A question about negative evidence.
(pardon cross-posting)
 
Clipped from the description of  "Structure 3" on the Association for the
Preservation of Virginia Antiquities - Jamestown Rediscovery web page
(http://www.apva.org/ and http://www.apva.org/finding/str3.html) is:
 
"A common scenario is that a building, being abandoned, is scavenged of all
usable materials and becomes buried in time by it's own collapse and the
dumping of refuse by nearby inhabitants. By the time archaeologists arrive
on the scene hundreds of years later it is not known whether the artifacts
in association with it have anything to do with the original use of the
structure or its occupants. A building that burns is the equivalent of a
time capsule. With luck archaeologists will find items exactly where they
were at the time of the fire. These items can tell the story of the use of
the building and hopefully something about the people who used it."
 
        A great concept, as it points out the value of burned structures as unique
resources, and notes the shortcomings of sites that had been abandoned and
remained accessible over a longer period of time.  Everyone should be aware
of the impact of reuse and recycling of materials upon the archaeological
record and the allied impact to the interpretation formulated by the
archaeologist, but, as most of the sites that we examine are not structures
that burned while still occupied for their original purpose, I have a
feeling recycling and reuse of objects is something we tend to forget
about, ignore, or otherwise overlook when it comes to compiling our reports
and papers - for the simple fact that it is difficult if not impossible to
cite negative evidence (we can only note that a void is likely).
 
        Has anyone done a study on the impact of reuse and recycling on the
archaeological record?  We all know better than to think that what we find
is everything that was used by the site's occupants or creators (rare
occurrences such as Pompeii excepted, of course).  We are aware of the
perishability of organic remains which leave no trace, and get thrilled
when we find a nut shell fragment telling us they knew what peanuts where,
and we get a similar thrill out of counting bent nails and broken window
glass, but what about all the stuff that was at the site, but is now
missing - taken away by others because it continued to be of value?
 
        I guess in my rambles I am asking such things as: "Has any one taken the
counts of nails recovered in an excavation of a farm house and then
compared that to how many nails would have been needed to build the house
(or similar structure)?"  Folks just didn't (and don't) leave stuff alone,
especially stuff that is of some use, for the benefit of future
archaeologists.
 
Cases in point:
Condemned structure or building demolitions where scavengers and salvagers
recover bricks, lead, iron, copper, wood, stone, ...
 
an abandoned farmhouse where the neighbors and vandals strip door knobs,
window sash, floor boards, plumbing fixtures, and abandoned dishes,
furniture, and books and papers ... (or following a fire where they scour
the ashes for the many pounds of iron nails that are just lying there) ...
 
or, a battle field where souvenir hunters, metal workers, and local
artisans (or even government contractors) haul away stuff by the ton ...
 
 
Particularly:
I have seen references to pioneer settlers raiding Native American burial
grounds because they contained profitable quantities of iron and copper
which were then used in making items in their forges and furnaces (also
recovered were utensils and glass and ceramic items which they used in the
home).
 
From the Revolutionary War fortifications at Mount Independence, located on
Lake Champlain in Vermont and opposite Fort Ticonderoga, the US Gov't gave
contracts to salvagers who scoured the fortifications for iron, copper,
lead, glass, and anything else by which a buck could be made.  Collectors
and the curious (as well as archaeologists, now) have taken way more.
 
It is said that from the Civil War battlefields around Richmond and
Petersburg thousands of pounds of lead and iron were collected from the
fields by farmers and scavengers in the decade or so following the war (not
to mention the tons of stuff that was whisked away before the buckets of
blood had dried).
 
I have seen countless demolition agreements in which property owners,
facing the loss of their houses to city development, are allowed to
entirely remove or strip the building of anything they could (whole window
and door assemblies, plumbing, roofing material...)
 
I've seen a number of contracts for large cities which have had multi-block
fires (NY City, San Francisco, and Boston) (sorry, wasn't curious enough at
the time to record the info and citation) in which various firms were
awarded rights for different materials.
 
Also a quip from 1859 in which a local dentist was sifting the remains of
his burned office to recover the gold that was lost.
 
I even have a great account of a farmhouse fire (1925) in which the
neighbors and hired hands, while waiting for the chemical pumper to arrive,
managed to cart out every bit of furniture, whole door and sash assemblies,
light fixtures, carpets, kitchen stuff, etc..  They couldn't stop the fire
from reducing the house to ashes, but they managed to save everything else!
 
Also an 1808 account of the burning of a log cabin to get the wood ashes
(for pot ash) and recover nails.
 
How about hand-me-down ceramics where the "middling" farmer gives the old
stuff to the tenant farmer who is struggling (and usually gets his stuff
from the peddler, anyway) (this would show up in both household's
assemblages as partial sets).
 
Or, the frontier store that took reusable glass bottles in exchange for
goods or credit, and when a glass factory opened near by, they also
accepted broken glass?
 
 
        Each of these incidents removed potential "artifacts" from the
archaeological record and there is no way to determine the impact of this
on our interpretations based on counting what we have recovered.  How do
we, as archaeologists deal with this?  Do we say we can't even guestimate
the impact and ignore it?  Should we study this sort of thing (fun
actualistic studies involving setting up a house and watching it fall pray
to vandals, or burn it down and count the nails and map their
distribution)?  Are there any studies such as this?
 
        Just curious
 
        Dan W.
 
The JR / APVA pages are a must see!
http://www.apva.org/