CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Historical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesArchaeology and Cultural HeritagePhilosophy, History, and Historiography

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Excavating Labor History”: Exploring Class Struggle through Archaeology and Material Culture

Roller, Michael P.·2020·Labor
DOI 10.1215/15476715-7962780
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Archaeology conducted at sites of labor offers the possibility for new modes of historical inquiry. As a method of recovering unrecorded aspects of the past, archaeology provides a vital set of tools for understanding the everyday lives of peripheralized laborers, immigrants, and working-class communities. As both a material science and a social science, it opens this history up to new research questions. Furthermore, the tactile quality of material evidence recovered through archaeology affords researchers new ways to engage public audiences on a variety of levels. The National Park Service’s Labor Archeology of the Industrial Era National Historic Landmark Theme Study offers one framework and context for assessing the significance and integrity of the nation’s sites of labor. Public archaeology projects, such as the Lattimer Archaeology Project in Lattimer, Pennsylvania, on the site of an immigrant shantytown that witnessed a notorious labor massacre, represent another example of the literal and figurative excavation of labor and working-class history. Performed in collaboration local stakeholders, the project used the tools of archaeology and material culture to link historical oppression to present-day injustices in one postindustrial community.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1215/15476715-7962780

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bingham, 1978, China Camp
  2. Brooks, 1898, An Impression of the Anthracite Coal Troubles, Yale Review, 306
  3. Frantz, 2012, Old Town, Immigrants Try to Co-exist in Hazleton, Standard Speaker
  4. Hambidge, 1898, An Artist’s Impression of the Colliery Region, Century, 822
  5. Nassaney, 2000, Urban Spaces, Labor Organization and Social Control: Lessons from New England’s Nineteenth-Century Cutlery Industry, 239
  6. Palus, 2006, They Worked Regular: Craft, Labor, and Family in the Industrial Community of Virginius Island
  7. Rood, 1898, A Pennsylvania Colliery Village: A Polyglot Community, Century, 809
  8. Silliman, 2006, Struggling with Labor, Working on Identities, 147
  9. Wood, 2002, Women’s Work and Class Conflict in a Working-Class Coal-Mining Community, 66

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Roller, M. P.
Corresponding author
Roller, Michael P.
Venue
Labor
Publisher
Duke University Press
Published
2020-03-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
25-43
ISSN
  • 1547-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-1454
DOI
10.1215/15476715-7962780
OpenAlex
W3012384300
Semantic Scholar
2650dd917c93dad4ce29f404ea5961d8163ec1a8
Cited by
2
References
52
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Labor Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Philosophy, History, and Historiography
Keywords
labor history, class struggle, working-class history, material culture, public archaeology, National Park Service, historical oppression, stakeholder collaboration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review