When there were federally funded projects during the Great Depression, as
with the WPA program , the field of historical archaeology really was poorly
defined. We need to keep in mind how truly young this branch of archaeology is
in relation to the heavy emphasis placed upon prehistoric archaeology.
The program in which I enrolled at the Royal Presidio de San Diego
(California and only 30-years after the Depression) focused on architecture, buried
features, and the only artifacts recovered were those noticed while digging or
dumping the backdirt. My own professor was puzzled by my insistence on
mapping all the little things according to colored soil layers. Then he was amused
my students trying to make sense out of the Majolica pottery, various shapes
of bricks, and small items like pins and needles. The shift from
architectural sequencing to the study of artifacts, behavioral implications, and
clustering of items within spatial units came later. I would venture a guess that not
too many Depression era sites were documented by the WPA since they were
being created as part of the process at the time. And how many archaeologists on
those River Basin Surveys could tell the difference between 1930s and 1830s
dish fragments? The concepts of studying the common "man" or ethnicities or
gender simply did not exist at that time. In truth, there needs to be a
Section 110 re-survey of what survived of those River Basin Survey areas to study
the historical archaeology (as we define it today). So whaddya say, Jason?
Oh, and before I forget, the actual camps of the surveyors ought to be
studied too. At one of the Pecos Conferences I attended in the 1970s, someone gave
a paper on the documentation of a 1920s archaeology camp. I recall seeing
photos of partially disintegrated chairs, foil food wrappers, and a count of the
beverage bottle types consumed by the archaeologists. I went away thinking
that paper really should be published. And now I am thinking all those WPA,
CCC, and NRA camps would prove interesting.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
In a message dated 3/26/2009 10:18:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Bob,
I think if we were on a prehistoric listserve, I would agree with you, but
considering the historical impact of the region in terms of meaty historical
archaeology themes, like slavery, this area is not well studied
archaeologically. (of course, I'm considering Virginia & South Carolina,
Maryland, as really Mid-Atlantic and not Southeastern )
However, the importance of the old Black Belt, or Cotton Belt to the spread
of Slavery and the lasting effects of that institution is undeniable, and
yet not that much work has been done in this Southern heartland compared to
the Mid Atlantic or even the upland South.
Jason asked Why. I think it is precisely due to what Bob referred to. The
Southeast has been a bastion for
"Mound builder" archaeology for so long, that there has been little room in
academic departments for good historical archaeology to take root, which in
practice is very different in many ways, than the older Southeastern
tradition in archaeology. Here's the simple truth, graduate students and
professors often tend to study what is near at hand, hence we know an awful
lot about Tidewater Virginia.
Anyway, as a participant observer, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I do believe that once historical archaeologists make inroads into these
Southern Colleges, there will be an amazing advance in our knowledge of
topics like the spread and impact of slavery on the southern culture.
This is truly an void crying out to be filled! Historical archaeologists
are nibbling all around the edges, but few have taken a big bite out of the
southern hearland, the black belt area!
Linda Derry
Site Director
Old Cahawba
719 Tremont St.
Selma, AL 36701
ph. 334/875-2529
fax. 334/877-4253
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Southeast US Archaeologically Speaking
I do not believe that the Southeast is the least known archaeological. It
is probably only second to the southwest as the best known area of the
nation.
I was amazed that you felt the central part of the country (Plains) to be
better known. A lot of archarchaeology started there as the result of the
River Basin Surveys in the 1930s, but have they yet to agree on a standard
chronology and terminology? Since that is an area of present day
emmigration, not
as much CRM is called for. What about the Pacific Northwest? There the
climate and vegetation work against archaeology. It is buried deep or has
dense
ground cover.
Sticking strictly to historical archaeology, how about all the colonial and
Civil War reseaerch in the Southeast? If you are from that area, you are
truly blessed with the wealth of data.
Bob Hoover
**************
Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799606x1201361003/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F
%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213153745%3B34689725%3Bo)
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799606x1201361003/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doub
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B213153745%3B34689725%3Bo)
|