Labor's Heritage





Associated Projects

Associated Projects
Hampden Archaeology
Labor's Heritage

A Historic Context for the Archaeology of
Industrial Labor in the State of Maryland


Robert C. Chidester
Masters of Applied Anthropology Program
Department of Anthropology
University of Maryland at College Park

Table of Contents




I. Introduction

II. Organization of the Text

III. Definition of the Subject

IV. Overview of Labor Archaeology

V. Eastern Shore

VI. Western Shore

VII. Piedmont

VIII. Western Maryland

IX. Analysis of Labor Archaeology in Maryland

X. Bibliographies

  • Appendix I. Eastern Shore Inventory of Archaeological and Historic (Architectural) Properties
  • Appendix II. Western Shore Inventory of Archaeological and Historic (Architectural) Properties
  • Appendix III. Piedmont Inventory of Archaeological and Historic (Architectural) Properties
  • Appendix IV. Western Maryland Inventory of Archaeological and Historic (Architectural) Properties
  • Appendix VI. Public Education and Outreach Initiatives



    This report presents a historic context for industrial labor in the state of Maryland.  Industrial labor is defined as the socially-governed activity of transforming nature for the purpose of the efficient processing and manufacture of commercial goods.  Labor’s heritage as represented in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, the Maryland Archaeological Site Records, and selected secondary sources is surveyed following the geographical and chronological guidelines presented in the Maryland Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan (Weissman 1986).  Types of industry and labor, class relations, the labor movement and the social and domestic lives of industrial laborers are all considered; additionally, industrialization in Maryland is linked to other important themes in the state’s history.  An overview of the archaeology of industrial labor is given for each of Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City, emphasizing important excavations.  An analysis of the state of labor archaeology in Maryland is given, along with suggestions for important research themes that have been thus far unaddressed or poorly addressed by Maryland archaeologists.

    Back to Table_of_Contents


                 I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the people who have helped to make this project a success.  The faculty of the Masters of Applied Anthropology program at the University of Maryland at College Park taught me what it means to be an applied anthropologist (and archaeologist), and for that I am grateful.  Erika Martin Seibert, archaeologist for the National Register of Historic Places, helped me to develop the concept for this project.  Michael Merrill and Robert Reynolds of the George Meany Center for Labor Studies in Silver Spring, Maryland and the National Capital Area AFL-CIO Retirees Club provided me with an entrée into the labor community in Maryland.  Bill Barry of the Community College of Baltimore County-Dundalk drove me around to look at union halls in Dundalk and provided me with other general information on unions in the Baltimore area.

                Funding for this project came in the form of a Maryland Heritage IMPART grant from the Maryland Historical Trust, for which I owe MHT a great debt.  Most of my research was undertaken in the MHT library in Crownsville.  I thank the staff of the Trust for their hospitality and interest.  I would especially like to thank Mary Louise de Sarran, Barbara Shepherd and the Jennies for working around me all summer and providing invaluable help.  Charles Hall also provided much assistance.

                This project was an internship for the Masters of Applied Anthropology program.  My internship committee consisted of Ms. Erika Martin Seibert, Dr. Paul Shackel and Dr. Mark Leone.  Along with Dr. Judith Friedenberg, these folks provided me with important suggestions and critical comments on the project throughout.  The final product would certainly not be what it is without their help and advice.

                Saul Schniderman of the Library of Congress, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union and the Labor Heritage Foundation of Washington, D.C. has given me encouragement and advice from the standpoint of someone intimately involved with labor’s heritage.  His interest in and support of my work has led to the development of an extension of the current project, to be a joint project of the Labor’s Heritage Foundation and the Center for Heritage Resource Studies of the Department of Anthropology at UMCP.

                Since this was meant to be a project suitable for presentation to the public, I would like to sincerely thank members of the Monocacy Archaeological Society who attended my presentation to that group, and especially president Joy Hurst for putting me on their schedule.  I would also like to thank Dan Coates, president of the Northern Chesapeake Archeological Society, for adding me to his group’s busy schedule for April.

                In a project as broad in scope as this, errors and omissions are bound to find their way into the final report.  Additionally, newly discovered sites will (hopefully) soon render this report in need of an update.  Full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information contained herein still lies with the author, however.

                Finally, I would like to thank Angela Hull for putting up with the many nights when I needed to work on this project instead of spending time with her.


     Bob Chidester

    Baltimore, Maryland

    Back to Table_of_Contents

    I. Introduction

                It is an oft-repeated saying that history is written by the victors of war.  While this is usually taken to mean the winners of an actual war, it can also be applied to another kind of struggle: that between different classes in society.  Throughout the years laborers and working class people have been silently erased from the official history by those in power.[1]  It has been argued that the upper classes have used material culture to shape the perception of reality of the lower classes so that the ideology of the ruling classes becomes “naturalized”—people think that this is the way it has always been, and therefore is the way it should be.[2]

                It is important, however, to look beyond this ideology and to illuminate the contribution of labor to the development of contemporary society.  As a global phenomenon, the Industrial Revolution has had (and is continuing to have) a profound impact on the lives of people throughout the world.[3]  In the United States technological progress and economic growth are often commemorated, but many people forget that these very advances, and thus our modern society, would not have been possible without a large labor force to propel them forward.  Laborers and working class people have contributed to such areas as “Developing the American Economy,” “Expanding Science and Technology,” and “Shaping the Political Landscape,” among others.[4]  In the process of industrialization many ugly things certainly occurred and class inequality grew ever larger,[5] but this should not cause us to ignore the story of labor.  As Paul Shackel[6] has pointed out, “Sometimes issues about labor do not make us feel good about our past, but they are important lessons that should not be buried.”

                Unfortunately, the history of industrial labor in Maryland has largely been buried.  Many people are familiar with the industrial past and present of Baltimore City, and residents of Western Maryland are certainly familiar with that region’s coal-mining heritage.  Industry has been present throughout the state, however, for most of its history.  Even the Eastern Shore and the Western Shore, usually considered to be agricultural regions, have been home to various industries, including canning, textile production, and milling.  Even if these industries are recognized, however, there is little public awareness of the labor that made industrialization in Maryland possible.

                In many ways, Maryland is an exemplary state when it comes to historic preservation.  Besides the state historic preservation office, the Maryland Historical Trust, there are a large number of local historical societies and preservation organizations, historic districts and sites, and park agencies that are actively involved in the preservation and study of Maryland’s heritage.  However, many of the recognized historic sites in Maryland are either house museums or downtown historic districts.

    There are almost 1,300 historic and archaeological sites in Maryland that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (; of these, only about 30 are related to labor heritage.  This is indicative of a wider lack of knowledge of and concern for labor heritage in Maryland.  Archaeological sites face a similar situation: Of about 76,000 properties nation-wide that are listed on the National Register, only about seven percent are archaeological sites.[7]  A search of Maryland National Register properties ( (minus those in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties) reveals that only 2.7% (about 35) are archaeological sites.  One-third of these could be related to labor, but in most cases the reason for nomination was related to industry.

    Vestiges of Maryland’s labor heritage have been preserved in such places as Patapsco Valley State Park ( patapscohistory.html), the Laurel Museum (, the Furnace Town Living Heritage Museum (, and the Catoctin Center for Regional Studies (, and the Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology conducted a few studies on the industrial and labor history of Baltimore during the 1980s and early 1990s.[8]  Nevertheless, there does not seem to be an appreciation among the wider public of the contribution of labor to Maryland’s history, and there does not seem to have been any attempt to study labor on a statewide, instead of a purely local, scale.  The aim of this report is to build a statewide framework, or context, for the study of industrial labor using archaeological resources.

    Back to Table_of_Contents

    II. Organization of the Text

                In order to frame the discussion of industrial labor and labor archaeology in Maryland, Section III of this report will define what is meant by industrial labor.  Section IV will provide an overview of the subfield of historical archaeology known as labor archaeology, detailing prominent domains of research and highlighting important labor archaeology projects.

                The following four sections of this report will be devoted to the historic contexts of industrial labor in Maryland based on four geographic regions (the Eastern Shore, the Western Shore, the Piedmont, and Western Maryland), as well as the archaeology of labor in each region.  Each section will follow some general structural guidelines that will be repeated for each of the regions in Maryland.  Each section will begin with a general discussion of that region’s history, emphasizing industry and industrial labor but also stressing their connections to other, non-industrial enterprises.  More specific chronologies of industry and the face of labor will be given for each county, following the outline of historic period contexts given in the Maryland Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan.[9]  The majority of the information contained in these sections comes from archaeological and historic site files held at the Maryland Historical Trust Library in Crownsville, but will be supplemented with secondary sources such as county-, industry- and union-specific histories.  All sources will be cited in footnotes; excepting this, secondary source citations will conform to accepted Society for Historical Archaeology style.

                Within each section, the identified archaeological sites related to industry and labor in individual counties will be surveyed following the discussions of regional and county histories.  Site types include industrial sites, domestic sites related to industrial laborers, a range of community sites such as churches, schools, and fraternal lodges, and districts. The level of attention received by archaeological properties will be addressed, and the findings of Phase II and Phase III archaeological investigations of important sites will be briefly summarized.

                The main body of this report will close with a discussion and analysis of the current state of labor archaeology in Maryland (Section IX).  Weaknesses will be noted, as will strengths.  Research domains that can potentially be significantly addressed by archaeological sites in Maryland will be delineated, along with more specific questions about the lives and working conditions of Maryland’s laborers.

                The bibliography will be split into five parts, one for sections I through IV and IX and the appendices and one each for sections V, VI, VII and VIII.  In addition to the sources specifically cited in each section, the bibliographies for sections V through VIII will include other secondary sources relating to each geographic region.  The bibliographies will include both secondary references cited in the text and useful secondary sources for each region.  These sources were culled primarily from references in Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) documentation.

    Appendices I through IV will list archaeological and historic sites and districts that have some relationship to industrial labor in each region of the state.  These appendices also function as the bibliographies for the MIHP files and archaeological site records cited in the historic context sections.  These lists (one list for each county, including Baltimore City) were compiled entirely from research in the Maryland Historical Trust’s archaeological site files and the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.  Archaeological sites will be listed first, ordered by site number within period of use.  Archaeological sites will be listed under each period during which they were in use, so many of these entries will be listed multiple times.  Information given includes site number, site name, and approximate location (if known).  A single asterisk denotes a site that has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, while a double asterisk denotes a site that has been determined eligible for the National Register but not formally listed.

    Properties from the MIHP documentation, which are primarily architectural resources, will be divided into historic districts and individual properties. For each, the information given will include site number, site name, location (if known), and dates or period of significance (if known).  It should be kept in mind that many of the properties included in the MIHP are incompletely documented, and this will be illustrated frequently.  Districts that appear in these lists have some connection to industrial labor, although that is very infrequently cited in the documentation as their source of significance.  Sites that appear in these lists are industrial sites, domestic sites associated with industrial labor, or community sites that appear in districts associated with industry and labor.  As such, some of the sites listed may have only a minimal association with laborers.  As above, a single asterisk denotes a site or district that has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, while a double asterisk denotes a site or district that has been determined eligible for the National Register but not formally listed.  The final component of these lists will be a bibliography of archaeological compliance reports for each county that mention industrial or labor sites, denoting which sites are discussed in each report.

    Appendix V provides a weekly accounting of the hours spent in working on this project through the completion of the first draft of this report.  Appendix VI presents an overview of the public education and outreach initiatives that will be undertaken as a follow-up to this project.

                It is important to state what this report is and what it is not.  This report is not a management plan, since it does not attempt to develop a predictive site location model.  It is also not an exhaustively complete history, although a very large amount of information is presented.  This report is a summary of the information about industry and industrial labor contained within the MIHP and the Maryland Archaeological Site Files, both inventories mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act.

    While the MIHP is ideally a complete record of standing structures or historic locations in Maryland that are over 50 years old, in many cases this has not been achieved.  Most of the survey work that has been done in Maryland was carried out during the 1970s, when state historic preservation offices were first beginning to assemble their historic sites inventories.  As a result, in many areas the record of historic sites ends in the 1920s or 1930s, instead of the 1950s.  Also, because money available for historic preservation has always been somewhat scarce, some areas have received very minimal coverage in comparison with other areas.

    Another problem inherent in using MIHP and the archaeological site records is their bias toward industry.  While the purpose of this project is to collect and synthesize as much information about labor in Maryland as possible, much of the time such information is not forthcoming in the MIHP and archaeological site files.  Therefore, the accounts below will occasionally seem like industrial histories rather than labor histories.  When available, secondary sources have been consulted, but once again historical scholarship has traditionally been biased toward industry.  Readers should keep in mind, however, that industry cannot exist without labor, and thus for every industrial enterprise mentioned in the text there is theoretically a corresponding labor component, or site.

    A final note needs to be made about maps.  Readers will notice that only four maps are present in this report, none of which are very detailed.  In part, this is due to time constraints that precluded the compilation of detailed maps indicating the locations of every, or even many, of the sites mentioned in the text.  The lack of detailed maps is also due in part to the nature of this report.  It is intended to be a public document, and will be distributed to several public repositories.  However, since archeological site location is often considered to be sensitive information and not for public release, any copies of this report delivered to public repositories would need to have such maps blacked out.  On the other hand, qualified archaeologists have access to site location information at the Maryland Historical Trust and any towns mentioned in this report can easily be located on Internet map services.  Therefore, it was decided to forgo the compilation of maps.  However, future researchers may find it beneficial to develop a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project based on the sites in this report in order to perform more sophisticated spatial analyses than were possible during this project.

    Back to Table_of_Contents

    III. Definition of the Subject

    Since the focus of this report is industrial labor history and heritage, it is necessary to define both labor and industry.  First we must lay out two axioms of the human condition, that the species Homo sapiens is a part of nature and that it is also a social species whose individual members are always linked by social relationships.  Furthermore, over time the human species has “acquired the ability to transform nature to human use.”[10]  But this process of transformation is reciprocal: “The way [human beings] are organized socially governs the way they confront and transform nature, and nature thus transformed affects, in turn, the architecture of human social bonds.”[11]  Following Karl Marx, then, labor can defined as “the general condition for the metabolism between men and nature; it is the everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence.”[12]  Labor is also always social, “carried on by human beings bonded to one another in society.”[13]

    In this situation some people must be laborers, directly transforming nature through work, while others must control, organize and deploy social labor.  Production, in a Marxist sense, refers to the complex interrelationships between nature, work, labor and social organization; it includes not just the interaction of humanity and nature, but also an active reproduction of social relationships.  Marx delineated a number of different modes of production, each differentiated by the specific type of social organization involved.[14]

    For this project, labor under the capitalist mode of production will be the object of study.  The capitalist mode of production is defined as having three major characteristics:

    First, capitalists detain control of the means of production.  Second, laborers are denied independent access to means of production and must sell their labor power to the capitalists.  Third, the maximization of surplus produced by the laborers with the means of production owned by the capitalist entails “ceaseless accumulation accompanied by changes in methods of production.”[15]

    “Ceaseless accumulation” can be seen to refer not only to surplus capital, but to every aspect of Marx’s production.  Humankind’s control over nature, the amount of physical work being performed, the number of laborers to whom the capitalist is socially linked, and his or her control over social organization and labor for his or her benefit are all increased.  Moreover, the capitalist’s accumulation of these things allows for even greater accumulation in the future, and so on and so forth.  In essence, the process feeds itself and has no visible limit.

                “Changes in methods of production” refers more specifically to both technological advances (which allow an increase in the amount of physical work able to be done) and social organization.  As the process of production affects both humankind’s relationship to nature and its social organization, improvements in the speed, accuracy, and ability of technology necessitate the ability to adapt social organization to new circumstances.  This is done through ideology.[16]  Capitalism has proven especially efficient in this regard, molding class relations,[17] race and ethnic relations,[18] and gender relations.[19]

                Industry has many definitions, but for the purposes of this project there are several that are useful:

    1. [Industry is] the way in which human effort has been harnessed as a force for the commercial production of goods and services.[20]


    2. [Industry is] any department or branch of art, occupation, or business; esp., one which employs much labor and capital and is a distinct branch of trade; as, the sugar industry.[21]

    3. [Industry is] human exertion employed for the creation of value, regarded by some as a species of capital or wealth; labor.


    4. [Industry is] the organized action of making of goods and services for sale.[23]

    Combining some of the common characteristics of these definitions with the previous discussion of labor and production, the following definition of industry will be utilized: Industry is the organization and deployment of labor for the purpose of efficient processing and manufacture of commercial goods (exploitation of natural resources) and (re)production of social relationships in a manner advantageous to the organizer of said labor, leading to his or her accumulation of surplus wealth.

    Specifically, this report will examine industrial labor under capitalism in Maryland.  Some examples of historic industrial contexts in Maryland include milling, mining, metal refinement, and the textile industry.  Each of these activities involves the intensive organization of labor for the processing of natural resources and manufacture of commercial goods, changes in methods of production (both technological and social), the active reproduction of social relationships (i.e. of different classes),[24] and the accumulation of capital (wealth) by one or a small group of individuals.

    Back to Table_of_Contents

    IV. Overview of Labor Archaeology

    While the notions of stratified society and the social relations of production have been discussed in archaeology for over half a century, beginning with V. Gordon Childe’s attempts to explain human cultural evolution from a Marxist perspective,[25] it is only within the past couple of decades that archaeologists have begun to examine issues of power and resistance from the perspective of the laboring classes.  There has been an increasing emphasis on the need to examine the past from multiple perspectives, and one of these is that of the working class.  This type of archaeological inquiry is best described by the title of an edited volume on the subject: The Archaeology of Inequality.[26]

    The archaeological study of labor seems to have been prodded along somewhat by the development in the historical field of a “’new’ labor history” in the 1960s and 1970s.  According to this movement, “the proper study of labor history ought to be the worker, and not only his institutions . . . we are now making real headway toward a history of the American worker.”[27]  The history of the laborer had replaced a tradition of studying labor exclusively through trade unionism and economics. Included in this new labor history were emphases on ethnicity, shop-floor history, the relationship between the work world and family life, and class as a cultural, rather than economic, construction.[28]

    The archaeological study of labor has also resulted in part from post-modern trends within archaeology, the most significant being the study of capitalism.[29]  The advocates of this approach to historical archaeology concentrate on the power of material culture to shape perception and to force the ideology of the upper classes upon the lower classes.[30]  Chief among these ideologies is personal discipline (using many ideas developed by Michel Foucault), [31] a concept that has been explored in many venues.  The most notable examples of this sort of work come from Annapolis and Harpers Ferry, as well as other places. [32]  Concerned with an archaeology of identity, one scholar has suggested that the shift from work to labor to service “is an ideal and important topic for public interpretation based on historical archaeological research and findings.  The material record of capitalism . . .is replete with artifactual markers of work, labor and service.”[33]  Thus, labor and the working classes have their own place in the study of capitalism and ideology.

    If ideology fooled everyone, however, there would be no heterogeneity in societies.  Some hold that “cultural uniformity should be considered a phenomenon to be explained, rather than given, in cultural history.”[34]  From this perspective, domination is almost always accompanied by resistance.  Resistance by laborers has been documented archaeologically in a number of instances, such as at Harpers Ferry, the Russell Cutlery in Connecticut, the Telco Block and Supply Mill sites, the Ludlow, Colorado Coalfield War site and the 19th-century coal company town of Helvetia, Pennsylvania. [35]  It is because “artifacts are tangible incarnations of social relationships embodying the attitudes and behaviors of the past”[36] that an “archaeology of resistance”[37] is possible.

    One of the most fruitful approaches in this regard has been the study of union sites, led by Mark Walker.[38]  As perhaps the most tangible form of working class resistance to capitalist domination, unions have long been an object of study for labor historians.[39]  As Walker has noted, however, public recognition of class struggle has often been silenced in the United States: “Few if any sites of labor struggles had received official state or federal designation . . .[This] should not be surprising.  In the dominant mythology, the United States is a classless society . . . shedding light on the unknown or garbled historical struggle of labor must be the agenda of the present generation.”[40]  He has attempted to follow just this agenda at the site of the Ludlow Coalfield War[41] and 19th-century railroad-worker housing in West Oakland, California.[42]

    Concurrent with an interest in capitalism has been an interest in the effects of industrialization upon the working classes.  This often takes the form of studies on the transition between craft and wage labor pointed out by Parker Potter.[43]  Specifically, much work has focused on the reactions and adaptations of workers to the institution of wage labor and factory work discipline.[44]  This topic has been studied in depth by Paul Shackel at Harpers Ferry[45] and by Mary Beaudry and Steven Mrozowski at the Boott Mills in Lowell, Massachusetts.[46]  LouAnn Wurst has pointed out that it was not only city dwellers who were affected by the Industrial Revolution, but rural people as well.[47]  Jameson Harwood has even studied antecedents of this transition in 18th-century Williamsburg, Virginia.[48]  A recent concern of archaeologists studying this process is how to appropriately deal with the communities being represented, which often have descendant communities who are quite invested in the interpretation of their own history.[49]

    This leads to another current trend in the study of labor: a concern with heritage.  The preservation of industrial heritage has long been a concern for many, but too often laborers have been left out of the equation.[50]  The Society for Industrial Archaeology has been an active voice for the cause of industrial preservation since 1971,[51] but many of its activities emphasize machinery over people.[52]  The field of industrial archaeology in general tends to favor buildings and machines over the workers who inhabited and ran them.[53]  The inclusion of laborers is beginning to enter into the picture.[54]  The best example of this is the recent Labor Archaeology National Historic Landmark Theme Study.[55]  Paul Shackel has asked the archaeological community, “Will archaeologists working at industrial sites be courageous like the town of Lawrence, Massachusetts and commemorate labor’s heritage, or will we fall back and create an official history that glorifies technology?  That is the challenge, I believe, for any of us who choose to perform archaeology in industrial contexts.”[56]

    Another trend in the archaeological study of labor has been a broadening of the definition of the term labor beyond industrial forms.  While slavery has generally been treated as a subfield within African-American or plantation studies,[57] Charles Orser has studied slavery as labor through the lens of capitalism.[58]  Stephen Silliman has recognized that “labor constituted one of the primary and most influential interpersonal and intercultural relations in pluralistic colonial communities,”[59] and thus has studied “labor as practice”[60] in colonial settings.  The study of labor can even be extended into prehistoric times[61] under such topics as political economy, labor and surplus, labor mobilization for architectural and engineering purposes and craft specialization.[62]

    On less theoretical grounds, historical archaeologists studying labor have been drawn to several types of studies.  Perhaps the most common is the study of “company towns,” towns that were entirely owned and controlled by a single company or industry.  Lowell, Massachusetts[63] and Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia[64] have been the locations of especially important archaeological investigations.  Some other “company towns” that have been investigated include coal towns in Pennsylvania,[65] Buxton, Iowa,[66] and Blaenafon, Wales.[67]  These types of studies usually concentrate on issues such as the reconstruction of landscapes, socio-economic status, consumer behavior, and the separation over time between “work” spaces and “home” spaces.  Many other types of industrial communities that do not qualify as industrial towns have also been investigated by archaeologists, including temporary work camps,[68] urban neighborhoods[69] and rural industrial communities.[70]

    The environment, diet and health of industrial workers have been a major concern of many labor archaeologists.[71]  Gender and ethnicity, often lumped together in archaeological studies, have also been a favorite topic of labor archaeologists.[72]  Other topics, however, have been understudied by labor archaeologists.  Perhaps the best example of this is the study of industrial slavery, which has only been addressed by a very few archaeologists.[73]

    Archaeology has made great strides in the study of labor in the last few decades.  Unfortunately, some archaeologists still focus on industry and technology at the expense of the people who made it all possible.  This was illustrated all too clearly by a number of papers presented at the 2003 Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology in Providence, Rhode Island,[74] the theme of which was Trade and Industrialization,[75] as well as articles in a recent issue of the journal IA.[76]  The leading programs for the preservation of industrial and technological heritage, the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), which employs a number of archaeologists, is only slowly picking up on the importance of studying labor as well.[77]  Nevertheless, the future is not as bleak as it once was for the history of working class peoples thanks to the work of many archaeologists who, like Paul Shackel, believe that “questions related to labor archaeology . . .need to be made part of the national public memory.”[78]

    Back to Table_of_Contents

    [1] Shackel 2003.

    [2] Leone 1999; see also Leone 1984, 1987; Little and Shackel 1992.

    [3] Shackel 1996:1.

    [4] Solury 2000:1.

    [5] Shackel 1996:2.

    [6] Shackel 2003.

    [7] Hardesty and Little 2000:6.

    [8] Julie Ernstein, University of Maryland, 2002, pers. comm.

    [9] Weissman 1986.

    [10] Wolf 1982:73.

    [11] Wolf 1982:73-74

    [12] Karl Marx quoted in Schmidt 1971:136.

    [13] Wolf 1982:74.

    [14] Wolf 1982:74-75

    [15] Wolf 1982:78.

    [16] Althusser 1971:141-177.

    [17] Althusser 1971, Barnett and Silverman 1979.

    [18] Barnett and Silverman 1979:66-67, Friedman 1992.

    [19] Scheman 1983.

    [20] American Heritage Dictionary 2000.

    [21] G. & C. Merriam 1958:1271.

    [22] G. & C. Merriam 1958:1271.

    [23] Princeton University n.d.

    [24] Levin 1985:195.

    [25] Trigger 1989:254-263.

    [26] McGuire and Paynter 1991.

    [27] Brody 1979:111.

    [28] Brody 1979.

    [29] Paynter 1988, Leone 1995, Leone and Potter 1999, Johnson 1996.

    [30] Leone 1999; see also Leone 1984, 1987; Little and Shackel 1992.

    [31] Foucault 1979.

    [32]Leone and Shackel 1987, Shackel 1993a, Leone and Hurry 1998; Shackel 1992, 1996; i.e. Levin 1985, Mrozowski and Beaudry 1990.

    [33] Potter 1999:63.

    [34] Paynter and McGuire 1991:3.

    [35] Shackel 1996:66-74; Nassaney and Abel 1993; Levin 1985; Walker 2000, 2003b; Metheny 2002.

    [36] Beaudry et al. 1991:150.

    [37] Kelley 1992:293.

    [38] Walker 2000, 2003a, 2003b.

    [39] Brody 1979:111-112.

    [40] Walker 2000:61.

    [41] Walker 2000, 2003b; see also Ludlow Collective 2001.

    [42] Walker 2003a.

    [43] Potter 1999:63.

    [44] Martin 2003.

    [45] Shackel 1993b, 1994, 1996; Shackel and Larsen 2000.

    [46] Beaudry and Mrozowski 1987-1989, 1988; see also Beaudry 1989 and Mrozowski et al. 1996

    [47] Wurst 2003.

    [48] Harwood 2003.

    [49] Beaudry 2003; see also Walker 2000, 2003b.

    [50] Shackel 2003.

    [51] Society for Industrial Archaeology n.d.

    [52] E.g. Harshbarger 2002, Miller 2003.

    [53] E.g. Winter 1994, Gordon and Raber 2000, Stratton 2000, Stratton and Trinder 2000, Landon et al. 2001, Allen 2003, Hattori and Nylen 2003, Updike 2003.

    [54] Martin 2003; see Nassaney and Abel 1993, Trinder and Cox 2000, Stein 2003.

    [55] Solury 2000.

    [56] Shackel 2003.

    [57] E.g. Singleton 1985, Ferguson 1992, Singleton 1999.

    [58] Orser 1999.

    [59] Silliman 2001:379.

    [60] Silliman 2001:381.

    [61] Webster 1990, articles in Price and Feinman 1995, Saitta 1997, Solury 2000:5-7.

    [62] Silliman 2001:381.

    [63] Beaudry and Mrozowski 1987-1989, 1988; Beaudry 1989; Mrozowski et al. 1996.

    [64] Shackel 1993b; Shackel and Winter 1994; Shackel 1994, 1996; Shackel and Larsen 2000.

    [65] Bennet 1990, Metheny 2002.

    [66] Gradwohl and Osborn 1984.

    [67] Lowe 1982.

    [68] Fenega 1967, Wegars 1991, Franzen 1992, Bassett 1994, Rogge et al. 1994, Smith 2001, Psota 2002, Van Bueren 2002.

    [69] Articles in Staski 1987, Cheek and Friedlander 1990, Stewart and Praetzellis 1997, Reckner and Brighton 1999, Mayne and Murray 2001, Baxter and Allen 2002, Yamin 2002.

    [70] Adams et al. 1981, Heberling 1985, Hardesty 1988, Barfield 1990, Carskadden et al. 1990, Pastron and Hattori 1990, Brashler 1991, Schmitt and Zeier 1993.

    [71] Articles in Beaudry and Mrozowski 1987-1989, Mrozowski et al.1989, Kelso and Beaudry 1990, Beaudry 1993, Kelso 1993, Schmitt and Zeier 1993, Ford 1994, Rovner 1994, articles in Shackel 1994, Crane 2000, Stein 2003.

    [72] Cheek and Friedlander 1990, Brashler 1991, Purser 1991, Wegars 1991, Bassett 1994, Costello 1998, Wood 2002.

    [73] Burnston 1981, Kelley and Angel 1983, Arend 1990, Sprinkle 1991, Burnston 1997.

    [74] E.g. Allen 2003, Hattori and Nylen 2003, Updike 2003.

    [75] Society for Historical Archaeology 2003.

    [76] Holley 2001, Landon et al. 2001, Wermiel 2001.

    [77] Richard O’Connor, HABS/HAER, 2003,  pers. comm.

    [78] Shackel 2003.