I entirely agree with Ned.  Archaeology is interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary.  I also agree that the only truly defensible projects
are holistic.  Ignoring any aspect of a research project degrades the
value of the project.  And I understand that funding can be a problem.
But....  in CRM there is no excuse for doing half the job.  If the
project is required, then do a complete job.  If the project is a
multiple year university project there is really no excuse for not doing
the job correctly.

I am working on the colonial iron industry of Virginia.  I do not have
lab facilities, nor am I a metallurgist.  The cost of metallurgical
analysis is not high, nor it it time consuming.  But, I don't have a
great deal of money.  I have found lots of archaeometallurgists eager to
help and answer questions.  There are even some willing to do testing
and analysis for free.  Some do it because it provides them with a
source of interesting material to delivery conference papers on.  Others
because they just want to help.  I encourage anyone working on a
metallurgical site to post queries on the arch-metals list
([log in to unmask]) or arch-ind for industrial projects.

Jamie Brothers

ned heite wrote:

> 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.