I, for one, am looking forward to privatization. Just think of the
possibilities for naming rights: Daimler-Chrysler Grand Canyon; Fleet Bank
Valley Forge NHP....
R
Richard M. Affleck, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
URS Corporation
561 Cedar Lane
Florence, NJ 08518-2511
609-499-3447 (phone)
609-499-3516 (fax)
David Babson
<[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
SYR.EDU> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Archaeology and Ruins
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
07/15/03 07:54 PM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
Wonder how much more of this sort of "reconstruction" we will get (with
corporate logos discretely included) once NPS is privatized?
D. Babson
-----Original Message-----
From: James Brothers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tue 7/15/2003 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Archaeology and Ruins
Unfortunately there are lots of examples in the US. some are
readily admitted
to, some are not.
I visited The George Washington Birthplace Natl. Monument last
Saturday. The
NPS Rangers will readily admit, or at least ours did, that the
building
constructed on the site (by a private foundation) is not only
not on the
correct site, but is also entirely wrong. The private
foundation that first
acquired the site felt that anyone as important as George
Washington must have
been born in a large brick plantation home, so that is what
they built. After
the NPS took over the site they did some archaeology and found
the foundation
of the original house (burned in 1799?). The Ranger leading
our group said
that the actual house would looked pretty much like a slightly
larger version
of the reconstructed kitchen (wood). The large brick building
was constructed
on the site of an earthfast structure, probably the stable.
Saugus Ironworks Natl. Historic Site (Saugus, MA, USA) is the
finest
reproduction late 18th century French iron works on 17th
century British
colonial foundations in the world. The reconstruction was
done by the US
Steel Industry and the site donated to the NPS, but the NPS
really doesn't
like to talk about the "problems". The elevations, and much
of the interiors,
were taken directly from Diderot's Encyclopedia. Where there
were differences
between Diderot and the architects' plan and the archaeology,
they ignored the
archaeology. For instance archaeology revealed that the Forge
had two
hammers, but the architects (not suprizingly the same ones
responsible for
Colonial Williamsburg), decided to only build one. 'Two would
have not have
been aesthetically pleasing". The furnace stack was
reconstructed with a two
foot high lip around the top. while it makes a dandy bench
and looks very
nice, it would have made it practically impossible to load
(charge) the
furnace. The bottom line is the archaeologist quit and never
published the
excavation report. But, if you want to see what a late 18th
century French
iron works would have looked like, Saugus is about the only
place I know of to
go. And to be honest, there probably wasn't much difference
between a British
and French iron works in the 1770s. What they looked like in
1640 is another
question.
Colonial Williamsburg (Virginia) has some excellent examples
of what you are
looking for. While it is one of the premier living history
sites in the
world, that does not mean they have not and do not make
mistakes. There were
and are some major errors in the reconstruction. For instance
most of the
early buildings have New England style chimney stacks rather
than Virginia
style (the architects were from NY). The emphasis, from its
inception in the
1930s, was on the "big" house. As a result the work buildings
on many of the
properties were either not reconstructed, or were not part of
the exhibit.
Also until very recently the entire historic area was
repainted almost
yearly. As a result it looked much better than it would have
looked in the
1700s. My favorite story is about the recent reconstruction
of Shield's
Tavern. According to what I have been told, although the
garden plan was
recovered archaeologically, it was reconstructed differently.
The CWF Master
Gardener directed that the reconstruction be 90 degrees out.
When asked why
he replied "I don't care what you found, this is the way it
should have
been". CW also frequently portrays the Carter's Grove "Slave
Qtrs." as
"authentic" or "reconstruct ions" , when in reality the only
evidence for the
structures was a series of storage pits. One of the buildings
is copied from
another plantation. In its defense, while Colonial
Williamsburg may not be
exactly historically accurate it provides a relatively
painless way for many
people to learn about American History. That I ended up an
archaeologist is
at least partially due to a family trip to CW when I was four.
Today the
archaeology done by CW is world class, what the Foundation
(which is now often
more interested in hotels and golf courses) does with the
information is
another matter.
James H. Brothers IV, RPA
Susan Piddock wrote:
> Hi Everybody
> Recently Greg Jackman published an article here in
Australia
> about Port Arthur, which was a convict penal colony, remote
from
> civilization. After a bushfire swept through the settlement
at the
> beginning of the twentieth century, the settlement became a
set of ruins.
> Over the last century parts of the buildings have been
restored and reflect
> different ideas about the heritage management of the site.
In effect Greg
> argues that the ruins have become romanticized and their
nature as
> buildings for the use and management of convicts has been
down played. He
> argues that a recently excavated school/reformatory site
should be left as
> an archaeological site that gives a real understanding of
the purpose of
> Port Arthur. I was wondering about other sites around the
world where there
> might be a conflict between a romanticized past and the
reality revealed by
> archaeology, an references would be helpful as l wish to
discuss this issue
> in a lecture.
> cheers
> Susan
> Dr Susan Piddock
|