Apropos nothing, or not much--one of the things I've always thought was
"neat" (nice archaeological term, that) about the Gettysburg National
Battlefield is that its preservation, which began within a few years of
the 1863 battle, has also preserved a small mid-19th century rural
landscape, and the farmstead sites that were components of that
landscape.  Of course, the battle itself and its commemoration are
impacts on this landscape, with probably local degrees of severity
(entrenchments, burials and monument foundations vs. the odd minne ball
impact).  Preservation of this area is probably more archaeological than
as a landscape, since strolling the battle lines and contemplating great
themes of life, death, conflict and history, the purpose it now serves,
as a memorial park, was NOT a usual activity in a 19th century rural
landscape.  But, inadvertent preservation, however partial, is
preservation none the less.

Gettysburg as an example, of course--other Civil War battlefield parks,
and monuments from other wars (Breed's Hill?  Sackets's Harbor?  Fort
Griswold?) might also perform such a function, to the extent that they
had a pre-war landscape or archaeological components to preserve, and
that preservation of the battlefield was begun soon after the battle,
before a post-war occupation could begin--unless, of course, that
post-war occupation itself might have some interest today, and also have
been preserved inadvertently through memorialization.  I can see some
archaeologist in 2505 recording a section of concrete work from the wall
of a Hudson and Manhattan Railroad/PATH tube, uncovered during
maintenance work on the WTC Memorial.

D. Babson.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron
May
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 11:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Camps, Hosts, Cats and so on

Ah, Battlefields! Just yesterday in a meeting with the City of San Diego
(California again), a civil servant declared to me that battlefields
qualify under
single-event historic significance criteria. I, on the other hand, found
that
a strange thing to say since battlefields undergo long periods of
transformation and do not look anything like the actual battle today.
Certainly all the
messy cannons, bodies, and burned wagons are gone. Many battlefields
became
parks with lawns, facsimile cannons (often from other battlefields) and
some with
perimeter fences made of battlefield artifacts. These transmogrified
battlefields assume a cultural landscape that should be considered
historic under
other categories, not to mention traditional cultural properties. What
do other
folks here in HISTARCH think about the potential significance of
battlefields?

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.