The Newcomen Society Diamond Jubilee: A Symposium to Commemorate the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Founding of the Society

NOTES AND REFERENCES

• The relationship between documents and sources was considered by R.G. CoRingwood, a leading modern philosopher of history and also a competent archaeologist, in his seminal work on The Idea of History, Oxford, 1946.
   Google Scholar
• For a definition of industrial archaeology, see R.A. Buchanan: Industrial Archaeology in Britain, Pelican, 1972, 21. Simpler but less comprehensive definitions will be found in other texts, such as K. Hudson: Industrial Archaeology, John Baker, 1963; and N. Cossons: The BP Book of Industrial Archaeology, Newton Abbot, 1975. A. Raistrick: Industrial Archaeology, Eyre Methuen, 1972, defines the subject in a way which stresses excavatory techniques and excludes any post-mid-nineteenth century study as "industrial recording", and this definition is not acceptable to me (see my review in Antiquity vol. 46, no. 183, September 1972, 247–8).
   Google Scholar
• The interdisciplinary character is apparent when studies of a distinctively industrial archaeological nature feature in journals such as The Geographical Magazine, Post-Medieval Archaeology, Historical Metallurgy, Architectural Review, and others. I attempted to explore these interdisciplinary relationships in my contribution to R.A. Buchanan (ed.) The Theory and Practice of Industrial Archaeology, Bath University Press, 1968.
   Google Scholar
• The pattern of these definitive Cambridge works was established by Lord Acton, who edited the first edition of the Cambridge Modern History which began to appear in 1902. The first of the twelve volumes were "The Renaissance" and "The Reformation".
   Google Scholar
• The first five volumes of the Oxford History of Technology appeared between 1954 and 1958, edited by a team led by Charles Singer. The last two volumes, edited by T.I.lianis, were published in 1979. Joseph Needham: Science and Civilization in China, (Cambridge University Press) commenced publication in 1954, when Volume I appeared, and is still in production. For a compact review of the history of technology on the lines of the definition given here, see my article "Technology, History of", in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• The limited recognition given to the history of technology in British universities can be seen from the paucity of departments and professorial chairs devoted to the subject. In Imperial College London, Manchester ( UMIST), and Oxford, it exists but is firmly linked with the history of science. Birmingham has a Senior Fellowship of professorial status in the Faculty of Science and Engineering. Bath has my own small research unit, the Centre for the History of Technology, Science and Society. Elsewhere, the subject has no institutional recognition although it may appear as a course unit or a part of such a unit.
   Google Scholar
• The conservationist dimension of industrial archaeology has promoted close relationships with government, both local, and national,, and with museums. The link with government is particularly important in the Ancient Monuments Secretariat of the Department of the Environment, responsible for the scheduling, and listing of ancient monuments and historic buildings. The link with museums is best represented by the striking success in recent years of the large Open Air Museums such as the Ironbridge Gorge Trust Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Eric Ashby: Technology and the Academics, Macmillan, 1959, 66. The full sentence runs: "Technology is of the earth, earthy; it is susceptible to pressure from industry and government departments; it is under an obligation to deliver the goods".
   Google Scholar
• There was a significant parting of the ways—or at least a defmition of differing spheres of interest—in the late 1960s, when the Council of this Society discussed seriously its relationship with the burgeoning industrial archaeology movement in Britain and decided against adopting a positive role to assert leader-ship of this movement. Instead, it determined to maintain its special position as a learned society in the history of technology, while the industrial archaeology movement developed its own national organisation in the shape of the Association for Industrial Archaeology, established in 1973. In retrospect, I think that this distinction of responsibilities was a correct one.
   Google Scholar
• See the many papers on these subjects in Transactions. Also R. Wailes: The English Windmill, Routledge, 1954; George Watkins: The Stationary Steam Engine, Newton Abbot, 1968 and subsequent works.
   Google Scholar
• For a full exposition of the merits of the usage, see the concluding chapter, "The Study of Industrial Archaeology", in the New Edition of R.A. Buchanan: Industrial Archaeology in Britain, Allen Lane 1980.
   Google Scholar