawnfrom monument types and material culture,whilst relating these back to the contempo-rary documentary, photographic, and oralevidence, thereby reuniting the production,consumption, and urbanisation aspects ofpost-1500 archaeology in Britain. This is anarchaeological concept of Industrialisationwhich is not chronologically constrainedbut is culturally specific, and can thus beapplied to any industrialising society aroundthe world. It is what we might call the archae-ology of the industrial period, and as sucha summary of some of the more specificresearch topics related to the theme ofindustrialisation might be as follows:

— the role of the weak central or lordlycontrol in allowing industrialisation ona local level;

— the role of religious freedom and inde-pendence of thought in industrial andtechnical innovation;

— the rise to dominance of new manufac-turing urban centres such as Birming-ham, Glasgow and Manchester;

— the lack of industrial developmentin traditional urban centres such asChester or Winchester;

— the role of London as an economic andsocial centre of industrialisation;

— linear transport monuments ascorridors of industrialisation;

— rural change, dissertion, and socialstress;

— craft production and proto-industrialisation;

— social control and authority on manu-facturing sites;

— changes in domestic and working lifeas revealed through material culture;

— and finally the ownership or author-ship of new monument types in thisperiod and how this might reflect themovement of capital.

There are clearly many other areas thatcan and should be explored over the nextdecade by industrial archaeologists, but the


research topics outlined above are all linkedby the social and landscape archaeologyimpact of industrialisation in a way that hasnot always been addressed by archaeologistsworking in this period.

As can be seen from this paper, industrialarchaeology is far from being a dead ordying subset of mainstream archaeologythat should be subsumed by post-medievalarchaeology or historical archaeology, ashas recently been portrayed by some olderpractitioners.41 Nor is it true to argue indus-trial archaeology does not have a coherentintellectual and methodological base as aperiod discipline because of the less activeinvolvement of academics compared withthe activities of individual enthusiasts andamateur societies.42

As we have seen since 1991, some of the keyfigures of what have been called the secondand third generations of industrial archae-ologists have been moving away from thetechno-centric approach of early industrialarchaeology to focus on the era of indus-trialisation from a more holistic perspective.Just as post-medieval archaeologists haveargued strongly for a decisive change in thearchaeological record of the mid-16th cen-tury, both in the material cultural remainsof the period and in its monument types, soindustrial archaeologists, using the appro-aches outlined above, can now show an evengreater change in both the material cultureremains and the range of monument andlandscape types associated with the industrialtransition from the early 18th centuryonwards, if not before.43 Furthermore, indus-trial archaeologists now have a range ofmethodologies and theories which allowthem to chart and explain the different ratesof change in specific localities and regionsacross Britain. These changes reflect theindustrialisation process, the switch froma rural, agrarian-based, culture to an urban,manufacturing-based, society. This transitionranks as one of the major changes in humanevolution alongside the development of lan-guage, agriculture, and urbanism. It is a pro-cess that is still working its way around theglobe and can currently be seen in operationin Brazil, China, and India. The landscapeand social processes involved in this transi-tion demand a coherent period approachfrom archaeologists and are best articulatedby those archaeologists dealing directly withthese issues; in other words the industrialarchaeologist.

Such a view is not an attack on those versedin the traditions of post-medieval archae-ology. Indeed many of the theoretical andmethodological issues touched upon in thispaper reflect a coming together of the two

subject areas in terms of approach, and showa measure of agreement on the key researchissues. Nevertheless, a logical conclusion tothis approach would be to call the period ofindustrialisation the ‘Archaeology of theIndustrial Period’, as hinted at above. Thiswould have a number of advantages, not leastthe recognition that the industrialisationprocess happens at different rates in differentplaces, but is characterised in radical changesto the production, consumption, and urbannature of these new societies as expressedthrough their archaeology. It would alsoallow us to begin analysing the archaeologyof the 20th century from this perspective, foralthough in Britain most of the classic indus-tries of the Industrial Revolution have gone,or are greatly reduced in scale, using the defi-nition of Industrialisation set out above weare still living and consuming in the new soci-ety this process has created. Whilst we mayultimately come to see both post-medievalarchaeology and industrial archaeology, orthe archaeology of the industrial period, asdistinctive stages within the emerging conceptof global historical archaeology, industrialarchaeology is a period discipline withinits own right, with its own methodologies,theoretical framework, and research agenda.Those who deny this are denying the central-ity of Industrialisation in Britain, and aroundthe globe, as a social and landscape-changingforce over the last 300 years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to David Gwyn, Professor MarilynPalmer, Professor Ray Riley, Jim Symonds,and John Walker, who have allowed me tobounce ideas off them over the last few years.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Palmer, M., ‘Industrial Archaeology: Workingfor the Future’, Industrial Archaeology Review, XVI(1991), 17–32.

2 Cossons, N., ‘Perspectives on Industrial Archae-ology’, in Cossons, N., Perspectives on IndustrialArchaeology (London: Science Museum, 2000), 9–17;Hudson, K., ‘Has Industrial Archaeology lost itsway?’, Industrial Archaeology Review, XXIII:1 (2001);Cranstone, D., ‘The Archaeology of Industrialization— New Directions’, in Barker, D. & D. Cranstone(eds), The Archaeology of Industrialization. Papersgiven at the Archaeology of Industrialization Con-ference, October 1999, hosted jointly by Association forIndustrial Archaeology and Society for Post-MedievalArchaeology (Leeds: Maney Publishing, 2004),313–20; ‘After Industrial Archaeology?’, in Casella,E.C. & J. Symonds, Industrial Archaeology. FutureDirections (New York: Springer Science and BusinessMedia Inc., 2005), 77–95.

3 Palmer, M. & P. Neaverson, Industrial Archae-ology, Principles and Practice (London and NewYork: Routledge, 1998).

4 Palmer, M. & P. Neaverson, The Textile Industryof South-West England: A Social Archaeology


(Stroud: Tempus, 2005); Symonds, J. (ed.), The His-torical Archaeology of the Sheffield Cutlery and Table-ware Industry 1750–1900 (Arcus Studies in HistoricalArchaeology 1, Sheffield University, 2001); Nevell,M. & J. Walker, A History and Archaeology of Tame-side. Volume 6. Lands and Lordships in Tameside:Tameside in Transition 1348–1642 (Tameside Metro-politan Borough Council with the University ofManchester Archaeological Unit, 1998), A Historyand Archaeology of Tameside. Volume 7. Tamesidein Transition 1642–1870 (Tameside MetropolitanBorough Council with the University of ManchesterArchaeological Unit, 1999), ‘Industrialization in theCountryside: The Roles of the Lord, Freeholder andTenant in the Manchester Area, 1600–1900’, inBarker & Cranstone, ref. 2, 53–78.

5 Palmer, ref. 1 and Clark, K., 1999, ‘The Work-shop of the World: the Industrial Revolution’, inHunter, J. & I. Ralston (eds), The Archaeology ofBritain. An Introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic tothe Industrial Revolution (Routledge, 1999).

6 Hudson, K., ‘Has Industrial Archaeology Lostits Way?’, Industrial Archaeology Review, XXIII:1(2001), 6–9; Cranstone, D., ‘After IndustrialArchaeology?’, in Casella & Symonds, ref. 2, 77–95.

7 Rix, M., ‘Industrial Archaeology’, The AmateurHistorian, 2:8 (1955), 225–9; Hudson, ref. 6, 7. Theterm had been used on a few occasions prior to 1955.Sousa Viterbo used the term to describe PortugeseMills in 1896 and in 1950 a Belgian, R. Evrard, usedthe term to describe a blast furnace site in 1950. Seealso Ray Riley’s book review in 1991 (IAR, XIII:2,197–8). Nevertheless, this was the first use of the termin a modern sense.

8 Palmer and Neaverson, ref. 3, 1–3.9 Cossons, ref. 2; Cranstone, ref. 2; Hudson, ref. 6.

10 Buchanan, R.A., Industrial Archaeology in Britain(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972); Cossons,N., The BP Book of Industrial Archaeology (NewtonAbbot: David and Charles, 1975); Hudson, K., Indus-trial Archaeology. An Introduction (Methuen, 1963);Raistrick, A., Industrial Archaeology (Eyre MethuenLtd, 1972).

11 Orser, C.E., ‘Negotiating Our “Familiar” Past’, inTarlow, S. & S. West, The Familiar Past? (Londonand New York: Routledge, 1999), 273–85.

12 Hudson, ref. 6.13 Williams, M. with D. Farnie, Cotton Mills in

Greater Manchester (Preston: Carnegie Press, 1992);Giles, C. & I.H. Goodall, Yorkshire Textile Mills. TheBuildings of the Yorkshire Textile Industry 1770–1930(Royal Commission on the Historical Monumentsof England, 1992); Calladine, A. & J. Fricker, EastCheshire Textile Mills (Royal Commission on theHistorical Monuments of England, 1993).

14 Barnwell, C. & C. Giles, English Farmsteads1750–1914 (Royal Commission on the HistoricalMonuments of England, 1997); Morrison, K., TheWorkhouse. A Study of Poor-Law Buildings inEngland (English Heritage, 2000); Richardson, H.,English Hospitals 1660–1948. A Survey of theirArchitectural Design (English Heritage, 1998).

15 Palmer & Neaverson, ref. 3.16 Palmer, ref. 1; English Heritage, English Heritage

Research Agenda (English Heritage, 1997), 45.17 Berg, M. & P. Hudson, ‘Rehabilitating the Indus-

trial Revolution’, Economic History Review, 45:1(1992), 24–50; Crafts, N.F.R., ‘British EconomicGrowth During the Industrial Revolution’, inO’Brien, P. & R. Quinault (eds), The Industrial Revo-lution and British Society (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1985); Courtney, P., ‘The Tyranny of Con-structs’, in Gaimster, D. & P. Stamper, The Age ofTransition (Oxford: Oxbow, 1997), 10–12; Courtney‘Pathways of Change: Towards a Long-Term Analy-sis of the Ceramic Industry’, in Barker & Cranstone,181–2.

18 Mathias, P., ‘The Industrial Revolution: Conceptand Reality’, in Mathias, P. & J.A. Davis (eds), TheFirst Industrial Revolutions (Cambridge: Blackwell,1989), 1–2.

19 Crafts, N.F.R., ‘English Economic Growth in theEighteenth Century: a Re-Examination of Deaneand Cole’s Estimates’, Economic History Review, 29(1976), 226–35; and ‘The New Economic History andthe Industrial Revolution’, in Mathias & Davis, ref.18, 25–43; Feinstein, C.H., ‘Capital Formation inGreat Britain’, in Mathias, P. & M.M. Postan (eds),Cambridge Economic History of Europe, 7:1(Cambridge, 1978), 28–96; Harley, C.K., ‘BritishIndustrialisation before 1841: Evidence of SlowerGrowth during the Industrial Revolution’, Journalof Economic History, 42 (1982), 267–89.

20 Rostow, W.W., The Stages of Economic Growth.A Non-communist Manifesto (Cambridge, 1960).

21 Mathias, P., ‘The Industrial Revolution: Conceptand Reality’, in Mathias & Davis, ref. 18, 19–22.

22 Mendels, F.F., ‘Proto-Industrialisation: the FirstPhase of the Industrialisation Process’, Journal ofEconomic History, 32 (1972), 241–61.

23 de Vries, J., ‘The Industrial Revolution andthe Industrious Revolution’, Journal of EconomicHistory, 54 (1995), 249–70; Mathias, ref. 18, 10–13.

24 Pollard, S., Marginal Europe. The Contributionof Marginal Lands Since the Middle Ages (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1997), 10–17.

25 Crossley, D., Post-Medieval Archaeology in Brit-ain (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1990), 2.

26 Barker, D., 1999, ‘The Ceramic Revolution 1650–1850’, in Egan & Michael, 226–34; Cranstone, D.,‘Cherishing the Cradle of Industry: Protection ofIndustrial Monuments in England’, in Egan, G. &R.L. Michael (eds), Old and New Worlds, (Oxford:Oxbow Books, 1999), 203–7.

27 Tarlow, S. & S. West, The Familiar Past?Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain (Londonand New York: Routledge, 1999).

28 Barker & Cranstone, ref. 2; Badcock, A. & B.Malaws, ‘Recording People and Processes at LargeIndustrial Settlements’, 269–89; Courtney, P., ‘Path-ways of Change: Towards a Long-Term Analysisof the Ceramic Industry’, 181–201; Gwyn, D.,‘Landscape, Economy and Identity: A Study in theArchaeology of Industrialisation’, 35–52.

29 Palmer, ref. 1.30 Palmer & Neaverson, ref. 3.31 Nevell, M. & J. Walker, A History and Archae-

ology of Tameside. Volume 6. Lands and Lordshipsin Tameside: Tameside in Transition 1348–1642(Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council with theUniversity of Manchester Archaeological Unit, 1998);A History and Archaeology of Tameside. Volume 7.Tameside in Transition 1642–1870 (Tameside Metro-politan Borough Council with the University ofManchester Archaeological Unit, 1999); ‘Industrial-ization in the Countryside: The Roles of the Lord,Freeholder and Tenant in the Manchester Area,1600–1900’, in Barker & Cranstone, ref. 2, 53–78;Nevell, M., ‘The Social Archaeology of Industria-lisation: The Example of Manchester During the 17thand 18th Centuries’, in Casella & Symonds, ref. 2,177–204.

32 Rippon, S., Historic Landscape Analysis: Deci-phering the Countryside (CBA Practical Handbooksin Archaeology 16, 2004).

33 Rynne, C., The Industrial Archaeology of CorkCity and its Environs (Dublin: The Stationary Office,1999).

34 Newman, R. with D. Cranstone & C. Howard-Davis, The Historical Archaeology of Britain,c 1540–1900 (Stroud: Sutton, 2001).

35 Nevell, M., From Farmer to Factory Owner:Models, Methodology and the Archaeology of


Industrialisation (CBA, University of ManchesterArchaeological Unit and Chester Archaeology, 2003).

36 Casella & Symonds, ref. 2.37 Bailey, M.R. & J.P. Glithero, The Engineering and

History of Rocket (York: National Railway Museum,2000).

38 Trinder, B., ‘18th- and 19th- Century MarketTown Industry: An analytical model’, IndustrialArchaeology Review, XXIV:2 (2002), 75–90.

39 Quartermaine, J., B. Trinder & R. Turner, Tho-mas Telford’s Holyhead Road (CBA Research Report,2003), 135.

40 Nevell, M., ‘A Major Change in Human Evolu-tion’, British Archaeology, 86 (January/February2006), 30–3.

41 Cossons, ref. 2; Cranstone, ref. 2a, b.42 Cranstone, ref. 2b.43 Nevell, ref. 40.

Dr Michael Nevell is Director of the University of Manchester Archaeology Unit. Address forcorrespondence: School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road,Manchester M13 9PL.

The 2005 Rolt memorial lecture. Industrial archaeology or the archaeology...

Documents

Transcript of The 2005 Rolt memorial lecture. Industrial archaeology or the archaeology...