I think that Anita has touched on a very serious subject. I am supposedly
a "senior" archaeologist with a consulting-engineering company and my
official title is "historical archaeologist." There are two other
Principal Investigators in my company, both of whom are "prehistoric
archaeologists." True, my specialization has been in historical
archaeology, but that does not make me any less an archaeologist. Yet the
prehistoric archaeologists continually are consulted by the vice
president for cultural resources (to whom we all report) on matters
archaeological where my opinion is only solicited in areas concerning
historical archaeology.
 
The tools, at the dirt level, of historical archaeology are identical to
those in prehistory. I have perceived a bias by many trained exclusively
in prehistoric archaeology against historical archaeology. They have a
considerable degree of difficulty reconciling the need to dig whenever
there are documentary and/or ethnographic sources available pertinent to
a particular site. I currently am working on an excellent example of this.
 
I am in the process of transitioning from Phase I/II on a 19th-20th
century tannery site in northeastern Pennsylvania. The tannery was built
in 1866 by prominent New York City leather merchants who owned tanneries
throughout New York State and Pennsylvania. The tannery was bought in
1874 by the principal of a New York leather firm who was instrumental in
founding the United States Leather Company in 1893 (the largest monopoly
of its time).
 
The site has extensive above-ground remains and is documented by
Sanborns, local maps, and in press accounts and local histories. The site
was abandoned in 1931 and the wooden superstructure was sold for salvage,
leaving the concrete footers and foundations intact. Upon abandonment the
town used the site as a dump, effectively sealing the site for sixty
years under two to five feet of refuse. My boss had a lot of difficulty buying
my argument for digging the site because of all the historical data.
 
To make matters worse, the state archaeologist agreed that the site was
indeed NRHP eligible, but he too was reluctant to dig because he could
not see the archaeological value of such a site.
 
I've got to tell you, I don't see how some of these folks reason. An
intact, well documented industrial site, significant at a national level,
not capable of providing important archaeological data? And, as if that's
not enough, not a single tannery has been excavated (in CRM) in
Pennsylvania. As far as tanneries go, there is little that we really know
about their internal evolutions and how individual tanneries adapted to
widespread technological changes during the late 19th century. To add to
that, because of labor practices by the large tanning companies, who
knows what kind of evidence of counterhegemonic activities may be found
at a well-preserved site.
 
Any way, back to the point. From the "trenches," I can confirm that there
is a very real rift between some prehistoric archaeologists who do not
have the training and exposure to historical archaeology that might make
them more sensitive to what the branch can offer.
 
David S. Rotenstein
[log in to unmask]