 |
|
 |
|
The collections and archives now housed at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology have been collected by some of the most prominent figures in anthropology. The California and Nevada archaeological collections are no exception. Indeed, the museum was founded in 1901 mainly to house and exhibit the extensive archaeological collections derived from expeditions funded by Mrs. Phoebe Hearst in the late 19th Century. Hearst funded archaeological projects in Peru, Egypt, and western North America, including N.C. Nelson and Max Uhle's work on shellmound sites around the San Francisco Bay. Hearst actually paid the salaries and operating expenses of the museum and department at this time. Until about 1970 with the advent of environmental legislation mandating the protection of archaeological remains and consequent proliferation of archaeological projects nationwide, most archaeology in California and western Nevada was directed by Berkeley. Consequently, most of the artifacts and records were curated in the museum.
Phoebe Hearst supported N.C. Nelson, then a graduate student at Berkeley, by paying him to investigate the shellmound sites along the San Francisco Bay shoreline (Nelson 1909, 1910). This survey continued a series of investigations of these sites including Emeryville Shellmound (Uhle 1907; Schenck 1926), the Stege Mounds (1924), Ellis Landing Mound (Nelson 1910), as well as a then "state of the art" archaeological science analysis of the composition of the sites by Gifford (1916). All of this material is housed in the Hearst collection, and today each of the sites is completely or partially destroyed; and while many of the sites investigated were published, just as many were not.
Between this early work and the 1940s, not many new archaeological collections were added to the museum. Much of the pre World War II work in central California was operated from Sacramento Junior College by young students such as Robert Heizer, Francis Riddell, and Franklin Fenenga. After the war, some of these students enrolled at Berkeley. Heizer being a bit ahead of the pack, became a faculty member in the Department of Anthropology. In 1948 the University of California Archaeological Survey (later the Archaeological Research Facility) was formed with Heizer as director, Frank Fenenga as Archaeologist, and "Fritz" Riddell as Assistant Archaeologist. From this point until 1971, intense archaeological activity occurred throughout the state, particularly in central and northern California, as well as western Nevada. Virtually 90% of the museum's existing archaeological and archival collection was collected during this period. Many students passed through the department and museum, which under Heizer were practically one entity. Many of the data for the production of Michael Moratto's book California Archaeology (1984) is based on the early work of these Berkeley archaeologists, (as well as the UCAS branch at UCLA) and the archaeological archives at the Hearst Museum. Many of these Berkeley and UCLA archaeologists including M. Baumhoff (deceased), J. Bennyhoff (deceased), T. Hester, C. Meighan (deceased), J. O'Connell, A. E. Treganza (deceased), C. Warren, D. True, and many more have been prominent in North American archaeology. Much of their theoretical and methodological contributions were based on the material curated at the Hearst Museum. Hester et al.'s work on archaeological field methods (1975), mainly based on these archives, served as the text for budding archaeologists in the 1970s and 1980s.
By 1971 with the advent of CRM archaeology, the Archeological Research Facility at Berkeley could no longer effectively function as the clearinghouse for central and northern California archaeology (UCLA administered southern California by this time). After the State Historic Preservation Office was formed and the task of site recording and central clearinghouses became decentralized, collections no longer came to the museum. Heizer died soon after and the role of the Hearst Museum and the Archaeological Research Facility in California and Nevada archaeology diminished. At that time, the collections, field notes, maps, and manuscripts practically became a forgotten resource with no direction and little care, used mainly by Heizer's students and a few others.
Today, after nearly 20 years of partial neglect, the importance of the Hearst Museum archaeological collections and the role of the Archaeological Archives in California and Nevada archaeology appear to be expanding. With the hiring of North American archaeologists on the faculty and in the museum, the university has expressed interest in the collections and research in the region.
In 1990 the field notes, manuscripts, maps, and other supporting data were moved into permanent housing in the Hearst Basement facility with the collections. Through a program of special studies (Anth 199) for undergraduates, under the direction of M. Steven Shackley, the collections are being inventoried for extreme problems and a repackaging system has been instituted. Today the collections themselves are in much better curatorial condition due to this project. The project included the inventory of the manuscripts. Ongoing and proposed research on the collections is increasing, in part due to interest generated by the faculty and staff, and in part due to the increase in CRM activity and the need to use the collections as supporting data.
One recent project, which appears to be a potential trend, is the Army Corps of Engineers sponsored reanalysis of the artifactual and archival material recovered from the Brazil Site (CA-SAC-43) originally excavated in the 1940s (see Bouey 1995). This project is considered to fulfill the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Archaeological Resource Projection Act (ARPA) by mitigating the effects of levee construction where the site used to be located. This project appears to be a window to the future where museum collections and archives are seen as holding value for mitigating project effects without disturbing the remaining site areas. In light of the restrictions of NAGPRA, this type of project will likely be encouraged.
The anticipated increased use certainly mandates increases in archival and curatorial work, in part to mitigate the effects of additional use, and tautologically, to further increase access and potential use. Use and curation go hand in hand, particularly with collections that have been somewhat ignored for a number of years (Pearce 1990).
The compiled catalogue of archaeological archives here has generated increased interest in the archives and the data that are available. It has been distributed to the university archaeological clearinghouses (California Archaeological Inventory) throughout the state. The increased awareness of these archives have brought increased use and a potential for the degradation of a resource of value to anthropologists, as well as the people of the nation. "The archive and its curation are the twin faces of what is essentially a continuous process..." (Pearce 1990:67). This serves as an apt quote from Pearce, and one that forms the intellectual justification for the future preservation and digitization of the Hearst Museum Archaeological Archives.
North American Archaeology
Introduction to Museum Research
The California and Nevada Archaeological Project (CAP)
| |
|
|
