which extend over many centuries, are best regarded as part of the history of technology, a discipline that has generated more interest in the United States than in Britain. Decisions on the chronological limits of industrial archaeology tend to be made on an ad hoc basis, for example, when museum displays, books, or academic courses are being planned. In most countries, the focus is likely to be on the period when factory-based production methods were introduced.

The relationship between industrial archaeology and other disciplines varies from country to country, which affects the subject scope of the discipline. Nowhere is industrial archaeology regarded literally as the study of all the physical remains of the recent past. Agricultural structures, polite architecture in the form of churches, public buildings and the houses of the rich, and military fortifications are usually, by convention, left to other specialists. The main areas of argument concern housing and communal buildings, which in countries like Great Britain and sweden, in which many of the practicing industrial archaeologists have training in social history, are seen as an integral part of the industrial landscape. In the United States, industrial archaeology tends to be more narrowly focused on processes and structures, reflecting the role of historians of technology in the development of the discipline, and the activities of specialists in the parallel studies of historical archaeology and material culture. Some industrial archaeologists, particularly in Sweden, have argued that those engaged in the discipline should show more concern for the people who were employed in manufacturing and for the experience of work (Hudson 1980; Lindquist 1978; Sillen 1977).

Some common patterns can be observed in the literature of industrial archaeology in most countries. The first books on the subject tended to be general studies describing the obvious industrial monuments of a particular country and attempting to set agendas (Hudson 1963; Van den Abeelen 1973). Subsequent national surveys have either introduced more discussion of technology (Cossons 1975, 1992) or have been more detailed and site specific, in some cases because they have been based on preliminary national surveys (Daumas 1980; Falconer 1980; Hume 1976–1977; Slotta 1975–1988; Viaene 1986). From national surveys, regional inventories have developed. The study of the Mohawk-Hudson area of New York State in 1969 (Vogel 1973) had a strong influence on the development of industrial archaeology in the United States, and there have been several parallel studies of other regions (Bluestone 1978; Thomas 1975). Notable regional surveys have been published in Great Britain, Germany, belgium, italy, and spain (Cleere and Crossley 1985; Fehl, Kaspari-Kuffen, and Meyer 1991; Genicot and Hendrickx 1990; Gomez, Ezkerra, and Llanos 1988, 1990; Hume 1974; Mioni et al. 1981–1983).

From general surveys, thematic studies of particular regions developed, like the surveys of ironmaking in the Ardennes, blast furnaces in Normandy, and slate quarries in the Loire region (André, Belhoste, and Bertrand 1987; Belhoste et al. 1991; Kéroutan 1988); Watson’s work on textile mills in Dundee (Watson 1990); and the surveys of pottery works and textile mills by a royal commission in England (Baker 1991; Calladine and Fricker 1993; Giles and Goodall 1992; Williams 1992); and national surveys of particular industries such as motorcar factories in Britain, heavy clay products in Scotland, and textile mills in Canada (Collins and Stratton 1993; Douglas and Oglethorpe 1993; McCullough 1992). Methodologies have also been developed for analyzing particular manufacturing sites, whether ironworks, textile mill complexes, or food factories (Belhoste, Bertrand, and Gayot 1984; Cartier and Jantzen 1994; Stratton and Trinder 1988; Trinder 1992b; Trottier 1980). The Royal Commission in Wales has set high standards for the surveying of linear features like canals and railways, and a different but equally stimulating approach has been developed for the analysis of the archaeology of roads by material culture specialists in North America (Hughes 1988, 1990; Schlereth 1985). Some large-scale works that try to achieve an element of synthesis within the discipline appeared in the early 1990s (Gordon and Malone 1993; Trinder 1992a).

One of the first considerations of the