What a pleasure to read Larry Buhr's thoughtful and scholarly post. Not
that I'm convinced, of course...

Larry wrote:
>If the
>time of usage of the site is known via documentation (or preliminary
>examination), then one could test the site to determine whether this
>example represents the status quo of industrial process, an older
>technological type (suggesting technological persistence), or an
>advanced technology. 

Ah yes, the old change over time issue. 
This sounds fine as Larry has stated it, but my admittedly small knowledge
of the industrial foundry trade in the 19th century doesn't lead me to
believe that technological advances would show up in the archaeological
record. Consider the archaeological remains that one's likely to come
across: slag, fragments of fuel, the base of the cupola, the base of a
coking oven (if they had one), the casting floor itself and the greensand
molding medium, fragments of refractory clay... can't think of anything
else off hand. 

Would any of these remains show much in the way of technological change to
the archaeologist? The cupola, where iron in melted, is a pretty basic sort
of a structure. Not much change evident there, I suspect. How about an
analysis of the slag? Perhaps one could work out the composition of the raw
iron -- a lot of it was scrap, I understand.  So, my question remains: what
would the analysis of these elements tell us that historical research
couldn't? If anyone can give me actual concrete examples I'd be very happy
to steal 'em and put them in my next research design!

>Testing for the types of fuels used could also be useful, combined with
>trying to determine where they were derived...<snip>. In this light would
the choice of fuels have dictated
>the options of technology used: for example, if bituminous coal was
>readily available in place of charcoal, would a more advanced industrial
>process have been possible?

I should have been clearer. I was thinking of urban industrial foundries,
not tiny operations out in the sticks. The choice for the former was (a)
coal or (b) coke. Both are pretty much completely consumed in the cupola,
although very low grade coal leaves chunks of rock in the slag. Either way,
it seems likely that one could find this out by looking at the surface
remains.

Larry goes on to list several questions concerning the economic context of
the foundry. These are good and valid issues but I question whether
*archaeology*, by which I mean the study of material remains, will help
much. Would one could be better off just to hire an historian of technology
to sort out the arcane details?

Adrian Praetzellis
State of Ennui University