Dr. Praetzellis requested some examples where archaeological/material
remains research of foundry sites would be validated over and above a
documentary effort.  While I have not yet had direct experience with
foundry sites, I did write my response in consideration of many fine
articles on the topic that I have read, especially in the journal IA.
Volume 18 (1992) has seven articles within a theme issue on iron and
steel; the article "Blast furnace technology in the mid-19th century: a
case study of the Adirondack Iron and Steel Company"  (7:27-54, 1981) by
B. E. Seely is one of my favorite articles regarding rapid technological
change within the iron industry; while the article "Archaeological
evidence of metallurgical innovation at the Eli Whitney Armory" by
Cooper, Gordon, and Merrick (IA 8:1-12, 1982) does indeed document how
study of waste deposits can be utilized to "reveal new information about
the metallurgical technology" (ibid:1).

As an example of my own, I would like to relate one a brickmaking
case-study, as I believe that the theme of this example relates across
all industrial site categories.  The brick plant at Floral,
Saskatchewan, Canada, was set up just outside the urban center of
Saskatoon (thus not a remote site) in 1912-1913 .  Considerable funds
were expended to build a large, state-of-the-art industrial
establishment from scratch.  A recent local history (based on the
contributions of local informants) stated that good bricks were made at
the site, but that financial mismanagement ended operations by 1915.
However, a 1913 geological report (with less than a page devoted to
Floral) noted that the plant was having brick drying problems in its
first year.  That was the extent of documentary evidence, aside from
provincial incorporation and 'striking off' from incorporation listings.

Little more would have been known from a strictly documentary study.
However, as the site foundations were extant and noted to me by an older
gentleman who once kept bees there, I conducted a brief site survey.  A
large pile of unique bricks, of several varieties but all derived from
the same clay, existed within a corner of the largest foundation.  Some
were face cut, some end cut, some had perforations and some were plain
(all being stiff-mud in formation).  The notable feature was that all
were bad: large lime clumps were seen throughout (lime clumps cause
splits in bricks after firing, when the lime rehydrates), and beyond
this the clay body of the bricks were all cracked into pieces.  I had
seen many, and larger, brick refuse piles at other brickmaking sites,
but this was different.  The problems here were intrinsic, not
cosmetic.  Not one good brick may have been made at this location.
Beyond the lime the source clay had proven too fine in particle size:
while one could form nice bricks, the shrinkage upon drying would be too
severe to allow drying without cracking.  Hence, the brickmaker's adage:
"if you can dry it you can burn (fire) it" was negatively applied in
this instance.

The brief 1913 geological report did suggest why individuals would have
sunk so much money into a site with bad clay (although such failures in
all manner of industrial venues are wonderfully common).  Some clay had
been sent out for testing at an American lab, and it came back with
satisfactory results.  However, the lab seems to only have formed and
tested 'bricklets', not full-size specimens.  While the tests were a
good idea, a full-scale, on-site mockup should have been performed.  But
as this was a period of great economic boom on the prairies (and
elsewhere), with a tremendous construction demand for local bricks
(material of choice for the time), a disastrous shortcut was taken.

I hope this little case-study helps illustrate the value of
archaeologically investigating/examining industrial sites for their
material remains.  One cannot assume that literature or even oral
testimony is accurate.  But all such historic resources should be part
of the study and weighed with the archaeology as evidence: the
archaeologist-interpreter presiding as judge.  The truth is out there
somewhere, and I like archaeological evidence best of all.

Larry Buhr
Dept. of Anthropology
Univ. of Nevada, Reno