This themed edition of Industrial Archaeology Review is focused on the excavation and recording of workers’ housing. It draws in part from papers presented at the sessionHousing the IndustriousWorkforce at the  Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) Conference in Bradford, and reflects the continued growth in exploring this type of archaeological site from the era of the Industrial Revolution. Since the advent of developerfunded archaeological work in the s, but particularly since , the recording and excavation of workers’ housing has grown considerably, with an increasing number of excavated case studies. However, why should we excavate or record the surviving examples of this type of monument from the industrial period, when other forms of data (maps and photographs) are available? The straightforward answer is that archaeological analysis, whether through excavation or building recording, provides a unique form of data not available through any other discipline. With a dwindling surviving housing stock from this era and increased pressure on brownfield sites, we need to make sure that what we record as archaeologists is research-informed and targeted around issues that can be recovered through the physical remains. In this issue of the Review we have four case studies that make this very point (with a further workers’ housing case study by Nigel Cavanagh due to be published in Industrial Archaeology Review .). Collectively, these dispel the notion that the archaeological evidence for industrial workers’ housing merely illustrates what we know from maps and photographs. The investigation of workers’ housing is not new to Industrial Archaeology. The building type was studied in the s and s by such early pioneers as Jennifer Tann and Lucy Caffyn, the Society for PostMedieval Archaeology carried several early articles on workers’ housing in Britain and a major study of the vernacular workshop in Britain was published in  by the Council for British Archaeology. It must be noted, however, that other parts of the globe, notably Australia and the USA, were quicker in turning to the excavation of this type of site. Industrial Archaeology Review published its first article on industrial workers’ housing in its very first volume in ; a study of surviving thand early th-century colliery housing at Moira in Leicestershire by Colin Griffin (Industrial Archaeology Review, . (–), – ). Between  and  the Review featured  articles on workers’ housing. Most of these studies looked at surviving, standing examples and their form, fabric and function. However, there has been a gradual change in the last  years with an increasing focus on the excavation of industrial rural and urban workers’ housing. This change began with the first Review article on the excavation of workers’ housing published in . In this study Eleanor Casella analysed the archaeological investigation of th-, thand th-century rural workers’ housing at Alderley Edge (Industrial Archaeology Review, . (), –). This was followed in the s by further urban excavation case studies. This in part reflects the increasing redevelopment focus on brownfield urban sites in the heart of many of Britain’s th-century industrial cities. Yet it also reflects the dwindling surviving housing stock of this building type and the realisation that excavation is now the only way in many towns and cities to recover such evidence. This increasingly important approach is picked up in my own article in the current issue of the Review. In this I provide an overview of  years of excavating industrial urban workers’ housing in Manchester, looking at issues such as building quality, overcrowding, sanitation and the recovery of family and individual lives through the finds evidence. Standing building analysis, though, remains a key tool in the industrial archaeologist’s research strategy. Thus, Joanne Harrison in this issue uses such an approach to good effect in studying probably the largest surviving grouping of back-to-back housing in Britain at Leeds. Combining documentary evidence, she studies the rise and fall, and indeed the longevity, of this building form. Suzanne Lilley reminds us that rural factory colonies remain an important source of early surviving workers’ housing. Her study of cotton workers’ housing in the Derwent Valley at Belper, Cromford,

中文翻译：

---

不仅仅是挖掘地图——挖掘和记录工人的住房

这个主题版的工业考古学评论侧重于工人住房的挖掘和记录。它部分借鉴了在布拉德福德举行的 理论考古小组 (TAG) 会议上为工业劳动力提供的会议上发表的论文，并反映了自工业革命时代以来探索此类考古遗址的持续增长。自从s 的开发商资助的考古工作出现以来，尤其是自 以来，工人住房的记录和挖掘工作已大大增加，挖掘案例研究的数量也越来越多。然而，我们为什么要挖掘或记录工业时期这种类型的纪念碑的幸存例子，何时可以获得其他形式的数据（地图和照片）？直接的答案是考古分析，无论是通过挖掘还是建筑记录，都提供了一种独特的数据形式，这是任何其他学科都无法获得的。随着这个时代幸存的住房存量减少以及对棕地遗址的压力增加，我们需要确保我们作为考古学家记录的内容是研究信息的，并且针对可以通过物理遗骸恢复的问题。在本期《评论》中，我们有四个案例研究表明了这一点（Nigel Cavanagh 的进一步工人住房案例研究将发表在《工业考古学评论》.）上。总的来说，这些消除了这样一种观念，即产业工人住房的考古证据仅说明了我们从地图和照片中了解到的情况。对工人住房的调查对工业考古来说并不陌生。建筑类型在 s 和 s 中由 Jennifer Tann 和 Lucy Caffyn 等早期先驱研究，后中世纪考古学会发表了几篇关于英国工人住房的早期文章，并对英国白话研讨会由英国考古委员会在 上发表。然而，必须指出的是，全球其他地区，特别是澳大利亚和美国，更快地转向挖掘此类遗址。《工业考古学评论》在的第一卷中发表了第一篇关于产业工人住房的文章；Colin Griffin 对莱斯特郡莫伊拉幸存的  与早期 世纪早期煤矿房屋的研究（工业考古学评论，.（–），–）。在 和 之间，该评论精选了有关工人住房的 文章。大多数这些研究着眼于幸存的、站立的例子及其形式、结构和功能。然而，最近 年发生了逐渐变化，越来越关注工业农村和城市工人住房的开挖。这种变化始于发表的第一篇关于工人住房开挖的评论文章。在这项研究中，埃莉诺·卡塞拉 (Eleanor Casella) 分析了奥尔德利边缘 th-、 和  世纪农村工人住房的考古调查（工业考古学评论，. ()，– )。随后在s 中进行了进一步的城市挖掘案例研究。这在一定程度上反映了对位于英国  世纪许多工业城市中心地带的棕地城市用地的重新开发日益关注。然而，这也反映了这种建筑类型的幸存住房存量不断减少，以及人们意识到挖掘现在是许多城镇恢复此类证据的唯一途径。我在最新一期《评论》中的文章中提到了这种越来越重要的方法。在本文中，我概述了  多年来在曼彻斯特挖掘工业城市工人的住房，通过发现的证据研究建筑质量、过度拥挤、卫生以及家庭和个人生活的恢复等问题。然而，常设建筑分析，仍然是工业考古学家研究策略的关键工具。因此，乔安妮·哈里森（Joanne Harrison）在本期中使用这种方法取得了良好的效果，研究可能是英国利兹市现存最大的背靠背住宅群。结合文献证据，她研究了这种建筑形式的兴衰，甚至长寿。Suzanne Lilley 提醒我们，农村工厂殖民地仍然是早期幸存工人住房的重要来源。她对位于克罗姆福德市贝尔珀的德文特山谷棉花工人住房的研究，Suzanne Lilley 提醒我们，农村工厂殖民地仍然是早期幸存工人住房的重要来源。她对位于克罗姆福德市贝尔珀的德文特山谷棉花工人住房的研究，Suzanne Lilley 提醒我们，农村工厂殖民地仍然是早期幸存工人住房的重要来源。她对位于克罗姆福德市贝尔珀的德文特山谷棉花工人住房的研究，