As the National Park Servic's Midwest Coordinator for the Underground
     Railroad National Historic Landmark Initiative, I suppose I better
     weigh in on Mark Branstner's pointed queries while the fire is hot.
     But first, to elaborate on the initiative, the NPS--through it's
     cultural resources partnership program--is providing technical
     assistance and funding to promote research and other activities
     leading to the nomination of eligible UGRR properties as NHLs.
     Although administered through the history program, some right-thinking
     perple in Washington managed to advocate the need for archeological
     input on the matter.  The proposed five-year intitiative is only just
     getting started (limited funds having been released at the end of
     April), so it will be a while before anything can be reported.
 
     Mark poses some very good questions--in fact, some that I have posed
     myself in communications with others involved with the initiative.
     Unlike other NHL initiatives undertaken for Contact-period and
     Paleoindian sites, there is not already of body of archeological
     research on UGRR sites that can provide context for understanding.  We
     don't know if there is a diagnostic UGRR assemblage.  Fugitives
     traveling far, fast, and light are not likely to leave much direct
     evidence behind at UGRR stops, but as yet we haven't looked many
     places.  I can think of at least a few diagnostic materials that, if
     found in Oberlin, Ohio, would strongly suggest the presence of a
     run-away slave.  Then, again, I can also see some value in a deriving
     a comparative understanding of those whites who are known or reputed
     to have assisted in the movement.  Were they wealthy, poor, "ethnic,"
     etc.?  Archeology may not tell us much about the hundreds of
     African-Americans who passed through a town on their way north, but we
     we are beginning to have enough comparative data from 19th-century
     urban sites that there is at least some potential for discerning
     differences among sites.  Perhaps UGRR stops will be recognizable.
 
     Of course, there is also the very real possibility that archeological
     work on supposed UGRR sites will disabuse local lore.  I recall having
     seen a photo in a state historical magazine years ago that should a
     mysterious brick structure in the basement of a 19th-century building.
     It was identified as having been used in the UGRR, but it was actually
     the infrastructure for a gravity-feed convection furnace typical of
     turn-of-the-century construction.  Even if it had been of the right
     period, one could not have entered the barrel vault area (which was
     presumed in the article to be a place of hiding).
 
     Aside from those basic issues, though, I am equally concerned that
     well-intended efforts to rehabilitate or restore UGRR properties do
     not inadvertently destroy archeological resources--whether associated
     with the movement or not.  Accordingly, the NPS is trying to increase
     awareness of archeology and the need to think abot what might lie
     hidden in the ground.
 
     So, my answer to Mark is that I share his skepticism in many respects,
     and I believe that skepticism is a healthy approach in archeology.  At
     the same time, I believe that there is much that potentially could be
     gained by excavating on sites presumed to be associated with the UGRR.
     There was a time, of course, when we didn't know much about French or
     British fur-trading posts--or whether one could tell them apart through
     archeology.  Research on known UGRR sites might eventually provide a
     better means to recognize such sit in the absence of documentary
     evidence or strong oral tradition.
 
     [log in to unmask]