Five years into explicitly studying industrial archaeology with an
anthropology background, I agree with Ned Heite that a focus on studying
industrial process is relevant and necessary.  A personal specialization
has become that of brick manufacture, from which I can interpret
brickmaking sites, modern or archaic, with accumulated experience that
someone unfamiliar with this genre cannot.  Thus I can recognize
features and artifacts of industrial process with an eye towards
learning about the people that used them.  For instance, if an old,
seemingly outmoded process which I can recognize is used at a particular
site then questions must be raised as to why the operators chose this
process.  Was this a matter of personal preference, ethnic or regional
preference, basic economic advantage, or sheer stubbornness?  Or, if the
final episode of a site's existence suggests a reduction in production
quality, outright failure, or some other form of desperation, what was
then driving the final operators to these ends?  As well, when
longer-lived sites evolved over time with changes in technology and
process, a technical expertise is needed to sort out these stages and
then once again ask questions about the people who made these decisions
of change.  Are these examples attached to the motivations of
on-the-ground operators, various levels of management, or executive
directorship of a company; and then what would drive such motivations:
local, regional, or international competition or demand; short or
long-term profits, elements of prestige, etc.

Such aspects then of industrial process such as persistence of
technologies (keeping seemingly outmoded examples); technological
reversions, technological 'primitivizing' (adopting substandard
processes), patterns of technology transfer, and indications of outright
failure can all point to the daily lives of the people who interacted
with these industries.

At the same time I believe that the surrounding archaeological aspects
of  industrial sites are intrinsic to a thorough study: that of the
domestic and social spheres.  But like Ned, I would draw a line of
differentiation between explicit archaeology of industrial
process/technology and the archaeology of worker domesticity.  The two
realms can and should work together, but a line of demarcation seems
useful and realistic.  As a subset of historical archaeology, industrial
archaeologists studying technology and industrial process need to
consult, discuss, and focus on issues pertinent to such study.  In
practice they need to consider the wider aspects of industrial
landscapes and draw in the knowledge made possible by those studying the
associated domestic and social portions.  A good place for the team
approach to archaeology.

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