I know what you mean about "ancillary structures". There's a great iron
forge site just outside of St. Louis (in Ironton, I believe) that has been
studied on and off for years. It wasn't until the 1980's, however, that a
full mapping and partial excavation of the landing stage to the filled in
canal that the owner dug (at least a mile long) to the nearby river. I
remeber the archeologist marvelling at the fact that everybody knew it was
there but simply said, "Oh, that? That's the canal."

John Dendy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James H Brothers IV [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 8:11 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: What we do
>
> 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