I think that a lot of the problems that Ned has pointed out are due to an
"anthropological" approach to archeology.  I hold a degree in anthropology from
the University of Pennsylvania.  My undergraduate advisor was John Witthoft, who
is probably best remembered as a prehistorian.  But, he also taught Anthro 555,
Technology and Culture.  The course covered technology from flint knapping to
the arms of Krupp and the aniline dye industry.  One student did a paper on
rotary aircraft engines.

How many Anthro departments teach a history of technology course?  How many have
courses on SW archeology?  Don't get me wrong, SW archeology is important,
especially if you live and work in the SW.  I enjoyed studying it and visiting
sites in the SW.  But, today most of us are going to end up doing CRM or doing
oversight for CRM, and maybe we need to do a better job preparing.  Altogether
too many anthropologists are really just prehistoric sociologists with new
tools.  Anthro departments need to realize that "anthro" encompasses more than
"primitive" or prehistoric cultures.

Departments that do teach historic archeology often ignore the non domestic
aspects.  William & Mary had a course on the culture of the Chesapeake that
during the section on economy conveyed the image that the economy was totally
agricultural.  And more to the point all that mattered was tobacco. By 1755 over
40% of the export income of Virginia was from non-tobacco sources.  Virginia had
a considerable amount of industry.  Virginia and Maryland made half of the iron
in Colonial America.  The American colonies, in spite of a much smaller
population, made as much if not more iron that Great Britain.

We don't know very much about anything but the workers' domestic situation
because of the anthropological training and research designs of American
archeologists.  When you work 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week, and you
sleep some of the time, you don't spend a lot of time at home.  Which is more
important the workplace or where you sleep?  I think the answer is obvious, but
most archeologists are still out there collecting pottery.

A basic understanding of technology is important, especially for historic
archeology.  I once watched a presentation by a major CRM firm about this
amazing mill site they had excavated.  The builders had constructed the headrace
so that it followed the contours of the land.  They thought it was really
special that the designers of the mill realized that water flows downhill.  It
was painfully obvious that the excavation team had little or no prior experience
with mills and hadn't learned a great deal digging this one.

JH Brothers IV