Richard:
 
>> My question is this, short of a list of each building, site, and ethnic
member associated with the company, what would archaeologists like to see in a
history of a mining company?<<
 
As an archeologist who sometimes works on industrial sites, and often works with
documents, the most important thing I would like to see is explicit recognition
that surviving remains (above and below ground) are a major source of data for
industrial history.
 
>>I am focusing on three themes: business, community life, and technology. Would
an
appendice listing archaeological references be helpful, a brief summation of
remaining resources, what?<<
 
These themes are, of course, the most appropriate, and all are useful to
archeologists (though some would only see the value in the latter two).  I've
read a lot of work on extractive industries, and other industrial enterprises,
that amount to business histories with a generalized discussion of technology
tacked onto the end.  Avoid the temptation to base technological discussions
solely on documentary evidence, or worse, on published evidence from catalogs,
mining manuals, etc.  These are important as far as what could have been done,
but they don't necessarily tell you what was done, as company records and the
material record will.  Pay attention to what this particular company was doing
to solve specific technical problems at specific times. As for community life,
ethnicity, class, and gender are part of that, and should be approached through
use of censuses where available.  An archeologist who comes along to work on
settlement or industrial sites left by that company will benefit from a
community history that is framed to some degree in social scientific terms.
Anthony F. C. Wallace's works are examples of community-based historical studies
that I have found useful.
 
The lists that you refer to are not in themselves necessary, unless you find
yourself working as a consultant for an archeological or CRM project.  In that
case, detailed lists of structures, chains of title, lists of occupants of
buildings, and other minutiae, will be at the top of the list.
 
There's no need to list archeological references in an appendix.  Better to list
the relevant ones in your list of references cited, after incorporating from
them whatever is relevant into your study.
 
I hope this is in some way useful.  I can think of several faculty members at
MTU who have been closely involved in archeological studies of industrial
communities, both on the UP and elsewhere.  I would definitely seek their
advice.
 
Lauren J. Cook