DOCSLIB.ORG

An Atomic History Chapter 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Atomic History Chapter 2 An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941. The graphite blocks were called a "pile," a name that was soon extended broadened, and as the possibility of a fission bomb became more probable. After Pearl to all other forms of reactors. Fermi and Szilard’s pile consisted of graphite blocks around Harbor and the final decision to pursue the bomb, the American effort was coordinated and a core of natural uranium. Unfortunately, the pile did not work well, largely because the partially militarized under the aegis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This led to the graphite blocks were not arranged for optimum results.5 Additional work perfected what establishment of the "Manhattan Engineer District," commonly known as the Manhattan came to be called the "lattice" arrangement, where channels of uranium coursed through a Project. matrix of graphite blocks.6 Another achievement of those early days was a better under- Before Pearl Harbor and direct American involvement in the war, the U.S. govern- standing of the chain reaction itself. In order for a chain reaction to be maintained, each ment’s role in nuclear research was basically that of an observer. Funding began only as fissioned nucleus had to send off at least one neutron that caused another nucleus to fis- Chicago Pile No. 1 was set up in the the promise of success increased in 1940 and 1941. The government certainly provided sion, and so on. A chain reaction that continued indefinitely at a constant rate had a multi- squash court underneath the west little direction during that time; it was the physicists themselves, especially the foreign sci- plication factor ("k") of 1, and was identified as "k = 1." When k was greater than 1, there stands of Stagg Field at the University entists, who organized a restriction on the publication of fission research in late 1939 and of Chicago. Courtesy of Argonne was an increase in both the fission rate and the reactor power level. If k was less than 1, 1 National Laboratory Archives, man- early 1940. Only the scientists knew what was at stake. the reaction could not sustain itself.7 aged and operated by The University The government’s involvement increased by degrees in response to Hitler’s military Even though Fermi and Szilard’s early work in chain reactions failed to achieve k = 1, of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. W-31-109- achievements. The first U.S. government agency to oversee nuclear developments, the they learned much from the experience. The usefulness of graphite as a neutron modera- ENG-38, negative 1-785. Advisory Committee on Uranium, was created in October 1939 in response to Einstein’s tor was firmly established. The lattice was found to be the best arrangement for the urani- letter to Roosevelt in August of 1939—and Hitler’s invasion of um and the graphite blocks to achieve maximum neutron efficiency.8 Most importantly, it Poland in September. The National Defense Research Council was learned, or at least affirmed, that piles stocked with natural uranium could produce (NDRC) replaced the Advisory Committee in June 1940, after nuclear energy in the form of heat, but would not produce a workable bomb. Fermi and the fall of France. The NDRC in turn was folded into the Office Szilard’s early work with piles demonstrated that a much higher concentration of uranium- of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) after the inva- 235 would be needed for that task.9 sion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. In each of these steps, there was a growing coordination between the physicists and their government. More will be said about the agencies that pre- THE SEARCH FOR URANIUM-235 ceded the Manhattan Project, but it would be better to first exam- ine the developments that increased government interest in the Alfred Nier, at the University of Minnesota, first separated uranium-235 from natural two years before Pearl Harbor. Beginning with research into fis- uranium the same month Fermi and Szilard received government support for their chain sion chain reactions and the separation of uranium-235 from nat- reaction work. In March, Nier conclusively demonstrated that uranium-235 was the urani- ural uranium, these developments culminated in the discovery of um isotope responsible for fission.10 Almost immediately, this discovery threw a major the remarkable fissile properties of Element 94, soon to be roadblock in the path of the development of the atomic bomb. As Fermi’s chain reaction known as plutonium. research increasingly demonstrated, a uranium atomic bomb would be possible only with An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941. The graphite blocks were called a "pile," a name that was soon extended broadened, and as the possibility of a fission bomb became more probable. After Pearl to all other forms of reactors. Fermi and Szilard’s pile consisted of graphite blocks around Harbor and the final decision to pursue the bomb, the American effort was coordinated and a core of natural uranium. Unfortunately, the pile did not work well, largely because the partially militarized under the aegis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This led to the graphite blocks were not arranged for optimum results.5 Additional work perfected what establishment of the "Manhattan Engineer District," commonly known as the Manhattan came to be called the "lattice" arrangement, where channels of uranium coursed through a Project. matrix of graphite blocks.6 Another achievement of those early days was a better under- Before Pearl Harbor and direct American involvement in the war, the U.S. govern- standing of the chain reaction itself. In order for a chain reaction to be maintained, each ment’s role in nuclear research was basically that of an observer. Funding began only as fissioned nucleus had to send off at least one neutron that caused another nucleus to fis- Chicago Pile No. 1 was set up in the the promise of success increased in 1940 and 1941. The government certainly provided sion, and so on. A chain reaction that continued indefinitely at a constant rate had a multi- squash court underneath the west little direction during that time; it was the physicists themselves, especially the foreign sci- plication factor ("k") of 1, and was identified as "k = 1." When k was greater than 1, there stands of Stagg Field at the University entists, who organized a restriction on the publication of fission research in late 1939 and of Chicago.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Behaviour of Polytetrafluoroethylene at High Pressure
    THE BEHAVIOUR OF POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE AT HIGH PRESSURE by Haroun Mahgerefteh A dissertation submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, Imperial College, London SW7 2BY. October 1984 If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. Robin Hyman TO MY PARENTS PREFACE This dissertation is a description of the work carried out in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, Imperial College, London between October 1981 and October 1984. Except where acknowledged, the material presented is the original work of the author and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration, and no part of it has been submitted for a degree at any other Univer­ sity. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Brian Briscoe for his excellent super­ vision during the course of my research. His help and guidance have been invaluable. It has been a pleasure to receive the help of many members of the Department, in particular Messrs. D. Wood and M. Dix of Electronics and Mr. B. Lucas of the Workshop. The help and support from all the members of my family especially my sister Deborah have been invaluable. I also thank Mrs. Joyce Burberry for patiently typing the manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Science and Engineering Research Council and Imperial Chemical Industries PLC for the provision of a CASE studentship. Imperial College, H. Margerefteh
    [Show full text]
  • Laser Isotope Separation (LIS), Technical and Economic
    NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A STATUS OF PROGRESS FOR THL LASER lsofopE SEPARATION (11 SI PROCESS +tear 1976 NASA George C. Mdr~bdlSpace Flight Center Marshdl Space Fb$t Center, Alabama lLSFC - Form 3190 (Rev June 1971) REPORT STANDARD TITLE PACE I nEPMTn0. 3. RECIPIENT*$ CATILOC NO. NASA TM X-73345 10 TITLE UO SUTlTLt IS. REPORT DATE I September A st.tUaof for Iaser isotOpe &paratian lS76 I Progress the (LIS) 6 PERFWYIIIG WGUIZATIO* CQOE George C. M8ralmll!3gam Flight Center I 1. COUTRUT OR am yo. I MarW Flight Center, Alabama 35812 Tecbnid Memormdum National Aemutics and Space Administration Washingtan, D.C. 20546 I I Prepared by Systems Aaalysis and Integration Iaboratory, Science and Engineering An overview of the various categories of the LE3 methodology is given together with illustrations showing a simplified version of the LIS tecbnique, an example of the two-phoiin photoionization category, and a diagram depicting how the energy levels of various isdope influence the LIS process. A&icatlons have been proposed for the LIS system which, in addition to the use to enrich uranium, could in themselves develop into programs of tremendous scope and breadth. Such applications as treatment of radioac '--ewastes from light-water nKzlear reactors, enriching the deuterlum isotope to make heavv-water, and enrlchhg tik light isotopes of such 17 KEt WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 5ECUQlTY CLASSIF. Ff thh PI*) 21 NO. OF PAbFS 22 PRICE Unclassified Unclassified I 20 NTIS PREFACE Since the publication of t& first Techid hiemomxitun (TM X-64947) on the Laser hotope Separation (LE)process in May 1975 [l], there bbeen a virtual explosion of available information on this process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay: the Crew
    AFA’s Enola Gay Controversy Archive Collection www.airforcemag.com The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay From the Air Force Association’s Enola Gay Controversy archive collection Online at www.airforcemag.com The Crew The Commander Paul Warfield Tibbets was born in Quincy, Ill., Feb. 23, 1915. He joined the Army in 1937, became an aviation cadet, and earned his wings and commission in 1938. In the early years of World War II, Tibbets was an outstanding B-17 pilot and squadron commander in Europe. He was chosen to be a test pilot for the B-29, then in development. In September 1944, Lt. Col. Tibbets was picked to organize and train a unit to deliver the atomic bomb. He was promoted to colonel in January 1945. In May 1945, Tibbets took his unit, the 509th Composite Group, to Tinian, from where it flew the atomic bomb missions against Japan in August. After the war, Tibbets stayed in the Air Force. One of his assignments was heading the bomber requirements branch at the Pentagon during the development of the B-47 jet bomber. He retired as a brigadier general in 1966. In civilian life, he rose to chairman of the board of Executive Jet Aviation in Columbus, Ohio, retiring from that post in 1986. At the dedication of the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar- Hazy Center in December 2003, the 88-year-old Tibbets stood in front of the restored Enola Gay, shaking hands and receiving the high regard of visitors. (Col. Paul Tibbets in front of the Enola Gay—US Air Force photo) The Enola Gay Crew Airplane Crew Col.
    [Show full text]
  • Building 9731 – Secret City Festival’S Y-12 Public Tour Or: Building 9731 to Be Featured in Secret City Festival's Public Tour (Title Provided by the Oak Ridger)
    Building 9731 – Secret City Festival’s Y-12 public tour Or: Building 9731 to be featured in Secret City Festival's public tour (title provided by The Oak Ridger) In March 1943 the very first structure to be completed at the newly emerging Y-12 Electromagnetic Separation Plant was Building 9731. It was only a little over a month earlier that ground had been broken for the first of nine major buildings designed to hold cautrons (CALifornia University Cyclotron). But the real push had been to complete the construction of a smaller building, one with a high bay and especially designed to house four very special units of newly designed equipment using huge magnets. The Alpha Calutron magnets stand well over 20 feet tall and are still standing there today―the only ones in the world! For the first time ever, the public will have a chance to see these huge magnets and will also be able to tour inside historic Building 9731. This historic event is a part of the Secret City Festival this year. On Saturday, June 19, 2010, from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, a major part of the Y-12 public tour will include Building 9731. The public will be allowed to see inside the historic structure and view the magnets of both the two Alpha and two Beta calutrons. These calutron magnets have been designated as Manhattan Project Signature Artifacts by the Depart- ment of Energy’s Federal Preservation Officer in the DOE Office of History and Heritage Resources. The building is being submitted for Historical Landmark status on the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of an Atomic Bomb
    (Image: Courtesy of United States Government, public domain.) INTRODUCTORY ESSAY "DESTROYER OF WORLDS": THE MAKING OF AN ATOMIC BOMB At 5:29 a.m. (MST), the world’s first atomic bomb detonated in the New Mexican desert, releasing a level of destructive power unknown in the existence of humanity. Emitting as much energy as 21,000 tons of TNT and creating a fireball that measured roughly 2,000 feet in diameter, the first successful test of an atomic bomb, known as the Trinity Test, forever changed the history of the world. The road to Trinity may have begun before the start of World War II, but the war brought the creation of atomic weaponry to fruition. The harnessing of atomic energy may have come as a result of World War II, but it also helped bring the conflict to an end. How did humanity come to construct and wield such a devastating weapon? 1 | THE MANHATTAN PROJECT Models of Fat Man and Little Boy on display at the Bradbury Science Museum. (Image: Courtesy of Los Alamos National Laboratory.) WE WAITED UNTIL THE BLAST HAD PASSED, WALKED OUT OF THE SHELTER AND THEN IT WAS ENTIRELY SOLEMN. WE KNEW THE WORLD WOULD NOT BE THE SAME. A FEW PEOPLE LAUGHED, A FEW PEOPLE CRIED. MOST PEOPLE WERE SILENT. J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER EARLY NUCLEAR RESEARCH GERMAN DISCOVERY OF FISSION Achieving the monumental goal of splitting the nucleus The 1930s saw further development in the field. Hungarian- of an atom, known as nuclear fission, came through the German physicist Leo Szilard conceived the possibility of self- development of scientific discoveries that stretched over several sustaining nuclear fission reactions, or a nuclear chain reaction, centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4. CLASSIFICATION UNDER the ATOMIC ENERGY
    Chapter 4 CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT INTRODUCTION The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was the first and, other than its successor, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to date the only U.S. statute to establish a program to restrict the dissemination of information. This Act transferred control of all aspects of atomic (nuclear) energy from the Army, which had managed the government’s World War II Manhattan Project to produce atomic bombs, to a five-member civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). These new types of bombs, of awesome power, had been developed under stringent secrecy and security conditions. Congress, in enacting the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, continued the Manhattan Project’s comprehensive, rigid controls on U.S. information about atomic bombs and other aspects of atomic energy. That Atomic Energy Act designated the atomic energy information to be protected as “Restricted Data” and defined that data. Two types of atomic energy information were defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Restricted Data (RD) and a type that was subsequently termed Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). Before discussing further the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and its unique requirements for controlling atomic energy information, some of the special information-control activities that accompanied the research, development, and production efforts that led to the first atomic bomb will be mentioned. Realization that an atomic bomb was possible had a profound impact on the scientists who first became aware of that possibility. The implications of such a weapon were so tremendous that the U.S. scientists conducting the initial, basic research related to nuclear fission voluntarily restricted the publication of their scientific work in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Manhattan Project and Its Legacy
    Transforming the Relationship between Science and Society: The Manhattan Project and Its Legacy Report on the workshop funded by the National Science Foundation held on February 14 and 15, 2013 in Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 The Workshop 2 Two Motifs 4 Core Session Discussions 6 Scientific Responsibility 6 The Culture of Secrecy and the National Security State 9 The Decision to Drop the Bomb 13 Aftermath 15 Next Steps 18 Conclusion 21 Appendix: Participant List and Biographies 22 Copyright © 2013 by the Atomic Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this book, either text or illustration, may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, reporting, or by any information storage or retrieval system without written persmission from the publisher. Report prepared by Carla Borden. Design and layout by Alexandra Levy. Executive Summary The story of the Manhattan Project—the effort to develop and build the first atomic bomb—is epic, and it continues to unfold. The decision by the United States to use the bomb against Japan in August 1945 to end World War II is still being mythologized, argued, dissected, and researched. The moral responsibility of scientists, then and now, also has remained a live issue. Secrecy and security practices deemed necessary for the Manhattan Project have spread through the govern- ment, sometimes conflicting with notions of democracy. From the Manhattan Project, the scientific enterprise has grown enormously, to include research into the human genome, for example, and what became the Internet. Nuclear power plants provide needed electricity yet are controversial for many people.
    [Show full text]
  • Wahlen, R. K. History of 100-B Area
    WHC-EP-0273 History of 100-B Area R. K. Wahlen Date Published October 1989 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration w Westinghouse P.O. Box 1970 0- Hanford mpany Richland, Washington &I352 Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO6-87RLlOg30 WHC-EP-0273 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt that informed him of the work that had been done by Enrico Fermi and L. Szilard on converting energy from the element uranium. He also informed President Roosevelt that there was strong evidence that the Germans were also working on this same development. This letter initiated a program by the United States to develop an atomic bomb. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Department of Defense, was assigned the task. The program, which involved several locations in the United States, was given the code name, Manhattan Project. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont) was contracted to build and operate the reactors and chemical separations plants for the production of plutonium. On December 14, 1942, officials of Du Pont met in Wilmington, Delaware, to develop a set of criteria for the selection of a site for the reactors and separations plants. The basic criteria specified four requirements: (1) a large supply of clean water, (2) a large supply of electricity, (3) a large area with low population density, and (4) an area that would cover at least 12 by 16 mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative
    Volume 5 | Issue 7 | Article ID 2479 | Jul 12, 2007 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative Peter J. Kuznick The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry stressed that the future of mankind would be Truman, the Atomic Bomb and theshaped by how such bombs were used and Apocalyptic Narrative subsequently controlled or shared.[3] Truman recalled Stimson “gravely” expressing his Peter J. Kuznick uncertainty about whether the U.S. should ever use the bomb, “because he was afraid it was so I powerful that it could end up destroying the whole world.” Truman admitted that, listening In his personal narrative Atomic Quest, Nobel to Stimson and Groves and reading Groves’s Prize-winning physicist Arthur Holly Compton, accompanying memo, he “felt the same who directed atomic research at the University fear.”[4] of Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory during the Second World War, tells of receiving an urgent visit from J. Robert Oppenheimer while vacationing in Michigan during the summer of 1942. Oppenheimer and the brain trust he assembled had just calculated the possibility that an atomic explosion could ignite all the hydrogen in the oceans or the nitrogen in the atmosphere. If such a possibility existed, Compton concluded, “these bombs must never be made.” As Compton said, “Better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than to run a chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind.”[1] Certainly, any reasonable human being could be expected to respond similarly. Three years later, with Hitler dead and the Nazis defeated, President Harry Truman faced Truman and Byrnes en route to Potsdam, July a comparably weighty decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Fleming Vs. Florey: It All Comes Down to the Mold Kristin Hess La Salle University
    The Histories Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 3 Fleming vs. Florey: It All Comes Down to the Mold Kristin Hess La Salle University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Hess, Kristin () "Fleming vs. Florey: It All Comes Down to the Mold," The Histories: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories/vol2/iss1/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship at La Salle University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The iH stories by an authorized editor of La Salle University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Histories, Vol 2, No. 1 Page 3 Fleming vs. Florey: It All Comes Down to the Mold Kristen Hess Without penicillin, the world as it is known today would not exist. Simple infections, earaches, menial operations, and diseases, like syphilis and pneumonia, would possibly all end fatally, shortening the life expectancy of the population, affecting everything from family-size and marriage to retirement plans and insurance policies. So how did this “wonder drug” come into existence and who is behind the development of penicillin? The majority of the population has heard the “Eureka!” story of Alexander Fleming and his famous petri dish with the unusual mold growth, Penicillium notatum. Very few realize that there are not only different variations of the Fleming discovery but that there are also other people who were vitally important to the development of penicillin as an effective drug.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Physics & Quantum Effects
    KEY CONCEPTS ATOMIC PHYSICS & QUANTUM EFFECTS 1. PHOTONS & THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT Max Planck explained blackbody radiation with his quantum hypothesis, which states that the energy of a thermal oscillator, Eosc, is not continuous, but instead is a discrete quantity given by the equation: Eosc = nhf n = 1, 2, 3,... where f is the frequency and h is a constant now known as Planck’s constant. Albert Einstein extended the idea by adding that all emitted radiation is quantized. He suggested that light is composed of discrete quanta, rather than of waves. According to his theory, each particle of light, known as a photon, has an energy E given by: E = hf Einstein’s theory helped him explain a phenomenon known as the photoelectric effect, in which a photon of light strikes a photosensitive material and causes an electron to be ejected from the material. A photocell constructed from photosensitive material can produce an electrical current when light shines on it. The kinetic energy, K, of a photoelectron displaced by a photon of energy, hf, is given by: K = hf - φ where the work function, φ, is the minimum energy needed to free the electron from the photosensitive material. No photoemission occurs if the frequency of the incident light falls below a certain cutoff frequency – or threshold frequency – given by: φ f0 = h Einstein's theory explained several aspects of the photoelectric effect that could not be explained by classical theory: • The kinetic energy of photoelectrons is dependent on the light’s frequency. • No photoemission occurs for light below a certain threshold frequency.
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Archaeology and the NSS: 1941–2006
    George Crothers, P. Willey, and Patty Jo Watson – Cave archaeology and the NSS: 1941–2006. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 69, no. 1, p. 27–34. CAVE ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE NSS: 1941–2006 GEORGE CROTHERS1,P.WILLEY2, AND PATTY JO WATSON3 Abstract: Like most other branches of speleology, cave archaeology in the U.S. grew and developed significantly during the mid to late twentieth century. Originally viewed as marginal to mainstream Americanist archaeology, pursuit of prehistoric and historic archaeology underground is now widely accepted as making valuable contributions to knowledge of human past. The National Speleological Society played a central role in that development and continues to do so. We outline the establishment and growth of cave archaeology in North America, with special emphasis on relations between the NSS and archaeology performed in dark zone, deep cave interiors. INTRODUCTION 1920s and 1930s by ‘‘the Caveman,’’ as Neville was often called. The NSS has directly participated in cave archaeology Despite interest in cave archaeology within the NSS through cooperation, education, and conservation. Mem- governance and some portion of the membership during bers of the Society have made notable contributions to the the first few decades after the organization was formed, science by reporting the location of archaeological sites, systematic, long-term archaeological research by pro- participating in their investigation, and by equipping fessional archaeologists in the dark zones of big caves in scientists with the techniques and technology needed to the Americas did not get underway until the 1960s. There work safely in the cave environment (Damon, 1991, p.
    [Show full text]