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