Granted, I know almost nothing of prehistoric or historical archaeology, and so am not a fit judge of this book for the professional. But for the ever curious, like me, it's fascinating. One might I attempted to read this revision too soon after reading the much shorter first edition. This is too much 'same but different' for me.
|Published (Last):||17 February 2014|
|PDF File Size:||1.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
With dates painted on their chimneys, their lawns neatly mowed, and room after room of period furniture, the historic houses of America proclaim their presence. Hardly a town in all of New England lacks a historic-house museum. Such importance vested in old houses is not misplaced.
The house is our most important buffer against the elements. Shelter is basic to human existence, and the earliest known forms are over one million years old. At Olduvai Gorge, in Tanzania, the archaeologist Louis Leaky excavated a simple ring of stones thought to represent a rudimentary foundation of a shelter built by our earliest ancestors, the australopithecine man-apes of southern and eastern Africa.
Whether a crude brush and bough affair built by the nomadic Siriono Indians of Bolivia for a single night's use, or an elegant mansion on the beach at Newport, Rhode Island, the house forms the focus of that basic social unit of the human species, the family. People are conceived, are born, and die in houses; in preindustrial cultures, the house is at the same time the domestic center and the location of most production of essential artifacts.
The form of a house can be a strong reflection of the needs and minds of those who built it; in addition, it shapes and directs their behavior. Small wonder that so much of archaeology concerns itself with the excavation and interpretation of domestic structures of almost endless variety.
The distinction between vernacular and academic building traditions is a critical one, since each reflects different aspects - 92 - of the culture that created the buildings.
Vernacular building is folk building, done without benefit of formal plans. Such structures are frequently built by their occupants or, if not, by someone who is well within the occupant's immediate community. Vernacular structures are the immediate product of their users and form a sensitive indicator of these persons' inner feelings, their ideas of what is or is not suitable to them. Consequently, changes in attitudes, values, and world view are very likely to be reflected in changes in vernacular architectural forms.
Academic architecture proceeds from plans created by architects trained in the trade and reflects contemporary styles of design that relate to formal architectural orders. It is much less indicative of the attitudes and life styles of the occupants of the buildings it creates. Vernacular building is an aspect of traditional culture, and academic architecture of popular culture. The change in Anglo American building from the early-seventeenth century to the end of the eighteenth century is essentially a picture of the slow development of vernacular forms under an increasing influence of the academic styles that were their contemporaries.
The evidence that permits us to understand the development of domestic architecture in Anglo-America is of three types. The first comprises all of the surviving structures from the period, both in England and America. The second consists of excavated remains and as such is limited only to those portions of a building that survived below ground. Finally, certain documentary materials are useful, including land titles and deeds, probate materials, and building contracts. Surviving buildings are subject to certain limitations, which we have already briefly considered.
There is no guarantee that they are surely representative of their times. The factors that allow the survival of one house and the destruction of another are probably numerous and complex, but it seems a reasonable assumption that the simpler and ruder houses of early America have long since vanished. On certain occasions, - 93 - modest houses have been built onto in different directions, so that careful analysis of the various "builds" exhibited by a house can isolate the original core structure.
Too, it was not unusual for a house to be dismantled in order to obtain materials for the construction of a newer one. The subterranean remains of a house, which are observed through excavation, have survived the passage of time in a far less selective way than have whole structures. It is extremely unlikely that any building constructed in the past has vanished without a trace. These traces are often underground, however, and must be exposed with shovel and trowel to be studied and understood.
Even when this is accomplished, two other aspects of them must be considered: focus and visibility. Focus means the degree to which a pattern of postholes, cellars, and hearths can be "read" clearly as to how it represents the structure that once stood over it. Visibility means the actual amount of physical remains, however clearly or ambiguously they might be perceived. Sites can have poor focus and high visibility, or any combination of the two. For example, a house that had continuous stone footings as a foundation, a cellar, and substantial hearth, and which was not remodeled later, would provide an archaeological pattern of high focus and visibility.
The tavern on Great Island in Wellfleet was such a site, and its architecture could be understood in some detail. On the other hand, the Edward Winslow site in Marshfield, Massachusetts, occupied during the second quarter of the seventeenth century, had good focus, but its visibility was poor. The house had no cellar, and its footings must have been set on the ground and later removed. The only evidence of its presence was a brick smear formed by what remained of the chimney base and small deposits of clay that might have been daubing for the walls.
Winslow's son built a substantial house nearby at about the time his father's house was dismantled. Bricks recovered in digging this site were of two sizes, and some seemed earlier in type than the known date of the later house. The original house built by Edward - 94 - Winslow vas probably cannibalized in the construction of the second house by his son. Even if the visibility of a house site is high, the focus can be low if there has been extensive alteration, remodeling, and change over a long period of time.
A longer duration of occupation tends to reduce the focus of a house's underground remains while increasing the visibility. Houses that have burned in place have a higher visibility and focus than those that were either moved to another site or dismantled in place.
House construction that intrudes well below grade also increases both the focus and the visibility of the remains. The ideal feature for architectural study would be the remains of a house that was built with wall trenches, deep chimney base, and cellars, was occupied for a relatively brief period of time, was not added onto in any way, and burned in place. Such features are exceedingly rare, however, and our understanding of the various forms of early American building comes from less explicit archaeological evidence combined with the many buildings that have happily survived the passage of three centuries' time.
If the story we have so far gleaned from pottery fragments wand grave markers is a true indication of the way we have changed since the seventeenth century in our way of organizing and looking out upon our world, then a similar pattern of change is to be sought in changing building styles. Houses of the earliest period in Anglo-America should both resemble their English prototypes most closely and in some way provide evidence of a corporate life-style and a very organic integration.
In time these should diverge and localize in form until they come under the impact of the academic traditions of the later-eighteenth century. Without the evidence recovered from several archaeological sites, an oversimplified view of New England's earliest architectural tradition would almost certainly result. The surviving evidence above ground is remarkably homogeneous in form.
The classic New England "salt box" house form is seen again - 95 - and again in the many antique houses of the late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries, and it would be reasonable to assume that a similar house form existed in the earlier s as a standard type. Yet in the Plymouth Colony area alone there is clear archaeological evidence for at least two other very different types of dwellings.
The first of these is an elongated form, approximately four times longer than it is wide Roland Robbins' excavation of the first house built by John Alden in Duxbury revealed a house of this type. Such an arrangement would suggest possibly a two-room plan, each room ten by twenty feet, although even smaller internal divisions of either or both halves could have existed. The structure was rather narrow; we shall see that the usual English building unit is sixteen feet on a side or larger.
James Hall's excavation of Miles Standish's house, also in Duxbury, revealed a similarly elongated foundation.
While the proportions were identical to those of the Alden house, the latter building was fifteen by sixty feet, and internally divided into three 1-room units. Both houses were built shortly after Alden and Standish moved from Plymouth to Duxbury, probably in the early s. In and , Henry Hornblower excavated the R. Its original occupant is unknown, since the title and deed research has not provided sufficiently clear evidence of the land's original owner.
Hornblower's work was done before Robbins excavated the Alden site and before the Hall map turned up in Mexico, so the excavated ground plan was quite difficult to read. Visibility was poor, while focus was quite sharp. Only three features were clearly identifiable: two hearths and a cellar. However, when compared with both the Alden and the Standish ground plans, the R. Its length, slightly more than sixty feet, matches exactly that of the Standish plan.
It is impossible to determine the width with any precision, but it was probably between twelve and eighteen feet. No wall trenches were uncovered, and the house was very likely founded upon sills laid directly on the ground or on stones similarly placed.
Ceramics and pipestems both suggest a date of construction of this house sometime in the s. A second type of early Plymouth house came to light in An architect noticed pipestems and pottery fragments - 97 - in a field in Kingston, Massachusetts, where he was to build a house for a client.
He took the artifacts to archaeologists at Plymouth Plantation, where they were seen to be of early seventeenth-century date. Excavation and deed and title research were begun almost immediately. The property had been granted to Isaac Allerton in Allerton was the financial agent for the Pilgrim group who settled Plymouth and one of the more important figures in the establishment of the colony.
He moved to Kingston, some three miles distant, shortly after Excavations showed that he developed the property extensively. Remains of a dwelling house and several outbuildings were located, aligned with a trench that had held a high palisade. The palisade was somewhat of a puzzle, since it was three hundred feet in length but enclosed nothing.
We will probably never know why such a one-sided fence was built; the best guess is that when the property was sold in the mid-seventeenth century, the palisade was only partially built and the new owner did not care to complete it. To lend support to this explanation, it is clear that the palisade was removed at that time; the dwelling house and outbuildings that had flanked it were razed, and the debris from the dismantling was deposited in the open palisade trench.
The dwelling house was totally different from any house formerly excavated in the Plymouth Colony area. Of a type known generally as a posthole house, it had no sills. Rather, the frame was supported by four massive corner posts set some four feet into the ground. At one end was a simple hearth made of cobbles. The house was almost square, measuring twenty by twenty-two feet. These dimensions are very close to those of the first building erected by the Pilgrims after landing at Plymouth, a common storehouse twenty feet square Larger posthole structures have been excavated in the Tidewater area of Virginia, but the Allerton house was the first one ever excavated in New England.
Houses of this type were commonly built in the English Midlands, and it may be more - 98 - than a coincidence that one of the colony's two known carpenters at that time was Francis Eaton of Gloucestershire.
The Plymouth Colony area today has no house surviving that is earlier than the last quarter of the seventeenth century. By that date, the traditional center-chimney salt-box house type seems to have become commonplace to the exclusion of others.
To the north, a scant dozen houses in the area that once was Massachusetts Bay Colony predate the mid seventeenth century.
Of these, the Jonathan Fairbanks house in Dedham has the distinction of being the oldest timber framed structure in the New World, dated by tree rings and documents to the year The Fairbanks house is an excellent example of the pattern of growth of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century vernacular American houses. Organic in the extreme, the houses of this early time grew according to need, and in their expansion reflected the development of the families that inhabited them.
It is in this seemingly random but truly adaptive kind of accretion that such houses most strongly contrast with the academic structures that come to influence and ultimately replace them. Hugh Morrison makes the comparison succinctly: A Gothic building evolved out of the plan, which was controlled by needs, and out of the varied materials employed, which were developed into decorative forms almost adventitiously by the many craftsmen who worked with them.
In Small Things Forgotten
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life
Subtle changes in building long before the Revolutionary War hinted at the growing independence of the American colonies and their desire to be less like the British. Records of estate auctions show that many households in Colonial America contained only one chair--underscoring the patriarchal nature of the early American family. All other members of the household sat on stools or the floor. The excavation of a tiny community of freed slaves in Massachusetts reveals evidence of the transplantation of African culture to North America. Simultaneously a study of American life and an explanation of how American life is studied, "In Small Things Forgotten," through the everyday details of ordinary living, colorfully depicts a world hundreds of years in the past. If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
With dates painted on their chimneys, their lawns neatly mowed, and room after room of period furniture, the historic houses of America proclaim their presence. Hardly a town in all of New England lacks a historic-house museum. Such importance vested in old houses is not misplaced. The house is our most important buffer against the elements. Shelter is basic to human existence, and the earliest known forms are over one million years old.
The book presents the idea that small objects can play big parts in an individual's life, and should therefore not be taken lightly in an archaeological investigation. The book is one of Deetz's the most popular, and has become a staple piece of literature for those studying historical archaeology. James Fanto Deetz was an American anthropologist known for his work surrounding colonial New England and everyday Pilgrim life. Chapter one is focused on the unique role of the historical archaeologist compared to the prehistoric archaeologist. While the addition of written materials is in many ways beneficial to the anthropologist, there can also be drawbacks to being presented with multiple strains of information. By sorting objects into types, an archaeologist risks grouping materials in ways that the original maker may not have intended. A broad category is not always able to capture the various uses or meanings that an object might have had.