I have to agree with James H. Brothers IV's comments on industrial
archaeology     I am not an industrial archaeologist, nor to do I want to
become one, but I have deep respect for scholars who have studied all the
boring details connected to the history of technology. (boring to me anyway)
In my region, I have seen too many of my colleagues who do not have this
respect, or perhaps they don't even know that this knowledge exists out
there beyond their anthropological noses.   This point was driven home to me
when I watched a true Industrial Archaeologist go onto a site and, because
he was familiar with the industrial process that once existed on the site,
he was able to discover a great deal about the site.through just a few
strategically placed test units.    Unfortunately, I've also witnessed the
more generic CRM archaeologist   entirely grade away a similar industrial
site only to produce a report  on the percentages of ceramic types found.
The waste made me heartsick, so I can't imagine how it makes my industrial
archaeology colleagues feel.   Many of us in the US. were "raised up"
believing that our anthropological training was some sort of holy grail, but
seeing this from another point of view has curbed my arrogance.


Linda Derry ([log in to unmask])
Old Cahawba Archaeological Park
Alabama Historical Commission




----- Original Message -----
From: James H Brothers IV <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 8:10 AM
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
>