Actually I could think of a lot of things to test at a foundry site, but
this gets back to that industrial process/technology horse which I seem
to like to beat.  First of all, industrial processes change over time:
they are dynamic and evolving, and to simply know that a foundry site
exists is not to know how it fits in the development of foundry workings
or the social and economic fabric of its region and time frame.  If the
time of usage of the site is known via documentation (or preliminary
examination), then one could test the site to determine whether this
example represents the status quo of industrial process, an older
technological type (suggesting technological persistence), or an
advanced technology.  Persistence or advanced technologies are the most
intriguing, but again context must be considered: historic cutting edge
at one site might be old hat in another region.  From such
investigation, aspects of technology transfer might be indicated, from
which questions could be raised as to whether any such transfer was
facilitated by the actual historic presence of certain individuals or
groups, or by various means of media and communication.

Testing for the types of fuels used could also be useful, combined with
trying to determine where they were derived.  Would the choice of fuels
have impacted the success or failure of the products or the entire
operation itself?  In this light would the choice of fuels have dictated
the options of technology used: for example, if bituminous coal was
readily available in place of charcoal, would a more advanced industrial
process have been possible?  Or would a substandard fuel have stymied
the ongoing viability of the operation? Who would have supplied the
fuel: what sort of network would have been in place?  Industrial sites
always operated within a myriad of networks: fuel inputs, basic resource
inputs (ores and minerals, foodstuffs and other organics, water, etc.),
shipping and distribution of finished products, regulatory agencies and
competitors, maintenance and upgrading, relations of management and
investment, relations of technical expertise, and relations of
employment including directly or indirectly controlled housing and
domestic aspects.

Within investigation of the process/technology scenarios, does the site
then appear to be of short or long duration?  Is failure or an abrupt
ending suggested?  Are there multiple feature concentrations and if so
how what does each feature represent and how does each tie into the
total reconstruction of the site operation?  In a larger sense, how does
the site tie into into the geographical setting in the present, and
would this have been similar in the past?  Was the physical setting
critical and in what ways?  Where was the demand that led the particular
site to be situated in this area, and who benefited from its production?

Clues to all of these questions can be found in the archaeological
record of a given industrial site, but in a basic sense these questions
are the same ones that are asked when looking at other archaeological
site types, whether they be prehistoric lithic quarries, medieval
farmsteads, or historic saloons.  As I mentioned in a previous mailing,
however, recent industrial sites do tend to demand a level of
expertise/arcania to sort out their often fine, but very significant,
details.  Dr. Praetzellis notes that several days of hands-on experience
allows him to distinguish between several kinds of slag: this may indeed
be a vital aspect of a particular site interpretation.  A main point is
that such arcania isn't learned simply for the sake of arcania (although
this can be enjoyable), but for the interpretative possibilities.

Industrial sites do of course carry the hazards not only of chemical
contamination but of structural instability, varying radioactivity
levels, significant height differentials, and overall dangerous physical
features: caution must be exercised.  Personally, I find these hazards
an exciting challenge and must confess that the filthier, larger, and
more complex an industrial site appears, the more attracted I am to its
study.  This is of course a personal problem upon which the continued
study of such sites does not seem to be relieving.

Larry Buhr
Dept. of Anthropology
Univ. of Nevada, Reno