Pioneers in Historical Archaeology: Breaking New Ground

237 Pages·1994·29.18 MB·English

by  J. C. Harrington (auth.)

Pioneers in Historical
Archaeology
Breaking New Ground
Pioneers in Historical
Archaeology
Breaking New Ground
Edited by
STANLEY SOUTH
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pioneers In historical archaeology : breaking new ground / edited by
Stanley South,
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and Index.
1. Archaeology and history—United States. 2. Historic sltes-
-Unlted States—Conservation and restoration. 3. United States-
-Antlqultles—Collection and preservation. I. South, Stanley A.
CC77.H5P56 1994
930.1 '07'073—dc20 94-36179
CIP
Front cover: The archaeological camp on Dallas Island, Tennessee, after the houseboat went
down. In the photo are Jane Jennings, Stu Neitzel, Bill Bunce, and Wendell Walker, 1936.
(Photo by Wendell Walker, courtesy of Mrs. R. S. Neitzel.) (See Chapter 10.)
ISBN 978-1-4899-0957-2 ISBN 978-1-4899-0955-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-0955-8
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994
Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1994
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1994
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise,
without written permission from the Publisher
Preface
1994
This book was written in 1977 by twelve pioneers in the field of historical
archaeology who began their careers between the 1920s and the 19408, and
whose names were well known by those, such as myself, who began their
careers in historical archaeology in the 19508. These men had distinguished
themselves in various ways, for example, some through their expertise with
artifact identification and typologies of artifacts such as gun parts or beads.
Other of these pioneers were known for their excavation and publication of
work on particular sites with names such as Jamestown, Awatovi, Fort
Frederica, Fatherland, and Like-a-Fishhook Village. Some were known for
having conducted archaeology on historic sites when there was virtually no
precedent for such activity. All were leaders, experts, doers, and publishers
of results for sharing with others, energetic, strong, and communicative.
Their work was carried out over a wide area, from the eastern part
of the United States, to the South, the West, and Canada. Many had
learned by doing. Just as their backgrounds varied from physical
anthropology, architecture, history, anthropology, and ethnology, their
writing styles vary also, but "by their fruits ye shall know them," as you
read their chapters presented herein.
I am the junior member of the group of contributors, having entered
historical archaeology at the ruins of Brunswick Town, North Carolina, in
1958. In 1959, I wrote an open letter to colleagues suggesting that those of
us digging historic sites were "a breed apart," but I was soon challenged by
a colleague who said that changing data bases did not make us a different
type of researcher. I had to agree. I felt the need to communicate with
pioneering colleagues in the field who were also excavating historic sites, in
order to learn from their experience. I sought out, corresponded with, and
learned from most of the early pioneers.
As communication increased, I learned that those pioneers who had
cleared the way for us had faced frustrating attitudes that were like stumps,
brush, and rocks in a field. I was familiar with such attitudes from my own
experience. In the first chapter of this book, the dean of historical
v
vi PREFACE
archaeology in America, J. C. "Pinky" Harrington, points out that historical
archaeology, in its early days, was seen as "a new approach," "a new
application of archaeological methods," and as "a new discipline."
In this first chapter, he discusses some of the stumps and brush that
were often seen in the early days. He recalls the view expressed by
historians, for instance, that "artifacts, in contrast to the literary remain, give
no answers to the historian's queries, ... [and] contribute not one whit to
the study of histOl:Y." I mention here some of the attitudes that these men
encountered while breaking new ground.
1) There was a bias from anthropologically trained colleagues
against "tin-can archaeology," implying that historical
archaeology was not "real archaeology."
2) There was a bias among anthropological colleagues against
archaeology involving European cultures as an improper
subject for anthropological concern.
3) There was a bias among anthropologists against architects
and historians conducting archaeology.
4) There was the feeling among some non anthropologically
trained colleagues that there were two kinds of people
destroying sites in North America: pot-hunters and
anthropologists.
5) There was a crisis of identity over whether historical
archaeology was history or anthropology.
6) There was the view that historical archaeology had no
theoretical base and was therefore invalid.
7) There was the view that archaeology conducted through
historic site development for the education and enjoyment
of visitors to parks was tainted by its sponsors.
8) There was a bias against the direct historical approach in
favor of the anthropological evolution of culture approach
to interpretation.
9) There was a lack of familiarity with the artifact data base of
historical archaeology. General terms such as "crockery"
and "china" slowly gave way as pioneers developed
experience which enabled them to recognize and
distinguish among majolica, faience, and delft.
vii
PREFACE
10) There was a traditional emphasis on description at the
expense of synthesis.
11) There was a tradition emphasizing the study of past
lifeways at the expense of questions addressed to culture
process.
12) Quantitative analysis of artifact fragments was seen by
some as "anthropological idiocy."
In 1960, I founded the Conference on Historic Site Archaeology to
provide an annual meeting for historical archaeologists to share their
knowledge and problems. I published the papers from that conference for
many years in order to further increase communication among those of us
conducting research on historic sites.
Seven years later, in 1967, a group of us got together in Dallas,
Texas, and founded the Society for Historical Archaeology. The following
year (1968), Binford and Binford published their book that launched new
archaeology, emphasizing the hypothetico-deductive processual approach.
Ten years after the founding of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, which also followed four decades of work by pioneers, the
field of historical archaeology still lacked a strong theoretical direction.
This lack was felt by many students and young historical archaeologists,
such as myself, but by 1977, a direction had begun to be revealed in
anthropological method, theory, and research strategies (South 1977a,
1977b). The wind of change was blowing strongly on the field, depositing
enriching ingredients, and causing it to begin to flourish as a discipline.
In this flourishing I felt, as Charles Fairbanks' chapter subtitle
states, that "what is past is prelude; study the past." As a result, I contacted
those pioneer historical archaeologists in this book and asked that they
contribute a chapter on their early experiences in historical archaeology. I
felt that the past experiences of these men were a prelude to the new
direction that the field seemed to be taking and that a book about those
ground-breaking early years would be infonnative.
I asked them to present not a standard, footnoted, scholarly
product, but simply a subjective reminiscing story on each of their careers
as a document of the ground-breaking period of the productive new field in
which they had toiled. Little did I realize then, that my involvement with a
new field for me, Spanish colonial research, would become so intense that
17 years would pass before this book would be published. In the
intervening years, beginning in 1983, the Society for Historical
Archaeology began awarding the J. C. Harrington Medal for outstanding
scholarly achievement in historical archaeology. Eight of the ten medals
awarded have been given to the pioneers who contributed chapters to this
book.
viii
PREFACE
Since 1977, when the book was assembled, a number of the pioneer
archaeologists whose chapters appear here have died. These are J. O.
Brew, Kenneth E. Kidd, John W. Griffin, Hale G. Smith, Carlyle S.
Smith, Robert S. Neitzel, and Charles H. Fairbanks. The others are still
waiting patiently to see their contributions published.
Arthur Woodward, the pioneer of historical archaeology in the
West, promised to send a chapter, but never got around to doing so before
he died. He was also the 1987 recipient of a posthumously presented 1. C.
Harrington Medal in historical archaeology.
One chapter, by H. Chand lee Forman, who excavated at
Williamsburg, was withdrawn and subsequently published in September of
1986 by the Archaeological Society of Maryland, Inc. in Maryland
Archaeology 22(2):1-19. Dr. Forman has also died since that chapter was
written. Much of the information presented in Chapter Two by John L.
Cotter, was later revised and reorganized for publication as "Historical
Archaeology Before 1967" by the Society for Historical Archaeology in
Historical Archaeology 27(1):4-9. I originally planned to include a
biographical sketch of each of the contributors, but decided against this
because they are well known and their careers are summarized in their
chapters.
Acknowledgments
The publication of this book has been made possible through a grant
from the Archaeological Research Trust (ART) with the South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina and from funds supplied by the
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology. I want to thank the pioneers who
have contributed to this volume, both living and dead, all of whom have
been extremely patient with me through the years of waiting for this work to
be published. I also thank Lynn Weekes, who has typed the camera-ready
copy you are reading, and Patrice Anderson, who assisted with many
details in completion of the book. I am grateful for editing suggestions
from Chester DePratter, John Idol, and my wife, Janet Reddy. Thanks,
too, to the editor and staff of Plenum Press for agreeing to publish this
long-delayed contribution to the field of historical archaeology.
I also want to thank those family members of the seven deceased
authors whose chapters appear herein for permission to publish those
chapters. These are: Mrs. J. O. Brew, Mr. Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., Dr.
Patricia C. Griffin, Mrs. Martha Ann Kidd, Mrs. Robert S. Neitzel, Mrs.
Judy Smith, and Kevin Smith.
Thanks, too, to those publishers who gave permission for
publication here of quotes from previously published works. These are: the
PREFACE ix
University Press of Florida; the Royal Society of Canada; the Society for
American Archaeology; California Design Publications, Books Nippon; the
National Park Service; the New Brunswick Museum; and Penguin, USA
for permission to quote from The Manila Galleon by William Lytle Schurz.
Copyright 1939 by E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc. Renewed copyright
1967 by Robert Leyden Schurz. Used by permission of Dutton Signet, a
division of Penguin Books USA, Inc.
1977
Documentary and archaeological research about America's past is
proliferating at a phenomenal rate. National awareness of the impact of
building, highway, dam, and power line construction on the environment
has resulted in a reevaluation of criteria for the identification, classification,
and assessment of the significance of archaeological sites. Federal, state,
and local governmental agencies are involved in evaluating archaeological
resources, as are representatives of private industry, prompted by
governmental laws and regulations. New strategies are being carried out
under research designs of a totally different nature than was the case only a
few years ago.
The archaeological community is expanding daily with increases in
specializations of myriad kinds. Several new archaeological societies and
conferences devoted to specific areas and interests have been created. With
greater interaction between the archaeological community and the public
sector and governmental agencies there has arisen a need for standards of
archaeological practice. As a result, the Society of Professional
Archaeologists was recently established to evaluate and accredit
archaeologists who have voluntarily placed their credentials against the
standards of that society.
This phenomenon of explosive expansion within the archaeological
commuq.ity involves data from both the prehistoric past as well as from the
historic period. Archaeology on Indian sites has long been of interest,
whereas interest in uncovering the remains of early occupation by
Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon which dates to the early
decades of this century. Many of the pioneers of this early phase of
exploration of historic sites are still actively involved in the excavation and
interpretation of America's past.
These archaeologists faced problems and challenges unknown to
their colleagues excavating sites once occupied by Indians, and archaeology
on sites such as Jamestown, Awatovi, Sainte Marie I, and Fort Raleigh was
indeed a "venture into the unknown." This book was written by
archaeologists who began excavating historic sites in the 19308 through the
x PREFACE
1950s. Their chapters are not intended to be formal archaeological
statements. The contributors were asked to speak of those human elements
of interaction between the archaeologists and their crews, and to relate
events not often seen in more formal archaeological treatises. The result is a
memoir of their work, their ideas, and their goals in the field of historical
archaeology .
In these chapters, then, the reader will find through the personal
perspective of the authors, not only an account of their research on historic
sites, but something of their motivations, goals, and disappointments as
well. Those personal interactions with crew and events involved in
archaeological digs, some humorous, all memorable but seldom mentioned
in archaeological reports, are told here. Through this process, without
actually having presented a formal developmental sequence, this book is a
memoir of the emergence of historical archaeology by the pioneers
involved.
In the 1930s, the major concern in the field of historical archaeology
was the preservation and interpretation of surviving architectural ruins.
This theme appears in several of the following chapters. Later, attention
began to tum to artifacts found in association with the structures being
excavated. Specialists in ceramics, beads, and gun parts began to emerge.
In these chapters several of these specialists reveal how they were led into
those channels that resulted in their becoming recognized experts in their
fields. A concern with the foundation stones of architecture and artifacts is
diagnostic of the era, and it broke the new ground for what was to follow.
A phenomenon frequently mentioned in these chapters is the value
of uSing historical documents for interpreting archaeological remains. As
these pioneering archaeologists combined historical, documentary, and
archaeological data to authenticate and explore their sites, archaeology often
took a second place to history.
The use of the direct historical approach was a method employed not
only by those dealing with documented historic sites, it was also used by
those interpreting data from sites having only tenuous links to the historic
period. Ethnoarchaeology and ethnohistory were, and remain, major
concerns of some researchers concerned with America's formative years.
The tracing of trade routes, and the excavating of Spanish and Jesuit
mission sites toward the goal of "breathing life into the old mission" was,
and continues to be, of considerable interest.
This book is a memoir of those emerging years of historical
archaeology during the 1930s and the two decades to follow during which a
new process was developed for. uncovering clues to America's past. In the
1960s and 1970s rapid growth and change began to occur, and in the
decades to come, historical archaeology will never be the same as it was in
those formative years.
Ip. his chapter Robert "Stu" Neitzel conjures up a parade of
ectoplasmic archaeological forms from the old house of archaeology in
contrast to those found in archaeology's new house, now only a decade old.