DOCSLIB.ORG

How Strong Was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Strong Was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle CHAPTER 26 How Strong was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle Rafael Lewis During a topographic and landscape archaeology sur- logical site to the broader landscape, including every vey, thoughts on Montfort Castle’s topographical infe- archaeological feature in it. The field methods used riority led to some preliminary1 ideas on the manner in Landscape Archaeology and the Archaeology of in which the Teutonic Order dealt with this crucial Conflicts includes the equal examination of all man- weakness, and what would have been the best loca- made features, not excluding modern elements which tion for the Mamluks to position their siege machinery are documented and studied. The underlying concept and camps during the two assaults of the castle in May of this approach is that in order to understand the 1266 and June 1271.2 meaning of a single find or feature, we need to under- Montfort Castle is isolated from main roads, com- stand the environment in which they were found and mercial centres and major settlements. The problem how they relate to it. The manner in which objects of its isolated location has been raised in the past.3 In are scattered in the landscape is examined strati- order to better understand the castle in its setting, I graphically, but also according to their focal, discrete or decided to go beyond the well-secured boundaries of expanded nature. A path, for example, can usually be the castle’s walls, to raise my head (methodologically) described as a discrete or expanded feature, but a road from the trenches, bulks and archaeological artefacts, junction where a few such features meet, is usually of and look at this specific topic of inquiry from a wide a focal nature. The analysis of the landscape through perspective. these perspectives helps the researcher understand the way in which features are scattered through the landscape. This enables the archaeologist to define The Method of Research the common characteristic and more interesting anomalies in the landscape. In order to cross the conventional boundaries of the archaeological site, I used survey techniques which come from two interacting archaeological The Survey disciplines—Landscape Archaeology and its offshoot, Archaeology of Conflicts.4 In these two archaeological A Landscape Archaeology survey examines the region disciplines the focus turns from the specific archaeo- from the macro, and then zooms down to the micro.5 At first the area of this research (New Israel Grid: south-west 220000/771000; north-east 223000/773000) 1 A detailed survey of the region around Montfort was conducted was divided into five different zones based on the by the writer in 2014–2016. This article is a preliminary study main topographic features (Plate 26.1).6 While doing which will be expanded in a future publication. 2 On these sieges see above, Chapter 3. so, the topographic inferiority of the castle became 3 See Benvenisti, 1970, pp. 333; Benvenisti’s introduction, in the facsimile edition of Dean, 1982. Fig. 5, 6; Frankel, 1988, pp. 265– that were made by humans in a landscape during a campaign 267; Boas, 2012, pp. 15–16; Lotan, 2012, pp. 187–194. are the subjects under investigation. See Lewis, 2012. 4 Also known as “Battlefield Archaeology”, the use of the term 5 Wilkinson, 2003, pp. 3–14; Gibson, 1995, pp. 211–222. “Archaeology of Conflict” is more suitable in the case of siege 6 Zone 1—the Castle Spur, called El Qurein or Qal’at Qurein on operations. The term “Battlefield Archaeology” should only the mandatory map 17/27 scale 1:20,000; Zone 2—the Southern be used in the study of open battlefields such as the Battle of Spur, called Khallat Khuzam on the mandatory map 17/27 Hattin (3–4 July 1187), the Battle of Arsuf (7 September 1191) scale 1:20,000; Zone 3—the Plateau (where the two spurs meet or the Battle of Ain Jalut (3 September 1260). Archaeology of at the east), called El Bartut on the mandatory map 17/27 Conflicts observes the overall landscape in which conflicts took scale 1:20,000; Zone 4—Goren Park (overlooking the castle from place, surveys and documents it, and then analyses the differ- west), called Khaliat ed Dāira on the mandatory map 17/27 ent archaeological features within a given area. The changes scale 1:20,000; Zone 5—Wadi Kziv. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004307766_0�8 how strong was strong mountain? 283 plate 26.1 Topographical map of the castle and its surroundings. courtesy of the Israel Survey and Mapping Department. even more evident. Montfort was built on a steep spur (Zone 1) extending north-west, 180 m above the stream of Nahal Kziv (Zone 5). The slopes of the spur are very steep on the northern and southern sides but have a more gradual decline on the west. On the east a narrow saddle joins the spur to the rest of the hill- top that extends in the direction of the modern village of Mi’ilya and its medieval castle, Castellum Regis. The castle is encircled by hills from its other three directions. The Kziv Stream (Zone 5) encircles the castle from north-east to the south-west where it meets a deep tributary wadi that runs from east to west along the southern slope of the spur. The hills in Zone 4—Park Goren, to the north and west of the castle—are a distance of 350–500 m from the cas- tle’s outer wall. To the south of the castle and almost parallel to it runs the southern spur (Zone 2) that eventually connects to the castle’s spur (Zone 1) at a wide saddle at the east (the Plateau—Zone 3). The two adjacent spurs and the wadi between them can be defined as being of a discrete nature (i.e. running plate 26.2 Aerial photograph of the castle and its surroundings. courtesy of the Survey of Israel. along each other to the south-west with almost no archaeological interaction between them, the features on the castle spur being isolated from the landscape) (Plate 26.2).7 between them (This may suggest that the agricultural features on the southern spur predate the building of the castle, which Zones 1 and 2 are divided by the wadi between them, was inserted artificially and imposed on the landscape). The Zones 1, 2 and 4 are divided by Nahal Kziv. only place where one can cross from the southern spur to the 7 The agricultural terraces on the southern spur and the castle castle spur is on the plateau at the east (zone 3); and south on a are cut off from each other by the wadi and road which runs path that climbs from Nahal Kziv in the west and on the lowest .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL
    Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL. 24, NO. 2, DECEMBER 2020 Battlefield Archaeology Book––Francis Marion and the Snow’s Island Community RESEARCH Small Arms Evidence from Star Fort Numismatic History of Charlesfort/Santa Elena: Plantation Era New Mound at Mulberry Archaeology in South Carolina Book MARITIME RESEARCH MRD Features in National Geographic TV Channel Drain the Oceans Season 3 A Mystery Object from Mississippi SAVANNAH RIVER By Chester B. DePratter, Director of Research ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH In 1976, I first became interested in colleagues, Charles Hudson and Marvin PROGRAM Hernando de Soto and the expedition he Smith, and I have published papers on Public Outreach in Time of Covid led through the Southeast when I was the 1539-1543 route that Soto and his men SCIAA ANNUAL REPORT just beginning work on my Ph.D. at the took from their landing in Tampa Bay, A New Feature in Legacy University of Georgia. In the 44 years that Florida, to the departure of the expedition have passed since then, my friends and survivors down the Mississippi River HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY A New Feature in Legacy MYSTERY ARTIFACT, See Page 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TRUST (ART) AND SCIAA DONORS ENDOWMENT OPPORTUNITIES Stanley South Student Archaeological Research Endowment Fund Thank you for your generous support of the Archaeological Research Trust (ART) Endowment Fund and the printing of Legacy. Please send donations in the enclosed envelope to Nena Powell Rice USC/SCIAA, 1321 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208, indicating whether you want to continue receiving Legacy and include your email address. All contributions are appreciated. Please visit our website at: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • Battlefield Archaeology: a Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict
    BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY: A GUIDE TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CONFLICT Guide 8 BAJR Practical Guide Series Prepared By Tim Sutherland Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford With Contributions On Human Remains By Malin Holst York Osteoarchaeology Ltd © held by authors TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 WHAT IS BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY? 1 3.0 WHY IS THE ANALYSIS OF SITES OF CONFLICT IMPORTANT? 3 3.1 THE USE OF CONFLICTS FOR PROPAGANDA AND MISINFORMATION 4 3.2 BATTLEFIELDS AS MEMORIALS 5 3.3 BATTLEFIELD TOURISM 7 3.4 RE-ENACTMENT 8 3.5 FOCI FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 8 3.6 VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL BODIES 9 3.6.1 The Battlefield Trust 9 3.6.2 English Heritage 9 3.7 BATTLEFIELDS AND THE MEDIA 10 4.0 A BRIEF BATTLEFIELD HISTORY 11 4.1 INTRODUCTION 11 4.2 CASE STUDIES 13 4.2.1 Pre-Twentieth Century Archaeological Investigations 13 5.0 WHY MIGHT A SITE OF CONFLICT BE DISTURBED 14 5.1 WHAT LEGISLATION IS THERE IN PLACE TO PROTECT HISTORIC 15 BATTLEFIELDS? 5.1.1 English Legislation 15 5.1.2 Scotland 18 5.1.3 Wales 18 5.1.4 Northern Ireland 18 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES OF CONFLICT 18 6.1 EVIDENCE FOR CONFLICT 18 6.2 HOW LARGE MIGHT A BATTLEFIELD BE 19 6.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BATTLEFIELD SITES 19 7.0 METHODS OF EVALUATION 20 7.1 EARTHWORK SURVEYS 21 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 21 7.2.1 Metal Detector Survey 21 7.2.2 Fluxgate Gradiometer or Magnetometer 22 7.2.3 Electrical Earth Resistance Meter 23 7.2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 23 7.3 FIELD WALKING 23 7.4 DESK TOP ASSESSMENTS 23 8.0 ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Archaeological Examination of a Battlefield Landscape: an Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia Jameson Michael Harwood College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Harwood, Jameson Michael, "An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626393. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-bkaa-yg82 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF A BATTLEFIELD LANDSCAPE: An Example From The American Civil War Battle Of Wilson’s Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Jameson Michael Harwood 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Jameson MichaefHarwood Approved, May 2003 t Norman Barka Dennis Blanton MarleyBrown, III DEDICATION To the soldiers who fought and died the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield landscape TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract ix Introduction 2 Chapter I.
    [Show full text]
  • George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero
    George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero As often happens, when we learn about many important figures in American history it becomes apparent that they were multi-talented individuals, and multi-faceted. General George Rogers Clark, that great figure in the history of our state and nation, was just such a man. Well known are his heroic military skills and accomplishments, and how those dramatic accomplishments helped form our nation at a critical point in its early development. We might also be aware of his surveying, diplomatic, and inventing skills. But, perhaps not everyone knows that this man also had interests in archaeology, paleontology, geology, and natural history (Thomas and Conner 1967). Archaeology by, and related to, George Rogers Clark in Indiana can be separated into several locations to highlight. The first of these is Fort Sackville, the British outpost described as one “of several forts built by the French, British or Americans from 1732 to 1813 in this important frontier settlement [Vincennes, Indiana]” (National Park Service 2004). Lt. Col. Clark and his brave men in 1779 captured the fort from the British. In recognition of the importance of this military feat, and its significance in our country’s history, the country erected the impressive Beaux Arts monument which stands today in Vincennes. The monument and grounds are now part of the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, administered by the National Park Service. Sadly, no professional archaeological investigations appear to have been conducted prior to when the site for the monument was cleared of other existing structures, and the excavation preparations for the monument were conducted in the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 3 – FOC 2018
    Page 1 of 112 Editors and Authors Page 2 of 112 Table of Contents Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas, Aistė Petrauskienė, Vykintas Vaitkevičius………………......................................................................4 The Methodology Used to Identify the Battle Site of Fulford Chas Jones………………………………………………………………………..19 The Battle of Alcalá La Vieja. Location and Understanding of a Medieval Battle. Mario Ramírez Galán, Rafael Montalvo Laguna and María Benítez Galán………………………………………………………...26 Initial Discussions on Military Archaeology Zhao Congcang…………………………………………………………………..44 The Battle of Cheriton: The Archaeology of an English Civil War Battlefield Kevin M. Claxton………………………………………………………………...50 American Revolutionary War “Running the Gauntlet: Locating the Battle of Parker’s Ferry, South Carolina” Steven D. Smith, James B. Legg, Brian C. Mabelitini…………………………..64 “In the Morning We Began to Strip and Bury the Dead:” A Context for Burial Practices During the American War for Independence Robert A. Selig &Wade P. Catts………………………………………………...78 Historical Narrative and Cultural Landscape Analysis: Revealing the American War of Independence Battle of Chelsea Creek Victor T. Mastone, Craig J. Brown, Christopher V. Maio.............................................................................................93 Page 3 of 112 Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas1, Aistė Petrauskienė2, Vykintas Vaitkevičius3 1. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Archaeology, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 2. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Modern History, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 3. Vilnius University, Faculty of Communication, Saulėtekio Av.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology of the Contemporary Past
    Originally published as González‐Ruibal, A. 2014. Contemporary Past, Archaeology of the. In Claire Smith (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York: Springer, pp 1683-1694. Archaeology of the contemporary past Alfredo González-Ruibal Introduction The archaeology of the contemporary past is a new and interdisciplinary field of research that intersects with heritage studies, art, ethnography and modern history. This kind of archaeology, as it is practised today, was born in the late 1990s. However, its intellectual roots go further back (Harrison 2011: 144-149). While “archaeology” literally means the study of ancient things, archaeologists have always been concerned with the present, although in very different ways. During the nineteenth century, there was no clear-cut division between present and past, archaeology and anthropology, and prehistory books regularly included living societies (but always non-industrial). This perspective soon fell into disrepute, due to its inherent racism and simplistic evolutionism. From the late 1950s onwards, archaeologists renewed their interest in the contemporary world through a new method—ethnoarchaeology—and a new theory— processualism. As in the previous century, it was traditional groups that were targeted: other societies were not studied. This is because ethnoarchaeology was conducted for the sake of developing analogies to understand the past, not as an end in itself to understand the present. Historical Background Despite their lack of concern for contemporary communities, processual archaeologists, like Lewis Binford, paved the way for an archaeological study of the present. On the one hand, unlike culture-historical archaeologists, processualists were not concerned with particular periods and cultures, but with understanding human behavior and social processes in general—and this could include the present.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Indiana Archaeology Journal Vol. 13. No. 1
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 13 Number 1 2018 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Cameron F. Clark, Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) Beth K. McCord, Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff Amy L. Johnson, State Archaeologist, Archaeology Outreach Coordinator, and Team Leader for Archaeology Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Editor: Amy L. Johnson Guest Editor: James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams, Wade T. Tharp Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles and report/feature, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknowledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from the articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Projects discussed in several of the articles also received federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana. However, the contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy- December 2018
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina SCIAA Newsletter - Legacy & PastWatch Institute of 12-2018 Legacy- December 2018 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/leg Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE Susan Davis New Business Manager New Sergeant York Battlefield Archaeology Book Please Welcome Stacey Young––Applied Research Division VOL. 22, NO. 2, DECEMBER 2018 RESEARCH Broad River Trenching Project APPLIED RESEARCH Deer, Turtles, and Eagles and More: Animals Used at Spanish Mount MARITIME RESEARCH Submerged: Hands-On Interaction with 8th Graders RECENT SCIAA PUBLICATIONS Archaeology in South Carolina: Exploring the Hidden Heritage of the A Tribute to Elizabeth “Betty” Palmetto State Early Human Life on the Southeastern Hamilton Stringfellow (November 14, Coastal Plain and Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South 1921-May 18, 2017) Carolina By Tommy Charles, Albert Goodyear, George Bell, Laura Stringfellow Wilson, and Nena Powell Rice ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH In July 2018, The University of South Stringfellow. This gift is truly appreciated, TRUST (ART) and the research staff at the SCIAA SCIAA Donors Carolina Educational Foundation Archaeological Research Trust (ART) are indebted to the family of Elizabeth EVENTS Endowment at the SC Institute of Stringfellow, fondly known as “Betty,” for 6th Annual Arkhaios Cultural Heritage and Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) years to come. This is a legacy that stems Archaeology Film Festival––Columbia–– received a generous gift of $145,000 from from many years of true friendship–– October 12-14, 2018 the Estate of Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Fields of Conflict: Papers from the 2014 Fields of Conflict Conference and Preservation Workshop Steven D
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of 2016 Preserving Fields of Conflict: Papers from the 2014 Fields of Conflict Conference and Preservation Workshop Steven D. Smith University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/anth_facpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in 2016. Smith, Steven D., ed. Preserving Fields of Conflict: Papers from the 2014 Fields of Conflict Conference and Preservation Workshop. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina--South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2016. http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 2016 by University of South Carolina--South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Book is brought to you by the Anthropology, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESERVING FIELDS OF CONFLICT: PAPERS FROM THE 2014 FIELDS OF CONFLICT CONFERENCE AND PRESERVATION WORKSHOP STEVEN D. SMITH, EDITOR South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 1321 Pendleton St. Columbia, SC 29208 PRESERVING FIELDS OF CONFLICT: PAPERS FROM THE 2014 FIELDS OF CONFLICT CONFERENCE AND PRESERVATION WORKSHOP STEVEN D. SMITH, EDITOR South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations Steven D
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of 1-2009 The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations Steven D. Smith University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] James B. Legg University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Tamara S. Wilson University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/anth_facpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in 2009. Smith, Steven D., James B. Legg, and Tamara S. Wilson. The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina--South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2009. http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 2009 by University of South Carolina--South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology This Book is brought to you by the Anthropology, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations By Steven D. Smith, James B. Legg, and Tamara S. Wilson South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina 1321 Pendleton St. Columbia, SC 29208 Presented to: Palmetto Conservation Foundation 1314 Lincoln St., Suite 305 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 and Save America’s Treasures National Park Service Washington, D.C. 20036 1201 Eye St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005 January 2009 The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations By Steven D.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeologists, Treasure Hunters and Collectors: Heritage in the Spotlight
    heritage Article Archaeologists, Treasure Hunters and Collectors: Heritage in the Spotlight Virginia M. Salerno 1,† , Natalia Mazzia 2,*,† , María Isabel González 3,† and Cecilia Pérez de Micou 4,† 1 CONICET, Instituto de Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. 25 de Mayo 221 3◦ piso, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires C1002ABE, Argentina; [email protected] 2 CONICET Área Arqueología y Antropología, Área de Museos, Municipalidad de Necochea, Av. 10 y calle 93, Necochea, Buenos Aires 7630, Argentina 3 Instituto de Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. 25 de Mayo 221 3◦ piso Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires C1002ABE, Argentina; igonzale@filo.uba.ar 4 CONICET, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. 3 de Febrero 1378, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires C1426BJN, Argentina; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +54-11-6664-9682 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Received: 6 November 2018; Accepted: 3 January 2019; Published: 9 January 2019 Abstract: This paper inquiries into different aspects involved in gathering archaeological materials practices in the contemporary world. Archaeological objects comprise an intricate network of interests such as social, academic, scientific, touristic, historical, territorial, and economic, among others. It is based on those interests that the objects are appropriated and re-signified depending on specific contexts. We introduce two Argentinean cases in order to look into the relations between people and collected objects, and how those relations intertwine with social and political issues. Founded on these cases, we assess the need to create a broad-encompassing framework to study the collecting practices and the great diversity of actors involved.
    [Show full text]