DOCSLIB.ORG

The Archaeology of the Camden Battlefield: History, Private Collections, and Field Investigations Steven D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. 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 1201 Eye St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005 ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven D. Smith Principal Investigator January 2009 ii Materials herein are based upon work assisted by a grant from the National Park Service-Save America’s Treasures, through the Palmetto Conservation Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Carolina. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Save America’s Treasures or the Palmetto Conservation Foundation. iii Management Summary This report presents the results of battlefield archaeology at the site of the Revolutionary War Battle of Camden, August 16, 1780, located in Kershaw County, South Carolina. The analysis of historic documents, an intensive, controlled metal detector survey, and relic collector artifacts are combined to present an interpretation of the battle as it unfolded across the landscape. iv v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Revealing Camden....................................................................................................1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Specific Project Goals......................................................................................................1 Previous Research...........................................................................................................2 General Methods.............................................................................................................4 The Physical Setting of the Camden Battlefield ...........................................................6 The Battlefield Since 1780...............................................................................................7 Project History.................................................................................................................9 Chapter 2: Battle of Camden, August 16th, 1780, History ......................................................13 Introduction .....................................................................................................................13 Prelude..............................................................................................................................13 Phase I: Night March and Clash of Armies .................................................................15 Phase II: Opening Gambits ...........................................................................................20 Phase III: Flight of the Militia and Advance of the Continentals..............................23 Phase IV: Destruction of the Continentals...................................................................24 Phase V: Rout of the Americans ...................................................................................25 Aftermath .........................................................................................................................28 Endnotes ...........................................................................................................................30 Chapter 3: The Camden Battlefield Collector Survey, 2000-2008.........................................37 Introduction .....................................................................................................................37 Methods and Results .......................................................................................................37 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................39 Endnotes ...........................................................................................................................47 Chapter 4: The Metal Detector Survey Methods and Results Introduction .....................................................................................................................49 Field Methods...................................................................................................................49 Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................53 Lead Shot Analysis...............................................................................................54 Results...............................................................................................................................57 Figure 4.8: Distribution of clothing artifacts.....................................................57 Figure 4.9: Distribution of arms-related artifacts.............................................57 Figure 4.10: Distribution of artillery artifacts...................................................57 Figure 4.11 Distribution of unfired .69 caliber musket balls and cartridges..64 Figure 4.12: Distribution of unfired buckshot, .250” to .320” in diameter.....65 Figure 4.13: Distribution of unfired .75 caliber musket balls..........................65 vi Figure 4.14 Distribution of unfired buckshot, .320” to .360” in diameter......70 Figure 4.15: Distribution of miscellaneous unfired lead shot ..........................70 Figure 4.16: Distribution of all unfired lead shot..............................................71 Figure 4.17: Distribution of fired .69 caliber musket balls ..............................71 Figure 4.18: Distribution of fired buckshot, .250” to .320” in diameter .........71 Figure 4.19: Distribution of fired .75 caliber musket balls ..............................71 Figure 4.20: Distribution of fired buckshot, .320” to .360” in diameter .........78 Figure 4.21: Distribution of miscellaneous fired lead shot...............................78 Figure 4.22: Distribution of all fired lead shot ..................................................78 Figure 4.23: Distribution of all battle artifacts..................................................78 Summary of Data Presented...........................................................................................78 Endnotes ...........................................................................................................................85 Chapter 5: Archaeological Interpretation of the Camden Battlefield ...................................87 Introduction .....................................................................................................................87 Camden Battlefield Archaeological Coverage ..............................................................87 Night Battle......................................................................................................................88 Phase I...............................................................................................................................88 Phase II.............................................................................................................................91 Phase III...........................................................................................................................91 Phase IV............................................................................................................................92 Collector Data and Archaeological Data Compared....................................................95
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Army Lawyer Is Published Monthly by the Judge Advocate General's School for the Official Use of Army Lawyers in the Performance of Their Legal Responsibilities
    Editor, Captain Scott B. Murray Editorial Assistant, Mr. Charles J. Strong The Army Lawyer is published monthly by The Judge Advocate General's School for the official use of Army lawyers in the performance of their legal responsibilities. The opinions expressed by the authors in the articles, however, do not necessarily reflect the view of The Judge Advocate General or the Department of the Army. Masculine or feminine pronouns appearing in this pamphlet refer to both genders unless the context indicates another use. The Army Lawyer welcomes articles on topics of interest to military lawyers. Articles should be submitted on 3 1/2” diskettes to Editor, The Army Lawyer, The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, ATTN: JAGS-ADL-P, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781. Article text and footnotes should be double-spaced in Times New Roman, 10 point font, and Microsoft Word format. Articles should follow A Uniform System of Citation (16th ed. 1996) and Military Citation (TJAGSA, July 1997). Manuscripts will be returned upon specific request. No compensation can be paid for articles. The Army Lawyer articles are indexed in the Index to Legal Periodicals, the Current Law Index, the Legal Resources Index, and the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals. Address changes for official channels distribution: Provide changes to the Editor, The Army Lawyer, TJAGSA, 600 Massie Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, telephone 1 -800-552-3978, ext. 396 or e-mail: [email protected]. Issues may be cited as Army Law., [date], at [page number]. Periodicals postage paid at Charlottesville, Virginia and additional mailing offices.
    [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]
  • Archeological Findings of the Battle of Apache Pass, Fort Bowie National Historic Site Non-Sensitive Version
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Resource Stewardship and Science Archeological Findings of the Battle of Apache Pass, Fort Bowie National Historic Site Non-Sensitive Version Natural Resource Report NPS/FOBO/NRR—2016/1361 ON THIS PAGE Photograph (looking southeast) of Section K, Southeast First Fort Hill, where many cannonball fragments were recorded. Photograph courtesy National Park Service. ON THE COVER Top photograph, taken by William Bell, shows Apache Pass and the battle site in 1867 (courtesy of William A. Bell Photographs Collection, #10027488, History Colorado). Center photograph shows the breastworks as digitized from close range photogrammatic orthophoto (courtesy NPS SOAR Office). Lower photograph shows intact cannonball found in Section A. Photograph courtesy National Park Service. Archeological Findings of the Battle of Apache Pass, Fort Bowie National Historic Site Non-sensitive Version Natural Resource Report NPS/FOBO/NRR—2016/1361 Larry Ludwig National Park Service Fort Bowie National Historic Site 3327 Old Fort Bowie Road Bowie, AZ 85605 December 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [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]
  • Deadlands Armory—Revolvers.”
    Rifles Part III. Magazines In Motion: Revolvers, Turrets, & Harmonicas Revolving Magazines The nineteenth century was a time of great mechanical innovation, marked by thousands of inventive creators seeking patents for all manner of curiously-engineered devices. Firearms were no exception, and a glance at any “weird weapons” collection reveals dozens of oddities, often stamped between 1820–1860. Many of these utilized some form of revolving magazine, whether a cylinder, a cluster of barrels, a turret, or some form of rotary chain. This introduction offers a short history of the revolver, followed by profiles for the more unique, popular, or interesting repeaters that use some form of moving magazine. A more detailed history of revolvers and the Colt patent is found in “Deadlands Armory—Revolvers.” Pepperbox Guns The general mechanism of a revolving magazine evolved from the “pepperbox” gun of the early nineteenth century. A pepperbox gun features a cluster of smooth-bore barrels which are rotated into position and fired individually. Predating the advent of the cartridge, pepperbox guns are muzzle-loaded, and require a separate primer charge for each barrel. Pepperbox guns began fading in popularity before the Civil War, replaced by the more efficient percussion revolver. The Percussion Revolver One of the most significant innovations in firearm design, a revolver features a cylindrical magazine that holds each round in an individual chamber. The first modern revolver was designed by Elisha Haydon Collier in 1814, and was a self-priming flintlock with a manually- rotated cylindrical magazine. Having been exposed to the Collier revolver during a voyage abroad, Samuel Colt made the critical innovation that earned him one of the century’s most famous patents—a revolving cylinder that was mechanically rotated.
    [Show full text]
  • Deadlands Armory
    Rifles Part I. Muzzles, Muskets & Minié Balls Loading a Flintlock Rifle For the first part of the nineteenth century, professional armies fought with the same smooth- bore flintlock muskets as their fathers and grandfathers. It generally takes an experienced soldier between twenty and thirty seconds to properly load a flintlock musket. First, the user has to unseal his pre-measured cartridge of gunpowder, which is usually contained in a paper or linen packet which is bitten open. (Because of the salty nature of gunpowder, this builds up a terrible thirst over the course of a battle, making potable water an essential part of any armed conflict.) Once the gunpowder is poured into the muzzle, the shooter inserts the lead ball, which is encased in a lubricated bit of cloth called “wadding.” Pulling the ramrod from its forestock slot, the shooter tamps the ball home, ensuring firm contact with the propellant charge. The ramrod is then returned to the forestock—unless a panicked soldier leaves it inside the barrel, to be fired along with the bullet! To fire the musket, the hammer is pulled to half-cock. A small pinch of gunpowder is placed in the “priming pan” located on the right side of the musket. The pan is closed to secure the primer, which brings a metal flange called the “frizzen” into striking position in front of the hammer. The hammer is fully cocked, the musket is aimed, and the trigger is pulled. The hammer dashes the flint against the frizzen, simultaneously creating a spark and pushing open the pan to expose the primer.
    [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]