Ritual and magic in archaeology was well introduced in Ralph
Merrifield's book, The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, 1987, so it's
not a novel suggestion that John has popped into the discussion.

I agree with Bob Schuyler that historical archaeology is inherently
interdisciplinary. He's correct in stating that the very few popular
writers in our trade are the ones who have bothered to carry our
message to the public.

But, I submit, we all should be doing that. If we dig a church site,
do we think of writing for the historical journal of that
denomination? If we dig a site with tinsmithing remains, do we think
of trade magazines like Tin International (which pays for articles,
by the way)? If we dig a site associated with a family, do we hook up
with the filiopietistic organization of that family's descendants?
The list goes on.  There are billyuns and billyuns of direct
associations that could be exploited for publication opportunities.

And don't tell me that's not archaeology.

Any knowledge is a subset of archaeology, after all.

Jamie Brothers is absolutely right in his criticism of so many
archaeological site reports that ignore major aspects of industrial
(or other) sites.  Yes, if you dig a forge site, you are digging more
than the process. But you are also digging more than worker
conditions. And you are digging testimony about management, too. But,
Jamie, be sure you carefully record and report the social and living
environments of the workers, as well as the technology.

Ignoring any aspect of any resource is, well, ignorant.