Colleagues,
This discussion touches on one of the central issues in the
preservation, reconstruction, and contemporary development of historic
sites. Even where all relevant experts are involved, there are many
informed and genuinely valid values to be considered. Many of these
values are not only overlapping but mutually exclusive. These include
the justifiable values of archaeology, architecture, art and
architectural history, and urban planning (even leaving aside the
justifiable values of business and government, local residents and
property owners).
To arrive at a reasonable approach to the preservation of an historic
site requires not only well educated professionals in each of our
fields, but also full consultation and some respected committee with
respected chairperson in charge. It can be a long, controversial
process where even the most reasonable decision may satisfy very few.
This situation is most extreme where there are multiple historical
overlays. Witness the justifiable but conflicting interests involved
in the current redesign of the Piazza Augusto and Ara Pacis Museum in
Rome.
http://cdm.reed.edu/ara-pacis/meier/piazza-augusto-imperatore/piazza/
_______________________
Charles S. Rhyne
Professor Emeritus, Art History
Reed College
3203 S.E. Woodstock Blvd.
Portland, OR 97202-8199
USA
voice 503/771-1112 x7469
fax 503/788-6691
email [log in to unmask]
web http://www.reed.edu/~crhyne
_______________________
Quoting Gaye Nayton <[log in to unmask]>:
> That's interesting. We have exactly the same problem in Australia in that
> main stream history talks and argues and presents without any reference to
> and archaeological work that may have been carried out in the same field.
>
> In CRM architects, historians and archaeologists often work closely
> together, but here in WA at least probably 90% of CRM conservation plans,
> conservation work and development mitigation happens without an
> archaeological input or any thought to what they are doing to the
> archaeology of the place.
>
> Gaye
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lucy
> Wayne
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 6:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Thad Van Bueren's Archaeology & Architectural History
>
> From the perspective of someone who is an architectural historian but also
> an archaeologist, it may have a lot to do with training. I suspect most
> historic archaeologists learn at least basic things about architecture--or
> at least have sense enough to go find an architectural historian or
> architect to help them interpret building remains. But when I was taking
> graduate architectural history/preservation planning courses, I distinctly
> recall a session presenting student projects set in a historic community
> (Nantucket). Students were going on about proposed subsurface drainage
> improvements, utilities, etc., with no consideration whatsoever of the
> archaeological remains which were undoubtedly present in the yards of these
> 18th-19th century houses. Why? They didn't take any courses that talk
> about archaeology, and probably have little contact with archaeologists
> unless they go to work for a CRM firm or an academic program that addresses
> preservation more broadly (example University of Mary Washington
> undergraduate program).
>
> I have long been convinced that the best programs (and as a consultant, the
> ones that produce the best employees) are those that require (or at least
> offer) coursework that crosses disciplines in the world of cultural
> resources: basics in archaeology, architectural history, historic research,
> planning, CRM regulations, etc.
>
> Lucy Wayne
>
> SouthArc, Inc.
> 3700 NW 91st Street, Suite D300
> Gainesville, FL 32606
> (352)372-2633, fax (352)378-3931, toll free 1-888-707-2721
> www.southarc.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 5:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Thad Van Bueren's Archaeology & Architectural History
>
> My understanding, Harding, is that much of this began with the
> establishment of the National Historic Preservation Act. Architectural
> historians
> were not as keen on being a part of the governments efforts in historic
> preservation as archaeologists, despite the fact that the effects of urban
> renewal during the 1960s was the biggest reason for passage of the act in
> the
> first place. This led to a number of regulations that favored archaeology.
>
> Add to that, ongoing political maneuvering to protect and enhance grants
> and
> regulatory control and academic turf protection.
>
> Balkanization is probably the best word that one could use to describe this
> endless standoff. We have seldom made much headway in Utah on the subject
> and many, many construction projects have been approved here with only
> consideration made for architecture. This, despite the fact that
> archaeological components were either visible or almost certain to exist on
> the sites
> being studied.
>
> Mike Polk
> Sagebrush Consultants
> Ogden, Utah
>
>
> In a message dated 8/22/2011 3:00:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Bravo! =20
>
> Why the two should be considered in isolation has always been a mystery to=
> me and represents Balkanization at its worse. The two disciplines comple=
> ment each other and add to and broaden each field's study. The more they=
> are combined the fuller picture of life at any particular site we shall=
> have.=20
>
> Harding Polk II
> Archaeologist
> Bureau of Indian Affairs
> Southwest Region
> Albuquerque, NM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Ivey <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 2:20 pm
> Subject: Thad Van Bueren's Archaeology & Architectural History
>
>
> I've been thinking about Thad's posting, and now I'm going back to it=20
> because I think the problem of interaction between historians,
> architectur=
> al=20
> historians, and archaeologists needs more comment. I'm going to throw a=20
> big chunk of text in here, taken from a report I wrote a few years ago in=
> =20
> the 1990s, that discusses this point. It's from an architectural and=20
> archaeological history I wrote of the mission at Pecos Pueblo, in New Mexi=
> co.=20
> =20
> 'The archaeological information was not only critical to our knowledge of=
> the dates of use and sequences of construction of the buildings at the si=
> te [of the mission of Pecos], but also added to our knowledge of the histo=
> ry of the Pecos mission in areas that the historical records alone were si=
> lent. This is not an intuitive conclusion =E2=80=93 it rather tends to sur=
> prise most people.=20
> 'In 1964, Ivor Noel Hume referred to historical archaeology as the =E2=
> =80=9Chandmaiden to history=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 where =E2=80=9Chandmaiden=
> =E2=80=9D meant =E2=80=9Csomething whose essential function is to serve an=
> d assist...=E2=80=9D Noel Hume reviewed the reasons for doing =E2=80=9Chis=
> torical site archaeology=E2=80=9D and concluded that =E2=80=9Cthe only rea=
> son for archaeological interest in the historical period is to obtain, not=
> relics, but information.=E2=80=9D This information was not new historical=
> data, whereby archaeology would be another source of information like doc=
> umentary history, but rather could be used to help =E2=80=9Cto reconstruct=
> and interpret the social history=E2=80=9D of a given period. Beyond this,=
> archaeology and history complemented each other, he said =E2=80=93 =E2=80=
> =9Cthe two disciplines combine to give the past a new dimension.=E2=80=9D=
> That is, =E2=80=9Cby accepting and using the techniques and products of=
> archaeology the historian is ... able to broaden his own knowledge,=E2=80=
> =9D while at the same time making =E2=80=9Chis studies more readily accept=
> able to the general public=E2=80=9D by giving the historian=E2=80=99s text=
> -based research a physical aspect in terms of sites, building remains, and=
> the artifacts of daily life of a time or person.=20
> 'This concept expressed by Noel Hume in 1964 that archaeology was princi=
> pally a technique that would =E2=80=9Cserve and assist=E2=80=9D the histor=
> ian was a restatement of the perception of the relationship between archae=
> ology and history encountered throughout most of the twentieth century in=
> this history of the archaeology and architecture of Pecos. That is, the=
> historical documents revealed everything important about a site, and arch=
> aeology simply provided artifacts and structures from the lives of those=
> who lived at the site, while at the same time preparing it for public dis=
> play. The possibility that archaeology could be a separate and powerful so=
> urce of historical information was simply not a part of the thinking of mo=
> st of those involved in historic sites research.=20
> 'As we have seen, however, no documentation adequately records the histo=
> ry of a place. Even in a document-rich environment like the history of the=
> missions of San Antonio, Texas, or the mission system of California, a gr=
> eat deal has to be inferred beyond the specifics of the documentary record=
> . At San Antonio, for example, the physical record of the construction and=
> changes to the missions, as revealed by an intensive examination of the=
> surviving structures of the mission buildings, and the archaeological evi=
> dence for structural change found in the ground, allowed an interpretation=
> of the architectural history that was not possible from documents alone=
> =3D=20
>
>
|
