Ah, but oral history only goes so far. I recall interviewing an 86-year old  
World War II veteran and finding he knew nothing of the World War I artifacts  
housed in the attic of the local American Legion Hall (in fact, none of those 
WW  II vets could walk up the staircase to see the stuff in the attic). I 
suspect  few informants can tell us much of a 18th century Hispanic adobe 
location. 
 
Not all historical diaries and "geezer accounts" are accurate. During my  
tenure in local government, a local historical archaeologist hired an historian  
to search for a "missing" 1840s adobe in a local rancho. They targeted a piece 
 of land using geezer accounts, newspaper records, and one or two Canary  
Island palm trees as guidance and then ripped up the land using a backhoe in  
search of the legendary adobe. But to no avail. Then I enlisted the assistance  
of a local land surveyor and he found a record of survey at the local 
government  office and triangulated the sightings of "the adobe house," which proved to 
be a  mile or so east of the palm trees. Then I found a 1970s vintage survey 
report  prepared by a couple of prehistorians that commented, "mound of hard 
mud  associated with broken glass, beads, and white ceramics." My point here is 
that  oral history, interviews with old timers, and living memory is only one 
tool in  the historical archaeology tool kit. 
 
Should the prehistorians have received training in historical archaeology  
before surveying a large tract of land with a known Mexican era adobe and native 
 village in contact with European Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries?  
Should the historical archaeologists have learned land surveying to access and 
 thoroughly use records of survey notes in search of the adobe? How would an  
historical archaeologist esconced in a history department have approached the 
 issue? 
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour