Shovel Ready: Archaeology and Roosevelt's New Deal for America

7. Trouble in the Glen: The Battle over Kentucky Lake Archaeology

7 trouble in the glen the battle over Kentucky lake Archaeology David H. Dye new deal archaeological investigations have long been recognized for their valuable contribution to scientific archaeology (davis 1997;dye 1991;fagette 1996;guthe 1952;haag 1985;lyon 1996;sullivan 1999). lesser known or appreciated are the battles waged and compromises hammered out among archaeologists, field supervisors, landowners, and politicians, as well as federal , state, and local administrators. new deal archaeology was conducted in an atmosphere of rapidly emerging laws and procedures that generated varying degrees of cooperation and conflict among the individuals and agencies involved. laws were passed, proposals were written, and fieldwork was approved, often within a matter of weeks, leaving little time for research proposal preparation. strained nerves and intense competition often characterized these difficult times as everyone involved scrambled to make the evolving, imperfect system work. inevitably,personalities clashed among the various new deal stakeholders and participants. while it is not always pleasant to relive personal conflicts of key personalities in archaeology, the study of prehistory in particular, and science in general, is sometimes plagued by such battles and they are often overlooked as an important and intangible process of scientific investigation. this chapter is presented not as criticism of individuals or an exposé of personal weakness, but rather to provide a glimpse into the human component, if not foibles, that helped form and shape the foundation of present-day archaeology . it also gives insight into the frustrations that dedicated and hardworking archaeologists faced during the new deal era.such intellectual and personal battles were not unique to either the individuals portrayed here or the times in which they labored,but understanding the nature of these conditions ,both personal and administrative,helps us better appreciate the accomplishments that they made in the face of sometimes unimaginable obstacles. 130 / dye two prominent north American archaeologists,thomas m. n. lewis and william s.webb, found themselves as primary protagonists in an unfolding drama over tennessee valley archaeology in the late 1930s. the feud had its beginnings as early as April 1937 concerning publication rights of recently excavated,unpublished data.their story is one of profound frustrations,misunderstandings , personality conflicts, and often petty rivalries that grew out of the tumultuous times.lewis’s andwebb’s personal conflicts entangled professional archaeologists and government officials.the role of personality was significant in these early days of professional archaeology, and this incident in the tennessee valley underscores the importance of individual agents and participants in scientific research. the two archaeologists differed from one another in background, education , personality, and temperament. in two respects they were well matched: both possessed convictions in their sense of proprietary jurisdiction, if not outright ownership of the archaeological resources in their respective states, and they envisioned their research plan as the most appropriate and professional way to conduct the archaeological investigations. lewis had acquired both field experience and laboratory skills working under the guidance of his mentor,w. c. mcKern of the milwaukee Public museum, and he had taken anthropology and archaeology graduate courses at the University of wisconsin .webb, on the other hand, had no undergraduate or graduate experience in either anthropology or archaeology, but he had accrued considerable fieldwork and a solid publication record.with prior military backgrounds in worldwar i,lewis,as a naval officer,andwebb,as an army officer,over time formed implacable lines of engagement and charged headlong into the fray. congressional plans for construction of Kentucky dam in may 1938 and the archaeological work that would ensue from the anticipated research opportunities considerably aggravated the disagreement.the “dark and bloody ground” of Kentucky and tennessee became an arena for the struggle over who would oversee the mammoth archaeology project to be undertaken in the Kentucky basin. such battles were not unique to either lewis or webb, or to tennessee valley archaeology, but the potential benefits of the Kentucky basin research were significant: unprecedented research opportunities in an almost unknown archaeological area of eastern north America. in addition, both lewis and webb believed he alone was capable of conducting a modern, scientific approach to the archaeological investigations in question.while lewis envisioned the application of current anthropological theory as the driving force behind detailed report preparation on specific archaeological sites,webb was primarily interested in summary reports (lyon 1996:146). As sullivan (1999:72) notes, the argument between lewis and chapter 7 / 131 webb “was mainly over whether...