Bill-

The New York State Museum did a publication in response to just such questions as yours from the clients of our Cultural Resource Survey Program:

Hart, John P. and Charles L. Fisher
         2000      Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Domestic Site Archaeology in New York State, New York State Museum Bulletin No.495, New York State Museum, Albany, New York

I myself just finished writing up a data recovery of a 20th century boarding house in the logging community of Thendara, New York, and if there is one thing it showed me it's that we have a lot to learn about how our grandparents adapted to the explosion of consumer products that occurred from the 1870s to ca. 1930, as well as to changing social and economic conditions such as the shift in employer-employee relations, the payment of wages in cash, prohibition, etc., and we need to do it while the old folks are there to explain to us what it was like for them.

The recent nature of the deposits and the general abundance of documentation do not change the fact that the lives of the working class are poorly documented and can only be understood through non-documentary means, i.e., archaeology and interviews.

I think people unconsciously feel that because Recent Archaeology is recent, it can't be interesting or important. But it is crucially important. It is the archaeology of the defining steps in the development of our own society.

As to justification, what that comes down to is that there are far more sites from this period, a fact that requires us to pick and choose more carefully by the specific characteristics of the site. Simply being scarce or early are no longer unconscious factors in the justification. We might choose one site among several because the structure has fire deposits or because living informants are available to tell about it. What the excavation can contribute to our understanding of specific questions becomes much more important. Every community has its own specific social and economic issues, so we have to be more specific in our justifications.

Marty Pickands
New York State Museum Cultural Resource Survey

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/19/05 8:12 PM >>>
With Sanborn maps, directories, land records, tax records, newspapers, journals and a 
host of other historical documentation readily available over the internet it is 
becoming harder and harder to justify Phase II and Phase III excavations, 
especially of late 19th and early twentieth century sites. 

How many 19th/early 20th century farmsteads or urban houses need to be excavated, 
and what new information can they provide?  

I was asked this question by a historian friend of mine and 
was just curious to hear comments and opinions from the list members.  I was told 
that an article appeared several years ago on the subject but unfortunately I 
have no source.

 
Bill Henry