Chris Salter has brought up some very compelling points.  I love the idea that
someday in the future people will see old automobiles at quarries as ritual
propitiation of the earth spirits.  I would also like to add my two cents.  An
anthropological approach is fine, but too often US archeologists seem unable to
see the archaeological forest for the anthropological trees.  Part of this is
due to our training.  American universities teach domestic archeology.   Most of
what we do is domestic sites.  It is what we know and what we are most
comfortable dealing with in the field.

I consider myself an historic archaeologist.  My primary area of interest, for
now (MA thesis), is colonial era iron blast furnaces.  Considering the number of
iron furnaces in the US and the number of excavations done on them we know
surprisingly little about them as a result of anthropological excavations of
them.

If it doesn't have to do with gender, race, , slavery, or worker lifestyles it
has been largely ignored.  Excavations of industrial sites, need to include more
than just the workers' houses.  If the excavation of an iron site includes any
part of the industrial complex it is the stack, or at least a mapping of it.
But what about the casting house, the forge, grist mill, saw mill, storage
sheds, wharf, etc, etc, etc.  Part of the problem is the size of the sites.
But, especially if you are doing CRM, to limit the mitigation to the worker
issue(s), means that all of the data on the industrial process, what and how the
workers spent most of their day, is lost.  With very few exceptions, we know
practically nothing about the operation of the industrial complex that was the
sole reason the workers were there.  In the most egregious instance I saw one
archeologist, giving a paper about a company town, refer to the industrial
buildings as ancillary structures.  Ancillary,  I guess because they did not fit
into the research design.  The only reason the town was there was because of the
ancillary structures.  If you are going to do a job, do it all and do it right.
Don't just do the part that fits your research design.  What if it is wrong?

I have read more reports over the last few years that are full of major errors,
because the authors did not have a clue how iron is made.  Instead of hiring an
expert, or educating themselves, they went out and read a few handy secondary
sources.  Not surprisingly, the same secondary sources are used over and over
again.  And the same errors are repeated over and over again.  In terms of
archaeological training I technically could run an excavation anywhere in the
world.  But, I no more consider myself qualified to properly excavate a
Mesopotamian site than to pilot the space shuttle.  I would miss too much.

JH Brothers IV