at mm, a plantation site in eastern north carolina, we had no clear
evidence from the material remains that the place was occupied during
the civil war years (with one exception , see below) -- this in the
midst of ample evidence for occupation every other period on either side
of these years.  now local histories had the plantations being valiently
defended by the womenfolk. bullet holes in the facade of the plantation
house supposedly came from one such yankee raider skirmish.  but the
only material from that period consists of cheap whiskey bottles found
in moderate quantity at the slave cabin.

my interpretation: the family fled inland (with wagons of household
goods - contemporary newspaper accounts suggest this was a common
reaction) and either squatters or whiskey-drinking caretakers moved into
the cabin area in its absence.

oh the uproar as a cherished family and local myth was proved to be
unlikely in the face of the archaeological evidence. everyone from local
war buffs to a grad student writing a fairly feminist treatise on women
in the local rural south was apalled and not terribly receptive. what's
interesting is how soon after the war that this myth was in place -- and
how despite the contradictory evidence from war-period histoical sources
(newspapers, diaries) it has not been seriously challenged in secondary
works since then.  and there is resistence to "believing"  the archaeology.

i'm interested in similar examples of the archaeology coming up with an
unpopular result and how it affected things all around.

(am typing with my left hand - broken write arm - apologies for lower-case)

maureen basedow, ph.d
greensboro