After thirty years of doing surface surveys of plowed fields, I am
beginning to re-think my commitment to this technique as the primary survey
method.
 
The problem of interpreting surface remains is well stated by our
colleagues from Ball State. As I understand the problem, they identified
three potentially significant cultural resources: a brick kiln, a
slaughterhouse, and an earlier house. As I understand, the three did not
overlap significantly.
 
So the first step is to document their locations from a whole lot more
research than reference to an atlas map. I think this is a perfect example
of why documentation (ideally) comes before fieldwork.
 
The slaughterhouse and the house would define themselves with a soil
chemical survey. In Delaware, we get our soil results on disk, and then
feed the disk directly into a mapping program like MacGridzo. Voila! It's
cheap, too.
 
As far as field survey is concerned, the surface indications of a
slaughterhouse might be indistinguishable from a barn or other outbuilding.
Chemically, it would be quite distinct. So if I knew of the existence of a
slaughterhouse, I would start from a chemical survey.
 
On my current site, the Phase II chemical survey gave us definitive
boundaries for the farmyard site.
 
As for identifying the brick kiln, they are unlike any other kind of site.
Large masses of brick fragments, in a wide range of degrees of hardness,
with no mortar, indicate a brick kiln.
 
I would never write off a brick kiln without some interpretation. Brick
technology is a sensitive marker for a whole bunch of economic and
industrial history issues. The literature of the archaeology of brick kilns
is extensive, but there is a whole lot more to learn from them.
 
 
 
Ned Heite
Camden, Delaware 19934
Icelandic wool catalogue:  http://www.dmv.com/~iceland
See our draft articles on: http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html