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