top of page
  • Tomislav S. Šola


As a journalist and publicist, Kenneth Hudson wrote a book that was at the time revealing: industrial archaeology seemed indeed more by being inversed into The Archaeology of Industry. The definitions of Industry that Webster' dictionary gives suggest a much larger scope than that understood by being covered by a factory roof. I would agree that he was perfectly right and gave in such a way more space into what would latter on become a network of museums on labour and workers. That brings us to the essence of industrial archaeology. The source of industrial archaeology was in Britain which was at the time the cradle of industrial revolution. But the fascination with the industry in the broad sense also comes from there. As water is clearer near the source so was the idea of protecting the industrial heritage. Kenneth Hudson never thought solely about buildings or machines, - he was more about the context and social and political circumstances than about technique itself. Thus, six decades ago, industrial archaeology made way to a broader view upon theory of heritage, paving the way for other things to happen: eco-museums, museums of the society, community museums etc., as well as for the new theorizing.

bottom of page