Third Time’s The Charm…or…New Year/New Beginning

01/01/2012

Bobby Joe Hand & Antonio Gramsci: An Obituary

Bobby Joe Hand in the late 1980s.

My great-uncle Bobby Joe Hand, age 71, is being buried today at Flatwoods Methodist Church near Eva, Tennessee.  I am in Magnolia, Arkansas, and I wish I was there.

I am an academic, so I deal with things in academic ways…in this case writing.  This blog post is about mourning (or paying tribute to) a family member, and (more selfishly), about being away from your family in times of need.

Bob Hand was my mother’s mother’s brother.  This might not seem like a particularly close connection in some families.  However, as both of my parents are only children I have no uncles or aunts.  If you put this together with how young my parents were when they gave birth to me, you have a recipe for great-uncles feeling like uncles (in fact, some of my cousins feel like uncles, too).

Bobby was very dear  to my grandmother–Billie Jean (Hand) Deason.  He was her “little brother,” and, more importantly, he was a quick-witted joker.  You almost never left an encounter with Bob when you did not smirk, smile or chuckle a little. My grandmother always told me that his given name was “Bobby Joe”–not “Robert Joseph.”  As someone who is named “Jamie” (not  short for “James”), this is something I could appreciate.

Now that I sit down to write, I realize that I know surprisingly little about Bob’s early life.  I know that he was a part of a large family deeply rooted in south Georgia peanut farming.  I know that he served in the US Army, that he once lived in San Antonio and that he worked in the construction industry in the Atlanta area.  Bobby and his wife Madge really came into my life sometime in the 1980s when they bought some land and built a “cabin” near my grandparents in Eva, Tennessee.  Bob must have done well in the Atlanta construction business (they are always building in Atlanta, right?), because he and Madge soon came to Tennessee permanently… in a sort of “semi-retirement.”  I say “semi” because they immediately started farming (cows, corn and soybeans) and Bob soon ended up running the local Farmer’s Co-op. When my Grandfather Deason passed away, Bob and Madge came to not only farm their own land, but the 300 acres that my grandparents had farmed before (this is sounding less, and less like retirement, eh?).

Bob Hand was smart and resourceful.  He would challenge whatever platitude you put forth…he was a great debater.  He did not accept received truths.  He loved to hold forth on world affairs, politics, business, and ….well…anything.  We even had a conversation once about how some anthropologists thought that Leviticus was against pigs because they competed against people for food while other animals turned inedible stuff (grass) into edible stuff (meat and milk)…Bob quickly said: “well if that’s it, they’re fine to eat now…they all eat corn these days.”

This is why I want to talk about Bobby Joe Hand and Antonio Gramsci (an unlikely pairing in most regards).

Antonio Gramsci

Every good anthropology graduate student knows a little about Antonio Gramsci…unfortunately, they often know only a little.  Mostly, they read a couple snippets of his work and then attempt to talk with an air of great authority on the subject.  For those of you not chained up in the ivory tower, however, I will say that Gramsci was one of the most influential social theorists of the 20th century.  He was a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy and was imprisoned by Benito Mussolini’s Fascist regime (his “prison notebooks” are his most cited work).  Gramsci’s writings were heavily concerned with culture and the nature of political leadership.

What does an Italian Marxist convict have to do with a Georgia/Tennessee farmer?  Well…I’ll tell you (the anthropologists in the audience already have a clue where I am going…I hope).

Gramsci thought that we had been hoodwinked into thinking that intellectuals were only “men of letters,” professors, and learned clerics.  He thought that there were men who were “organic intellectuals”–folks who did not have “book learnin” but, nevertheless could be important critical thinkers.  “All men are intellectuals,” wrote Gramaci, “…each man..carries some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a ‘philosopher, an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is to bring into being new modes of thought.” (Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, 1997, p.9).

In this light Booby Joe Hand was a real intellectual–an organic intellectual.  I have a Ph.D., but Uncle Bobby was one of the best critical thinkers I have ever met.  I wish I could bottle the way he thought and make my students drink it (but, then again, they would constantly argue with me after that….I’d better think about this).

I hope the folks at the funeral are making the occasional straight-faced, snarky comment…in honor of Bob.

A more recent photo of the Hand clan: Bobby Joe, his wife Madge & their daughter Leanne.

Preliminary Results of the 2011 AAS Summer Training Program at Historic Washington, Arkansas

In other contexts I have said that historical archeology is often about what is no longer there—at least what is no longer visible on the surface of things. This is very much the case with our work this summer in historic Washington, Arkansas. The majority of the past work at Washington has been associated with domestic yards (e.g., Sanders House and the Abraham Block House) or public space (e.g., the 1836 Courthouse) next to standing structures. Little work has focused on vacant lots or the commercial spaces that made Washington the important regional service center it was in the early nineteenth century. We changed all of that this summer when the 2011 Arkansas Archeological Society’s Summer Training Program conducted excavations on Block 6. This area is currently a vacant lot (and has been for most of the twentieth century), but from the 1830s through the 1880s it was the heart of the town’s mercantile district.

From my perspective (as Dig Director) the Summer Training Program (AKA “The Society Dig”) was a success this year. We learned a great deal in all three (or four depending on how you count them) excavation areas. We recovered tens of thousands of artifacts—mostly from the mid- to late nineteenth century. Additionally, many of these artifacts pointed directly to merchant activity on the block: rolls of sheet copper to be cut and sold, a variety of types of scale weights, and, of course, coins to be used in these economic transactions.

We discovered that the large square anomaly in the remote sensing data looks to be a merchant warehouse in operation from the 1830s until the 1870s (Area A). We learned that there are intact foundations of 1830s brick merchant store fronts along Franklin Street—the old Southwest Trail (Area C). We discovered a 1850s cistern that served a building we did not even know was there (Area A prime), and we discovered a small cellar to a building with fill dating from the 1830s up through the 1930s in Area B. We had over 100 volunteers and staff out on the dig. Despite the hot, dry conditions, I think we had a good time and made some good discoveries. Below, I will briefly outline what we have learned so far about each excavation area.

Area A: Possible Merchant Warehouse 1830s-1870s

 Following Dr. Lockhart’s remote sensing survey in March, we had one very large and clear target for excavation—a 20 meter by 20 meter square anomaly that was discernible in multiple technologies. This target seemed to be either a big building or a fenced in area such as a wagon yard. Naturally, we had many questions about this anomaly—what does it date to? Was it commercial or domestic? Was it a warehouse? A hotel? A very affluent home? By the end of the summer, both historical documents and our excavations helped us formulate a hypothesis.

The overall remote sensing maps of Block 6 showing the results of 5 technologies (the last 2 are GPR). Notice the large square structure (showing with the arrow) that shows up in the resistance and GPR data, image courtesy of Dr. Jami Lockhart.

In total, we excavated over twenty-one 2m by 2m test units into Area A. Five of these were excavated during the Arkansas Archeology Month “Spring Break Dig” and the remainder during the Society Dig in the month of June. Our “Spring Break Dig” recovered cultural material dating to the 1830s-1870s. We also discovered that many of the strongest anomalies in this area were due to a hard, brick-red soil found near the surface in many, but not all, of our excavation units. I first thought this might be construction fill that had been used to level the lot. I hypothesized that the square-shape of the large remote sensing anomaly was due to the fact that this soil filled in the depressions of old building foundations. However, our summer excavations disproved this hypothesis and instead revealed that the red, hardened soil is the product of intense in situ burning—with the strongest burning occurring along the eastern wall of the large square anomaly. This looks to be direct evidence of the late nineteen century fires that devastated Block 6 and brought an end to the old Washington commercial district.

Even more unexpected is the fact that our excavations encountered neither continuous foundations (as might be suggested by the geophysics) nor the occasional brick piers (as we have encountered during other excavations in Washington). Instead we unearthed a 25cm wide wall trench underneath the burned zone complete with a series of posts (some of which showed evidence of burning themselves). As post-in-ground construction is not incredibly common in Washington, we briefly considered that this might be a fenced area (such as a wagon yard) after all. However, the discovery of relatively large concentrations of bricks (enough for a chimney fall), a concentration of flat glass along the eastern wall of the anomaly (indicating that the structure had windows), and, finally, the discovery of a large (over 50 m wide and 175cm deep) central support post all pointed toward a large, barn-like structure.

Combining what we know from our excavations with what limited historical documents we have, I currently suspect that our square anomaly could possibly be the “large white frame” structure built by merchant Matthew Gray by 1833 (mentioned in the deed records), but it is more likely the “warehouse” behind the storefront on Block 6, lot2 operated by David and Virginius Block by the 1860s. Although. Of course, these two buildings may be one in the same. In the interim, I can say that the artifacts recovered from the Area A excavations are consistent with a 1830s to 1880s building used as a merchant warehouse and a 1830s warehouse might, indeed, look very much like a barn. Further analysis and excavations may give us more clues.

Area A’: 1850s cistern filled in during the late 1920s

 A rather concentrated, circular anomaly on the western edge of Block 6 closely aligned with the north wall of the large, square Area A structure could be discerned in several remote sensing technologies. This anomaly was also readily visible on the ground due to a dramatic vegetation difference. Given its size and position, I initially suspected that it might be a well, or similar feature, serving the Area A structure. My interest was further peaked when I realized that it did not show up on the 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Block 6. As this map, the only extant historic map of Block 6, had been drafted for the purpose of fire insurance it would have most definitely noted the presence and usefulness of any water source on the block. The map shows the outline of a 1920s boardinghouse on lot 3 with a back ell extending toward the anomaly, but nothing in the actual location of the geophysical signature. If this anomaly was a well or cistern it would have had to have been filled prior to the drafting of the 1926 map. As I theorized that this possible well might have served the Area A structure, I elected to not consider this a separate excavation area, but to treat it as an “annex” to excavation Area A—calling it Area A “prime” (notated as Area A’).

Six 2m by 2m test units were excavated in Area A’ during the June Society Dig and the brick-lined rim of Feature 1 was encountered within the first 10cm level in Test Units 16 and 17. Feature 1 turned out to be a moderate-sized, brick-lined, bell-shaped cistern—complete with a charcoal-filled filter box. Although the top of the cistern had been sheared off (and bricks scattered along the surface of the opening), the cistern was, for the most part, intact and in excellent condition. A wide builder’s trench could be easily discerned around the exterior of the brick structure and the cistern had been backfilled with dark, organic midden probably scrapped from the surrounding block.

Interestingly, while expanding our excavations to uncover the cistern’s filter box, we discovered unforeseen foundations and rubble-filled trenches that could be contemporary—or even predate—our cistern. These foundations, along with the position of the filter box, have led me to conclude that the Feature 1 cistern did not serve the large Area A warehouse structure as I originally speculated. It most likely served a building on Block 6, lot 4 that did not show up on the remote sensing survey. Artifacts recovered from the rubble-filled trenches indicate that the building (and thus the cistern) dates to the 1850s, and excavation units on the back side of lot 4 suggest that it might be domestic, not commercial, in nature. This would mean that the cistern and associated buildings were built about the same time that Augustus Crouch—Washington jeweler and watchmaker—married his wife and purchased the property on lot 4. Although Crouch builds a Greek revival home on a farm just outside of town almost a decade later (which has since been moved into Washington and restored), this is possibly the site of a previous Crouch home. Again, this is a preliminary speculation and requires further investigation to be evaluated.

1850s cistern and associated features uncovered during the Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Program in Historic Washington, Arkansas. AAS-SAU-DI-2011-5108.

Over the course of the Society Dig, we were able to excavate about half of the cistern down to a depth of 140 cm below the surface—as far as we were able to go safely without shoring up the excavation trench. The artifacts recovered from the fill ranged from the 1830s through the late 1920s; indicating that the cistern had been filled shortly before the 1926 Sanborn map had been made. This, along with the material from the previously mentioned builder’s trenches, gives Feature 1 a use-life beginning sometime in the 1850s and ending in the latter half of the 1920s. Whatever its fill date, Feature 1 was certainly popular with Society members and with visitors alike. Although many people voiced their desire to see the cistern excavation left open for visors, the sandy, erosion prone soil of Washington makes this both destructive (from and archeological point of view) and dangerous (from any point of view). Therefore, at the end of the end of the field season, the cistern was carefully backfilled until we can return to open up a wider excavation trench that can be properly stepped or supported by scaffolding. There could be as much as 7-9 more feet of fill in the cistern, so we have much more to discover.

Area B: Possible cellar with material dating from the 1830s-1920s

 Dr. Lockhart’s geophysical data also indicated two small roughly square anomalies in north central portion of Block 6. These anomalies had the potential to be a small dwelling and a secondary outbuilding (perhaps a privy). During the 2011 Society Dig we placed four 2m by 2m text excavation units over the larger of these two anomalies. This was the area that our basic excavation class worked in during the first and second session of the dig. Although we did not get to the bottom of the deposits in this area, we can say that these units yielded a rich midden containing many artifacts dating widely from the 1830s through the 1930s. We can also say that the larger remote sensing anomaly in Area B appears to be a shallow trash pit or, more probably, root cellar. We were able to profile this feature in several units and estimate its diameter, but there is still a lot of work to do in Area B in order to understand the nature of these features.

Area C: Merchant Storefronts 1830s-1880s

 The biggest surprise of the 2011 field season was the excavations in Area C. Although Dr. Lockhart’s remote sensing data revealed anomalies that looked to be the footprints of storefronts along Franklin Street, the fact that there appeared to be very little intact midden on the eastern portion of the block made me skeptical of fruitful deposits being encountered during the summer excavations. I estimated that we would place three 2m by 2 m units in the area, prove that the remains of the storefronts were ephemeral at best, and then we would close down Area C excavations in order to concentrate on Area A. I could not have been more wrong.

Relatively intact 1830s limestone foundations were encountered just centimeters below the surface in Test Unit 19 and a substantial brick scatter was encountered around these foundations and spilling into Test Unit 18.

In total six 2m by 2m test units were excavated in Area C. We can say after the summer excavations that the shape of the remote sensing anomaly seems to roughly equate to the area of the brick scatter.  As there is far more brick than can be explained by a chimney fall or brick pier foundation, this leads me to conclude that these storefronts were brick structures. The material recovered from within the brick scatter attests to both the commercial nature of the buildings and to an early date. Hand blown apothecary bottles (like the ones found at Old Davidsonville), lead bail seals for marking bundles of goods for inventory purposes, and, most spectacularly, money.

Aside for the large brick cistern itself, our most popular discoveries this summer were two coins that were both recovered from within the Area C brick scatter. The first of these, discovered by AAS member Steve Jacober, was an 1827 silver half dollar (Figure 7). This would have been a relatively common coin in early America as they have the third highest mintage of the entire series, exceeded only by 1834 and 1836. Nevertheless, it would have been a substantial amount of money when the merchant (or consumer) lost it in the mid-nineteenth century. This coin could buy the equivalent of about $10 worth of goods and services today.

The second of these coins was a 1780s Spanish colonial 1 Real coin recovered by new AAS member Vanessa Salas. This silver coin was heavily corroded and had been pierced at the head, but when it was freshly minted it would have shown a bust of Charles III of Spain on the obverse and pair of pillars separated by a crowned simple shield with lions, castles, pomegranate and the centralized three fleurs-de-Lis. This coin was probably struck in Mexico, Lima, Bogotá, Guatemala, Potosi, Santiago, Popayan, or Cuzco—all of which had colonial mints working between 1771 and 1825.

Of course, this coin was not dropped on the site during the 1780s—it had been in circulation more than 70 years before it entered the archeological record. The appearance of an eighteenth-century Spanish coin on a nineteenth-century American frontier site might surprise some readers, but it is not uncommon. The reason that Spanish Reales are often found at historic sites in the US is that, due to the scarcity of US minted currency and the very real silver content of Spanish and French coins, foreign currency was just as much in use in early America as was domestic coins. Coins like the Spanish 8 Reales (or “eight bits”) were legal currency in the US until 1857. Thus you often find cut fractions of larger silver coins (i.e., “pieces of eight”), or smaller 1 Real coins (“one bit,” roughly equivalent to an American dime) such as the one recovered from Area C, on American sites before the 1850s. In our context, the fact that Washington was a town bordering Mexico (before the Texas Revolution of 1836), underscores the connections to Latin America and the appropriateness of uncovering Spanish colonial currency on the site.

The Next Step: Plans for Next Year

I am pleased to report that in late August the Arkansas Archeological Society’s Executive Board approved returning to historic Washington for the 2012 Society Dig. The staff at the AAS-SAU Research Station and the members of the Kadohadacho Chapter of the Arkansas Archeological Society are busy making plans and getting ready for the return to Block 6. At this point we can give you some idea of what our goals might be for the 2012 Society Dig.

First, I would like to uncover as much of the storefront brick scatter in Area C as we can. Instead of excavating each unit to subsoil on its own (as we did this summer), I would like to uncover the entire shape of the brick scatter in as many units as we can.  After uncovering the dimensions of the feature itself, we then could “punch through” the scatter in all of the units recovering the material lodged within the brick rubble separately. Following that, we can investigate the possibility that these store fronts may have had below-grade cellars (a notion suggested in the last profile of the last unit that we completed last summer in Area C).

The second large task for the 2012 field season may be to further investigate the mysterious structure on Block 6, lot 4—the possible 1850s home owned by Augustus Crouch. We would need to gather basic information about this structure.  Does it, in fact, date to the 1850s? Is it domestic as initial units might suggest?  How long is it occupied?  Al these questions and more await our excavations.

I hope to see many of you there.

Acknowledgements

In any project as big as a Society Dig, there are many, many people to thank. I owe an enormous debt to my supervisors that made everything run smoothly in the field—Paul and Marylin Knapp, Larry Porter, Jessica Howe, Elizabeth Horton, John House, Bob Scott, Jared Pebworth, Gary Knudsen, May Beth Trubitt.  Thanks are due to Mary Ann Goodman and Mary Farmer who supervised the lab and Barbara Scott and David Jeane who saw to general logistics.  Thanks to ALL of the volunteers and staff who helped out in many ways both large and small during the dig.  Last, but far from least, I owe a great deal to those who have done work on/in Washington before me—Leslie C. “Skip” Stewart-Abernathy, Randall Guendling and Mary Kwas. Of these I owe a special gratitude to Skip, my “supernumerary” during the 2011 Society dig, who was there every day providing information, bouncing ideas around, and generally being a great help.

Volunteers and staff from the 2011 AAS Summer dig: clockwise from left: Jane Kolmer, Steve Jacober, Paul Knapp, Gary Knudsen, Don Higgins, Jamie Brandon Melissa Sorrells, Joe Parks, Marylin Knapp, Alan Smith, Keith Kolmer, Molly Brown, Jessica Howe, Van Schmutz, Emily Haydel, Adam Smith, Sedona Kolmer, and Charles Surber. Photo courtesy of Molly Brown.

You can find lots of other pictures from the 2011 Arkansas Archeological Society’s Summer Training Program at Historic Washington by following the link below:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcbrandon/sets/72157627004408646/

**this post was submitted as an article to Field Notes: the Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society 09/14/2011**

Shovels: Regional Diversity in One of Our Most Indispensible Tools

“…the shovel is the trademark of archeology and perhaps its most indispensible tool.”– Heizer A Guide to Archaeological Methods (1949:32)

“Lucille, God gave me a gift. I shovel well. I shovel very well.”– The Shoveller, Mystery Men (1999)

When I was given the brief to write about archeological tools for ThenDig, my mind reeled.  Like Ms. Morgan, whose post about boots inspired this issue, I have been a collector of regional tools and methods for as long as I have been a field archeologist (going on 25 years now).

Everyone has trowel stories (including stories of lost trowels recovered like the Silas Hurry post about archeological tools recovered in St. Mary’s City).  I, however, have always been interested in the “coarser grained” archeology tools—shovels and their kin. One of my earliest mentors in the field of archeology kept his flat shovel razor sharp and could use it to make floors with a skill and cleanness that most of us only muster with a good trowel.  In his hands, the shovel was just as good as a trowel.  I will never be that good…but it did spark my interest and respect for the shovel.

At first blush this may seem like an innocuous topic.  How different can shovels be?  I do not claim a wide geographic experience—I have worked mostly in the southeastern US—but in the 13 different states I have worked, I have encountered a wide variety of shovel tools and techniques.  Each of these is an adaptation to the local conditions, or products of the genealogy of intellectual traditions.

Standard No. 2 excavating shovels recommended By Heizer (1949).

My old (1949) edition of Heizer’s A Guide to Archaeological Methods states that a “long-handled, round-point standard No. 2 excavating shovels are recommended. Spades, scoops, and square-point shovels are virtually useless owing to their inability to penetrate any but the softest dirt.” These shovels were clearly important and as recently as 2006 archeologists were combing the country (or at least advertising in some newspapers) for these shovels… The Nebraska State Historical Society was willing to pay up to $50 for True Temper No. 2 light-weight shovels in good condition.

Over the years, apparently, the archeological stance on flat shovels has softened a bit.  The seventh edition of Field Methods in Archeology still uses Heizer’s introduction (and preference for snub-nosed round shovels), but it also reports that “square-point shovels are useful in excavating sandy deposits and many archeologists find them valuable for cleaning excavation unit floors in the search for post molds, rodent burrows, and other features” (Hester et al. 1997:70).

Despite Heizer’s recommendation, my personal motto for archeology and the use of shovels is simple—“round shovels for round holes, square shovels for square holes.”  By this I mean that I prefer to use a sharpened spade to dig the small (30 to 40 cm in diameter), round shovel test holes that southeastern archeologists use to locate sites on survey, and a VERY sharp broad, flat shovel to dig 1×1 or 2×2 meter test units that are common in testing and full excavation projects.  This maxim of mine has been fed by my original training in the Mid-South where we commonly dug in nice soft loams and loess soils.  Things changed for me as I began to work in other settings.

In the Mississippi Valley the fine clays can be very difficult to deal with—when they are dry they are bricks and when they are wet they are a sticky mess.  Two different shovel styles (springing from intellectual traditions) have evolved to deal with these soils (why do I suddenly sound like an environmental determinist?). First, there is the spade that has a “half-moon” cut out of the blade—these are the self-manufactured versions of Heizer’s shovels trimming the point off and filing the edge with a bench grinder.  To the best of my limited knowledge this style comes out of the American Bottom region (or at least remains in style in that area).  The “half-moon” cut out allows for a lot of strength in cutting through clay (and even burned daub walls).  They do tend to make little ridges in the units floors, but if you were trained in this tradition you have probably become adept at minimizing this effect.

The sharpened "rice shovel": weapon of choice for the Mississippi Delta.

The second adaptive strategy in the Mississippi Valley is the use of a sharpened “rice shovel.”  For those of you who have not encountered them, a rice shovel is a hybrid spade—with a snub nose and three holes in the blade.  The shovel is somewhat flatter than a typical spade (more like a flat shovel) and the snub nose eliminates the pointy bit the way the cutting the “half moon” out of a pointed spade does.  “Why the holes?”, you ask.  The wet, sticky clays of the Mississippi River valley can often stick to your shovel blade with such suction that it can be very difficult to dislodge your soil matrix once you have shoveled it up.  The holes break this suction insuring that you will be able to toss your soil into a bucket or screen.

But in the mid 1990s I left the lowlands and worked for a decade in the Ozark Mountains.  This, again, radically changed my thinking about excavation.  In the lowlands of the southeast I had been trained to keep floors and walls level and pretty…and my trowels and shovels sharp enough to cut string.  In the rocky, uplands of the Ozarks all of this was nigh impossible.  Most of the sites I worked on were 50%-70% gravel and as such it became very difficult (and pointless) to keep and edge on a trowel as you were literally mining the rocks out of a roughly 10 cm level in every unit.  This environment made my favorite weapon, a sharp, large, flat-bladed shovel useless.  I had three adaptive strategies for the Ozarks.

1945 Ames Entrenching Tool

1)      Entrenching Tool (or E-Tool):  I am told that entrenching tools go back to at least the Roman period, but the ones I use have their roots in the folding spades of World War I and II—In fact, I literally prefer WWII entrenching tools—I have owned three different 1945 shovels manufactured by Ames for the US Army (this has lead more than one student to declare that my shovel “belongs in a museum”).  I like to fold the shovel blade 90 degrees and use the shovel like an excavation hoe (or a large trowel).  It works really well in the gravelly soils of the Ozarks, but I actually picked this tool usage up from a colleague of mine who worked in Texas and the southwestern US…so I am not sure of the origin of its archeological use…but it is not indigenous to the Ozarks.

2)      Geologic hammer:  This tool was actually great in the Ozarks for cleaning the rocks out of the corners of your excavation units and for better defining the wall/floor transition.  Just like you would run your trowel along the base of the wall to create a right angle transition, you could use the pick end of the geological hammer to carve away the rocks to approximate a right angle…sigh.

3)      Small-scale gardening spade AKA “The Lady Shovel”:  Back to my maxim…using standard-size round spades to dig shovel tests was also difficult in the Ozarks as you were pounding through gravel.  I found that a small-scale gardening spade was the best for digging shovel tests as it allowed you to “go around” rocks in the process of carving out the round hole.  Unfortunately, many people (and some industry marketing) has given this tool the blatantly sexist moniker “the lady shovel” due to its frequent use in gardening (which apparently has become a gendered hobby).  A word of caution, however, you cannot use the cheap, welded gardening spades you might find in discount stores for shovel testing in the Ozarks…you have to have a “real” thick gauged steel shovel…just scaled down from the standard pointed spade.  The Ozark rocks would tear up one of the flimsy variety within a single shovel test.

In 2006 I once again fund myself changing geographical regions as I took up my new post in the rolling gulf coastal plains of southwest Arkansas—it’s called the Trans-Mississippi South by some researchers.  I’m now working in the beautiful sandy soils at Historic Washington State Park near Hope, Arkansas.  It’s beautiful—the ease of digging and screening sand, with just enough structure to hold it together and not collapse the way coastal sand does. There is dust on my entrenching tool these days…I’m back where I started with a sharp, flat, broad bladed shovel.

**cross posted from ThenDig July 28. 2011 ***

The Mysterious Case of the “Social Core” in Texas Anthropology

When I was a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin I, like most other anthropologists interested in the “humanistic” side of anthropology, took what they called “Social Core.” This class, formally entitled “Introduction to Graduate Social Anthropology (ANT 392),” was largely seen as a “trial by fire” which served to separate out those who could handle the challenging anthropology curriculum at UT from those who could not. It was a formidable class.

I took this class in 1999 and at the time I was puzzled by the terminology—why “Social Anthropology?” Every other reference to the sub-discipline of anthropology that deals with living cultures used the term “cultural anthropology” (e.g., the freshman-level course was “ANT 302 Cultural Anthropology”). Although the majority of English-speaking countries use the term “cultural anthropology,” scholars in the UK (and some other European scholars influenced by British anthropology) prefer the term “social anthropology” (or even more convolutedly “socio-cultural anthropology”). But how do we explain this British/European reference in the middle of Texas?

I am always interested institutional history, so I was curious…I asked every senior University of Texas professor I could when presented with opportunity, but none had an answer (and few had noticed the disparity). I had always meant to follow up on this by looking trough old UT course catalogs until I came to the origin of the “Social Core.”….but, alas…the rigors of graduate school (& trying to complete my dissertation) kept me from ever following these instincts.

So it is strange that today a simple request at my current job in Arkansas might have lead me to the answer to this almost-forgotten question.

A colleague of mine at the Arkansas Archeological Survey was writing an entry for the Encyclopedia of Arkansas on Sam Dickinson—an avid avocational archeologist in southwest Arkansas in the 1930s (Check out my obituary blog post for him here). She was trying to figure out the name of an anthropologist Dickinson met at UT probably in 1937 or 1938. This man is mentioned in a 2005 oral history interview of Dickinson conducted by SAU Historian James Willis. This anthropologist was supposedly born in France, had a degree from the University of Toulouse, was on the faculty of the University of Mexico and University of Mississippi before going to Texas. She had had no luck tracking this mysterious anthropologist down, so (knowing my interest in Dickenson, my connections to Texas, and my love of institutional history) she asked if I knew anything about this guy….I did not.

I started with Texas archeologists that I knew that Dickenson had interacted with—Like A. T. Jackson.

A. T. (Alvin Thomas) Jackson—the archeologist in charge under J. E. Pearce during the 1920s to 1930s and then under Dr. J. Gilbert McAllister, Director of Research, during the late 1930s for the WPA and University of Texas at Austin. He continued to work in Texas archeology with the university in the 1940s. Jackson is well known for developing field methods and excavation techniques that were new and innovative for the times and allowed for better recovery and documentation of archeological field work. I knew that Dickinson & Jackson corresponded quite a bit….but Jackson has NO connection to France or Mexico (that I am aware of)…so I then thought it might be his predecessors, Pearce or McAllister…Pearce had studied anthropology and archeology at the University of Chicago and the École d’Anthropologie of Paris (not Toulouse…but in the ball park)….but then I hit pay dirt.

I came across this reference in a memorial to McAllister:

 ”…Also on the Anthropology staff was George C. Engerrand, a colorful French anthropologist of the old school, a polymath who expected his students to be as intimately versed as he in the manners and customs of the peoples of the world. McAllister was much influenced by Engerrand and even more so by Pearce who, by virtue of a marvelously warm and sincere personality and an evangelical belief in the worth of anthropology, turned the young student into an anthropologist. In McAllister’s words, “Pearce was a phenomenal individual.”"–

Which led me to this on-line encyclopedia reference...I knew I found the guy…

ENGERRAND, GEORGE CHARLES MARIUS (1877–1961). George Charles Engerrand, professor of anthropology at the University of Texas, was born on August 11, 1877, near Bordeaux, France, of French-Basque ancestry. He received his early education from private tutors, and at the age of eighteen he enrolled at the University of Bordeaux, where he received a licentiate in geology (1897) and a licentiate in botany (1898). At Bordeaux he was a student of the famed pioneer sociologist Émile Durkheim. In 1898 he went to Brussels, Belgium, where he had been invited to teach by the geographer Élisée Reclus. Between 1898 and 1907 Engerrand held numerous research and teaching positions, some of them concurrently, at several Belgian institutions.

From 1907 until the political revolution in 1917 made it impossible to continue, Engerrand lived in Mexico and was, for most of this period, professor of archeology in the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia, y Etnología. He moved to Mississippi, where he taught geology until 1920, then to Austin, Texas, where he became adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Texas. For the next forty-one years, until his retirement in 1961, Engerrand was a member of the UT anthropology department, from which he received a Ph.D. in 1935.

He wrote seventy-five articles and several books. He received many academic honors, including La Croix de Chevalier de l’Ordre des Palmes, a French decoration given for distinguished teaching and scholarly publication. In 1898 Engerrand married Alice Delsaute, from whom he separated in 1902; two sons were born of this marriage. In 1904 he married Jeanne Richard, and they had one son and two daughters. Engerrand died in Mexico City on September 2, 1961, and was buried in Austin.

AND this guy looks like a good candidate to explain the presence of the “social anthropology” terminology at the University of Texas…He was a direct student of Émile Durkheim… French sociologists like Durkhiem and Marcel Mauss were hugely influential to British “social” anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s—an important period in the expansion of the disciple and (incidentally) the training of Dr. Engerrand). Engerrand would have been exposed to British anthropology though his associations with Durkheim and, thus, may be the source of the mysterious terminology still evident in the University of Texas anthropology curriculum…There may, of course, be another source…but until another random happenstance steers me to another answer…I’m sticking to this one.

“Spring Break Dig” on Block 6 in Historic Washington, Arkansas

As part of Arkansas Archeology Month—and in preparation for this summer’s AAS dig in June—the Kadohadacho Chapter of the Arkansas Archeological Society returned to Historic Washington for this year’s “Spring Break Dig”.  Between March 21-26 we excavated 5 test units into Block 6—the town’s early commercial district.

Ground pentrating radar (GPR) imagary from Block 6 showing the "large sqaure anomaly"

The Monday & Tuesday before the “Spring Break Dig,” Dr. Jami Lockhart, Duncan McKinnon, and Mike Evans conducted a remote sensing survey of the block with some great results. We used several different geophysical technologies including magnetometry(showing metal and burned areas that effect the magnetic fields), ground penetrating radar (GPR), resistance (putting electric current through the ground) and several others.  Besides confirming that a portion of the 1830s store fronts facing Franklin Street (the old Southwest Trail) were intact, Lockhart & Co. unexpectedly found a large square anomaly that could be an imposing (20m x 20m) structure on the backside of the lot.  This square showed up in several of our technologies (including resistance and GPR).

Our March excavations concentrated on this mystery structure—what does it date to?  Is it commercial or domestic?  Is it a warehouse? A hotel? A swank home?  On a more practical level, we also wanted to make sure that there were enough midden, artifacts and features on Block 6 to keep the Arkansas Archeological Society members interested and happy during our June dig.

After a week of excavations we have some of the answers to these questions.  There is certainly plenty of midden, artifacts and features to keep folks happy.  Additionally, although we did not hit “hard foundations” for the shadowy structure on Block 6, we can say that it burned (probably in the 1870s-1880s fires) and that it was in existence sometime between the 1830s and the 1870s.  We did not recover large amounts of 20^th century materials (with the exception of a large 1920s trash pit in one unit) and deposits seem fairly intact (except where the evil gophers and moles deposit 1976 watches next to Archaic-period stone tools).  Interestingly, although most historical documents point toward commercial activity on Block 6, the materials on the back two lots appear quite domestic (very similar to the middens at the home of Abraham Block which we worked in last spring and summer).  We hope to continue answering questions—and asking new ones—when we return to Block 6 this summer.

AAS member Bob Campbell supervising a TON of volunteers during the “Spring Break Dig” on Block 6.

We are very grateful for the 53+ volunteers we had during the weeklong excavations, but a few deserve to be specially thanked for staying the entire week and/or supervising large numbers of volunteers.  Thanks to Anthony Clay Newton, Bob Campbell, Dr. Don Bragg, Lydia Rees, Lydia Saxton, Isaac Saxton and Addison Ochs for all their hard work.  Thanks to Historic Washington State Park for all of their support and to the Pioneer Washington Restoration Foundation for the permission to work on Block 6.

1830s-1850s ceramics recovered from Block 6 in Historic Washington during the Arkansas Archeology Month “Spring Break Dig.”

We will return to Block 6 with the state-wide Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Program June 10-25, 2011 and we hope to see some of you there!

You can see more pictures of the 2011 “Spring Break Dig” on Block 6 in Historic Washington at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcbrandon/sets/72157626372597260/

Digging for History: The Arkansas Archeological Society Training Program Returns to the Town of Washington in Southwest Arkansas

***I have been EXTREMELY BUSY getting ready to play host for the 2011 Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Program at Historic Washington State Park this June 11-25…below is a background piece that I’ve submitted for the upcoming dig***

by Jamie C. Brandon & David M. Markus (submitted to Field Notes: the Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society)

 

“A visit to Historic Washington State Park provides a fascinating glimpse into Arkansas’s past.  Visitors can walk along the same unpaved streets that were laid out in the early nineteenth century, see houses that were built over 150 years ago, and enjoy the shade of large-grown catalpas, magnolias and other ornamental trees planted by the town’s residents so long ago…The lots hide clues buried in the soil that can tell us more about the lives of nineteenth-century people than what can be seen in the houses or found in history books.” –Mary Kwas, Digging for History at Old Washington (2009), pp. 1-2.

 

The T-shirt design from the 1984 Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Program, the last time the summer dig was held in Washington, Arkansas.

The antebellum town of Washington, Arkansas (3HE236) was the site of four Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Programs in the 1980s—1981 through 1984 to be specific.  The last time the training program was held in Washington (Figure 1), David Jeane was an avocational archeologist poised to be the first person to complete the entire Certification Program and outgoing president of the Arkansas Archeological Society (Davis 1984:11).  Twenty-seven years later we are ready to return with David Jeane as the Chair of the Dig Committee and on the eve of his retirement as a professional archeologist.

We and our gracious hosts, Historic Washington State Park and the Pioneer Washington Restoration Foundation, Inc., invite you to join us from June 11 through 25, 2011, to “dig for history” in the town of Washington (to steal the title of Mary Kwas’ recent book on the subject).

A Brief History of Washington, Arkansas

Washington was founded in 1824 on the “far edge of the American frontier” and thrived as a county seat and important commercial center for a region of plantations and farms during the first half of the nineteenth century (Stewart-Abernathy 1981, 1990:7-8).  In the early years of Washington’s development two factors were critical to the town’s growth.  The first was the fact that it was the county seat and “a center of commerce and government” that served the region (Kwas 2009:6).  The second was that the town was located near the southern end of the old Southwest Trail and served as an important stop and resupply point for people moving to Texas in the 1830s and 1840s (Kwas 2009:3; Stewart-Abernathy 1981, 1990:8).  Washington lay on the Fort Towson Road, and hundreds of Native Americans from eastern tribes passed by on their way west to Oklahoma reservations (Kwas 2009:7).  During the Civil War, after the fall of Little Rock in 1863, the town served as the capitol of Confederate Arkansas for two years (Stewart-Abernathy 1981).  It escaped destruction during the war, and “the post-war recovery is suggested by the construction of a new brick courthouse in 1874.  “By the nation’s centennial in 1876, Washington influence was evidently declining though it maintained the role of backwater county seat in an agricultural region” (Stewart–Abernathy 1990:9).  In the 1870s new railroad construction bypassed the town by several miles to the south and a new town—Hope, Arkansas—was founded at the rail.  Throughout the remainder of the turn-of-the-century Washington struggled to keep its place as the commercial and governmental center of the region, but it continued to lose population, businesses and eventually (in 1939) the county seat to Hope (Stewart-Abernathy 1990:9).

Restoration and tourism have been important aspects of the town’s role in the Daughters of the Confederacy restored the 1836 Court House in 1929 (Kwas 2009:70; Stewart-Abernathy 1981).  The Pioneer Washington Restoration Foundation was organized in 1958 and quickly began to carry out several important preservation and reconstruction projects in the town that laid the foundation for what we see today.  Now the town is home to what is now known as Historic Washington State Park—dedicated to preserving and interpreting the history of the town and Arkansas to thousands of visitors every year.  The creation of the park in 1973 and the preparation of a long-term plan to holistically organize the preservation and interpretation of the town was what triggered the first archeological investigations in Washington in the 1980s (Guthrie and Witsell 1985; Kwas 2009:13; Stewart-Abernathy 1981).

 

The Training Programs in the 1980s

Archeology has had a major impact on the trajectory of Historic Washington State Park. In total, archeological fieldwork has been conducted on some 15 blocks and land plats throughout the Park and surrounding area.  From these projects archeologists have recovered more than a half-million artifacts related to life on the southwest frontier in the 1800s.  The archeology undertaken in the past 30 years by the Arkansas Archeological Survey and the Arkansas Archeological Society has resulted in both preservation and “restoration of its historic buildings, in locating outbuildings, in examining lots upon which buildings will be relocated, and ultimately in broadening the interpretation of nineteenth-century life in Washington” (Kwas 2009:17-18).  The work done has been a mix of volunteer projects (such as the Arkansas Archeological Society Training Programs from 1981-1984), funded cultural and environmental resource management projects (such as the archeological Investigation at the Royston House from 2007-2009), and rescue and salvage projects of historic homes (such as the work done on the Block House porch piers in 1984). The end result of these various excavations has been valuable information into the lives of the elites of Washington, and insights into the lives of marginalized populations of the African and Jewish Diaspora on the southwest frontier in the nineteenth century.  As indicated by Randall Guendling, “the excavation and historical research conducted to date has provided interpretive value, despite the unfinished nature of many of the projects” (Guendling et al. 1999:1).

Beginning in 1980, Dr. Leslie C. “Skip” Stewart-Abernathy lead initial testing within the park that was then followed by a series of Arkansas Archeological Society Training Programs that focused on the kitchens servicing the Block and Sanders properties.

The 1981 Training Program was held from June 26 through July 12 at the Sanders House (Block 32) in Historic Washington State Park.  In total over 18 excavation units were opened and over 50,000 artifacts were recovered. Four brick features were uncovered in the northern portion of the kitchen, including: a brick line, a brick paving, a rectangular paved area partially under the brick paving, and second a brick line parallel to the street grid (Guendling et al. 2001; Stewart-Abernathy 1981, 1982).  To quote Hester Davis, “the archeology was fine, the camp was perfect, there were very few ticks, chiggers or mosquitoes…” (Davis 1981:9).

Following the success of the first Training Program at the Sanders House, The Arkansas Archeological Society and Survey returned to HWSP in the summers of 1982 and 1983 (Davis 1983; Stewart-Abernathy 1982).  Rather than return to the Sanders property, the focus of the programs was the home of Jewish merchant Abraham Block on Block 19.  Dr. Stewart-Abernathy identified three research priorities; first to seek architectural evidence of the Abraham Block detached kitchen by cross-trenching the kitchen area and establish block excavations to acquire evidence of the size, layout, and appearance of the structure.  Second, delineate the spatial position of the kitchen in relation to other structures on the property and identify any changes in use and orientation through time.  Finally compare the Abraham Block kitchen complex to the Sanders kitchen complex, including both building location and lifeways (Stewart-Abernathy 1982).

At the conclusion of the 1982 Training Program, a large trash pit (Feature 14) in the interior of the kitchen location was identified as a dark, organic and artifact rich stain in two excavation units (Stewart-Abernathy 1985:9-11).  This pit is the source of many of the incredible artifacts so well photographed by Leslie Walker for Mary Kwas’ recent book Digging for History in Old Washington (2009). In the following season of 1983 Feature 14 was fully excavated and 16 additional excavation units were dug.  This additional work resulted in several new features being identified. Preliminary counts were made for the collection recovered in 1983 as well (Stewart-Abernathy 1982).  Overall, the 1983 Training Program was declared “the best ever” (Davis 1983:9).

Dr. Stewart-Abernathy (1985: 9-11) summarized the initial findings of the 1982 and 1983 Training Programs by indicating that 25,000 artifacts dating from the early nineteenth century (1820s – 1850s) were found. As a result of these artifacts and the associated features, the kitchen is thought to have been constructed in the in the 1830s and demolished in the by the middle of the twentieth-century. Feature 14 is thought to have been a root cellar under the rear kitchen room and was likely abandoned by the mid nineteenth-century

The last time the summer training program was at Washington, the emphasis shifted from mitigation of yard spaces at the Abraham Block and Sanders properties to mapping and surface collection of three, now vacant, lots in the park (Early 1984).  These included Block 6 and 58, which were both vacant, and Block 18, which had had no structures on it since the 1940s.  Block 6 was once the location of the business district for the town and was the location of the fires that signaled its demise.  It also included the general store of Abraham Block, and later his sons.  Block 58 once held the Mirick-Collins Farmstead and later a Methodist church.  Block 18 was the original location of Grandison Royston’s home and law offices and currently has a magnolia tree, certified as Arkansas’ largest, planted in 1839 by Royston and a log cabin owned by Royston from elsewhere in Hempstead County. For each of the three blocks to be studied, a series of three activities were planned, as follows: field work (to include mapping, controlled surface collection, auger testing, shovel testing and metal detector survey); oral history; and documentary research.  The purpose of these three steps was to determine the available information on the occupation of these blocks, to map the properties for later use, and to create a collection of artifacts for use by the park staff in display and interpretation

 

Plans for the 2011 Training Program

The majority of the past work at Washington has been associated with domestic yards (Sanders and Block) or public space (the 1836 Courthouse) next to standing structures.  Little work has focused on vacant lots or the commercial spaces that made Washington the important regional service center it was in the early nineteenth century—the heart of that early commercial district was Block 6 (Figure 2).

Block 6, Washington, Arkansas. The site of the 2011 Arkansas Archeological Society Summer Training Program.

While the master plan of the park points to the development of interpretation of the commercial sections of Washington (Guthrie and Witsell 1985:95) there has heretofore been no efforts to develop those lots which best represent the business of Washington.  The business district (Block 6) and the Washington Hotel (Block 14) have been the subjects of limited survey over the past thirty years but neither lot has been developed and remain prime candidates for archeological investigation (Stewart-Abernathy 1987; Arkansas Archeological Survey site file data for Block 6).  Beyond their value as interpretive tools for park staff these blocks best represent the most glaringly understudied section of life in Washington, that of community activity and business.

Much of the commercial district—including Block 6—was destroyed by the large fires that swept through Washington in 1875 and 1883 (Kwas 2009:18; Mederis 1984:59).  Some of the stores were rebuilt following the 1875 fire, but they were smaller and of cheaper construction.  Moreover, throughout the late nineteenth century many storekeepers began to move to the growing town of Hope (Mederis 1984:59).  By the time of the publication of the only Sanborn Fire Insurance map for the town of Washington (1926) only two structures remain on Block 6—both are coded as domestic dwellings but at least one appears to have been a storefront during its earlier life (Figure 3).

The 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Block 6 in downtown Washington. The lack of post 1883 buildings on the block should limit the amount of twenieth century material thatwe will encounter during the dig.

As mentioned above, during the final year that the Arkansas Archeological Society Training Program was held at Historic Washington State Park the emphasis shifted from mitigation of yard space at the Block and Sanders properties to mapping and surface collection of three, now vacant, lots in the park.  These included Block 6—once the location of the business district for the town of Washington, and included the location of the Block family general store.  At Block 6 two wells were discovered; 34 auger tests dug; a general surface collection conducted; and controlled surface collections conducted on 53 delineated circles.  The results from the 1984 survey indicate that Block 6 makes it an ideal candidate for a Training Program dig, and coinciding with the thirtieth anniversary of the Training Program at Sanders House in 1981, we plan excavating on the block (with the assistance of Pioneer Washington Restoration Foundation who owns the property) for the 2011 Training Program.

Dr. Brandon has been working steadily at Historic Washington State Park since he took over as AAS-SAU Research Station Archeologist in 2006.  Since that time he has lead excavations at the Royston House and a return to the home of Abraham Block using a combination of funded excavations, volunteer Arkansas Archeological Society “Spring Break” digs and a University of Arkansas archeological field school. These digs have produced interesting artifacts, interpretive results and—very importantly—worked out the logistics and felt out the infrastructure of digging in Washington.

This spring Dr. Brandon will enlist the help of Dr. Jami Lockhart and Duncan McKinnon to conduct a geophysical survey of Block 6.  Following the remote sensing, during Arkansas Archeology Month (March 21-26,2011 to be precise), Dr. Brandon will lead another “Spring Break” dig—this one to test the results of the Block 6 survey and to set the excavation areas for the Summer Training Program.

Judging by the sandy, easily screenable, soil, the relative lack of mosquitoes and the great artifacts and features uncovered by previous Training Programs in Washington we predict that a good time will be had by all.  We hope to see you all in June!

References Cited

Cande, Kathleen H. and Jamie C. Brandon

1999      An Old Washington for a New Millennium: Archeological Collections Management and Research Design for Old Washington Historic State Park, Hempstead County, Arkansas 1980-1999.  ANCRC Grant 99-001.  Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.  Submitted to the Arkansas Natural and Cultural Resources Council, Little Rock.

Davis, Hester

1981      A Great Time at Old Washington, Field Notes (181:9-10).

1983      The Best Ever!, Field Notes (193:9-12)

1984      An Important Milestone for David Jeane, Field Notes (196:11).

Early, Ann

1984      Society Dig and Certification Program Report: 1984, Field Notes (201:2).

Guendling, Randall L., Mary L. Kwas and Jamie C. Brandon

1999      Archeological Investigations at Old Washington Historic State Park, Arkansas: The 1836 Courthouse Block (3HE236-0) and the Block-Catts House Block (3HE236-19).  Final Report, Project 99-02.  Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.  Submitted to Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, Little Rock.

Guthrie, Anne and Charles Witsell

1985      Master Plan: Old Washington Historic State Park, Washington, Arkansas.  Report prepared by Witsell, Evans and Roscoe, PA for Arkansas State Parks, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Kwas, Mary L.

2009      Digging for History at Old Washington. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.

Medearis, Mary

1984      Washington, Arkansas: History on the Southwest Trail.  ASAP Imaging of Southwest Arkansas: Hope, Arkansas.

Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C.,

1981      Historical Archeology at Old Washington: 1981, Field Notes (179:4-5).

1982      1982 Society Historical Excavations: Block-Catts Kitchen Ell (3HE236-19), Field Notes (185:7).

1986      Urban Farmsteads: Household Responsibilities in the City.  Historical Archaeology 20(2):5-15.

1990      The Archeology of Antebellum Washington, Arkansas.  Unpublished grant proposal submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Thought for the day….

I just saw this posted by my friend and colleague Dr. Whitney Battle-Baptiste…and the quote speaks to many aspects of my life at the moment…both my work and my personal life…

“…there is no agony like bearing an untold story…”– Zora Neale Hurston

Howard Anthropology Under Fire

This month I have received a couple alarming e-mails from my colleagues at Howard University. It appears that Howard University President Sidney A. Ribeau has recently revealed his plans to close the anthropology program in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology–along with other programs such as the B.A. in African Studies, Classics, and Philosophy. This reduction in liberal arts programs is a disturbing trend not only among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), but also among smaller colleges and universities across the United States (Southern Arkansas University, where I currently teach, is considering scrapping its sociology major in the near future)…but, beyond the broad trend (which is something I may address in a later post), this specific case is a tragedy in a very particular sense.

 

Founders Library at Howard University

 

Howard University is the only one out of 105 HBCUs in the United States with a five-field approach to anthropology (the “fifth field” in this case is applied anthropology).  Moreover, the program has a strong emphasis in bioarchaeology and archeology.  The Howard Anthropology program came to national attention in the 1990s when they became an integral part of the African Burial Ground (ABG) project in New York City.    The importance of the ABG project lies not only in its archaeology and bioarcheology, but also in its politics.  It was an important moment for our discipline when an empowered descendant community wrested control of the project away from a firm that they saw as insensitive to its wishes and interests…they placed control of the removal, analysis and re-interment of 400 venerated ancestors in the hands of Dr. Michael Blakey and Howard University–a HBCU that has a reputation of good scholarship and black activism.  If such an event happened next year, will there be an anthropology program capable to taking on such a research project?

My colleagues pointed out in their email that the President’s decision will adversely impact the archaeology of Africa and the African Diaspora for a number of reasons. First, it will frustrate our efforts to recruit and train African Americans, students of African descent, and other minorities.  They call attention to the fact that, currently, the total number of registered minority members in the American Anthropological Association is less than 16%, and the number of African Americans is approximately 3%.  I will point out that several Howard University alumni (including Blakey who was the bioarcheologist for the ABG Project when he was a professor at Howard, but got his BA at HU in 1978 before going to UMass Amherst for his MA & Ph.D. ) have gone on to important careers in our discipline and made important contributions to anthropology.  I have believed for a long time that one of the avenues to increasing the number of practicing African-American archeologists is to get strong anthropology programs in HBCUs.  Losing Howard University’s anthropology program will be a definite blow to that endeavor.

The e-mail states that closing the program will…

…hinder our abilities to expose students of all majors to the past of Africa and the African Diaspora.”  Approximately 10,500 students are enrolled at Howard, and many of them are African Americans from all corners of the United States, Africa and other countries throughout the African Diaspora.  A closing will not only affect our students, but it will also impact local communities, descendant groups, indigenous peoples, underserved populations, and affiliated institutions.  Each of us in the Howard U. Anthropology Program works in collaboration with community interest groups.

 

Poster from the Windows from the Past Conference

 

Last February, I had the honor of being a part of Windows from the Present to the Past: the Archaeology of Africa and the African Diaspora–a conference at Howard University hosted by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Office of the Provost, and Office of the Dean.  I was very impressed with the mix of scholars, students and faculty members that the conference brought together.  I had a great time, but my colleagues tell me it was much more of a success than that…they say that the conference served as a means for students and faculty members in other disciplines and Howard University departments to learn about our research. Since the conference, they tell me, the sizes of Howard’s archaeology classes have doubled in enrollment.

After a period of discussion, President Sidney A. Ribeau will make his final decisions shortly after December 1, 2010. Therefore, soon there will be a “Call for Action” and you will be asked to send letters to the President, other colleagues, influential community members, and prominent political leaders.

Send comments to either:

Eleanor King; emking@howard.edu OR

Florie Bugarin; florie_bugarin@yahoo.com

Hot Springs, Historical Memory, Native Americans & 1920s Masculinity

I am in Hot Springs, Arkansas, this weekend for the state-wide meeting of the Arkansas Archeological Society.  Although I have lived in Arkansas on and off since 1995, I have never really paid that much attention to Hot Springs…that is, until I moved to south Arkansas five years ago.  Although Hot Springs is not in my research station territory (it belongs to Mary Beth Trubitt at the HSU Research Station), Hot Springs is both a cultural and historical figure of importance to my region–culturally important because it provides a good place to have “getaway weekends,” visit a books store, eat at good restaurants, and drink a lot of alcohol….historically important as it is a major hub of 20th century leisure time in the region (and nation).  I have become increasingly interested in the history of leisure time and tourism in America…and, to play into Hot Spring’s reputation for gambling and gangsters, this town “has ‘em in spades.”

The fountain/statue in the Fordyce Bath House, Hot Springs

The area now known as “Hot Springs National Park” first became United States territory in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase. According to NPS historian Sharon Shugart, the first permanent settlers to reach the Hot Springs area in 1807 were quick to realize the area’s potential as a health resort.  Dr. George Hunter and William Dunbar visited on an expedition commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson to survey the newly acquired territory and make scientific observations. The party arrived at the hot springs on December 9, where they found “an Open Log-Cabin and a few huts of split boards…for summer encampment…erected by persons resorting to the Springs for the recovery of their health…”

To protect this unique national resource and preserve it for the use of the public, the Arkansas Territorial Legislature requested in 1820 that the springs and adjoining mountains be set aside as a federal reservation (not to be confused with the Indian reservations being established around the same time). On April 20, 1832, President Andrew Jackson signed legislation to set aside “…four sections of land including said (hot) springs, reserved for the future disposal of the United States (which) shall not be entered, located, or appropriated, for any other purpose whatsoever.” This makes Hot Springs National Park the oldest national park among current N. P. S. parks, predating Yellowstone National Park by forty years. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass any legislation for administering the site. As a result, no controls were exerted in the area, and people continued to settle there, building businesses around and even over the springs (Shugart, 2004).

The park would have to wait until the late nineteenth century to get off the ground, but it flourished in the early twentieth century…and today the town is filled with great 1920s architecture (lots of Spanish revival)…but, alas, by the 1960s the bath house industry had declined considerably.

But my colleague Ann Early (now State Archeologist, but former HSU Research Station Archeologist) alerted me to the intersection of Native American history and the history of Hot Springs…Hot Springs, so the legend goes, was a magical place where all tribes declared a “cease-fire” to all hostilities so they could come a take the healing waters…and as a place where a decidedly romantic version of contact between Hernando DeSoto’s expedition and local tribes took place…even that bastion of solid research, Wikipedia, mentions these unsubstantiated facts (note that even Wikipedia is dubious adding the “citation needed” comment at the end:

In 1541, the expedition became the first Europeans to see what Native Americans referred to as the Valley of the Vapors, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Members of many tribes had gathered at the valley over many years to enjoy the healing properties of the thermal springs. The tribes had developed agreements to put aside their weapons and partake of the healing waters in peace while in the valley. De Soto and his men stayed just long enough to claim the area for Spain.^{[citation needed]}

detail of the Fordyce fountain: a wood duck effigy bowl with Winterville-Incised-like designs...it woud sort-of be in keeping with the idea that the Quawpaw used these spings.

This is quite a popular and interesting set of tropes in the historical memory of Hot Springs…it is even mentioned on the Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce website, (“Even DeSoto didn’t want to leave…“) and the website of the very hotel where I am staying this weekend (“Since Hernando DeSoto wintered here over 400 years ago, the healing springs and hospitable people of Hot Springs have been pampering guests”).  Even a local  group calling itself the “Mantaka American Indian Council” see themselves as the caretakers of the sacred springs and the traditional that Native Americans have used them for healing….archeologists, however, have found no artifacts or other physical evidence to show how or if Native Americans used the springs during the millennia they lived in the area…and although we once thought DeSoto may have come through the Hot Springs area, recent scholarship is not so sure.  When historians turn their attention to these stories, they often reach dead ends…Like the probably mythical figure of Nathan Dale who claimed to have been born in 1833 on the site of the present Quapaw Bathhouse and testified to the fact that the Qawpaw used a spring in a cave to ritually  heal their ills.  Dale’s name does not appear in any of the local federal censuses, including the earliest one taken in 1840. If Dale had existed, he would have been seven years old at that time and unlikely to be anywhere but at home when the census takers came through. The name never occurs in the sworn testimony on pioneer land use taken from early Hot Springs settlers in 1830s and 1840s, or in the 1884 Congressional hearings on the creek arch that included testimony on area history. The name is absent from the long lists of land claimants in 1875 and 1877. It is also missing from the extant city directories in the 1870s and 1880s (see Shugart’s article on the Qua paw Cave for more details) .

But back to my current visit…what got my mind wandering in this direction this morning was the statue in the men’s side of the Fordyce Bathhouse.  The Fordyce operated from 1915-1962, when it closed due to declining business. It remained vacant until reopening as the park visitor center in 1989.  It was the most elaborate and expensive of the bathhouses, the costing over $212,749.55 in furniture alone.  The Fordyce provided for the well-being of the whole patron – body, mind, and spirit. It offered a museum where prehistoric Indian relics were displayed, bowling lanes and a billiard room for recreation, a gymnasium for exercise, a roof garden for clean air and sun, and a variety of assembly rooms and staterooms for conversation and reading…and in the men’s side of the bath you will not only be confronted by an elegant water-themed stain-glass skylight (giving the patrons an underwater feeling, and reminding them that they are in a spa of European caliber), but a fountain/statue of a kneeling Native American woman offering water to a Spanish conquistador.

The pose is reminiscent of John Smith and Pocahontas…and just as fanciful.  Interestingly some of the details of the Native American pottery ring true, while other do not…but clearly this fountain says a great deal about how the 1920s liked to envision European/Native American interaction–a tantalizing encounter with a compliant, exotic woman.  The fact that this art was installed on the men’s side of the bath house is not without importance either (there are some great art-glass installations on the woman’s side, but no large statuary)…this is especially true given the very sexualized nature of the pose…an image that the hot, steamy, nude male bathers would gaze upon while relaxing and taking the waters…the arch of her back along is telling…but when viewed from a particular angle the statue might be seen to suggest actual sexual acts….

OK…I’m getting carried away…enough…

My point is made that this statue is a fascinating piece of material culture…one that binds up a place and it’s identity (particularly historical identity) with tourism, leisure time, wealth and masculinity in the early twentieth century…

Lascivious angle to the statue to be gazed upon my wealthy, elite males while in the steam bath?... Or a figment of my over active imagination (and dirty mind)?