Beneath the Ivory Tower: The Archaeology of Academia

4. Campus Archaeology on the University of South Carolina’s Horseshoe

4 Campus Archaeology on the University of South Carolina’s Horseshoe Stanley South More than three and a half decades have passed since the field aspect of the “Horseshoe” project on the oldest area of the University of South Carolina campus was initiated in June 1973. The name of this campus area comes from the shape of the current road in front of the original buildings flanking the common leading to the current McKissick Museum, in front of which the original home of the university president was located (Figure 4.1). Time often provides perspective on the significance of what seemed at the time to be a short, small project of little consequence. While many of the people who figured prominently in this project have moved on to other careers, retired, or died, the research stands as a testament to the value of historical archaeology as a way of retrieving the landscapes and lifeways of yesterday not only for academicians but for administrators who seek to cloak their university in the context of “greatness” as dictated by age of their institution . Historical archaeology demonstrates that greatness is neither inherent nor preordained but rather is a product of evolution within the context of hard work, luck, and administrators who understand that today’s universities were built on the shoulders of those who came before. It often behooves an institution to remember its past when planning for the future. In 2005 the University of South Carolina marked its bicentennial. In reflecting on the creation of a world-class university the focus becomes even clearer when the results of a pioneering archaeological study of the college campus are added to the picture of the nascent days of American academe. Situating the Horseshoe Project in Historical Archaeology In 1973 historical archaeology was in its nascent stages. For students just entering the field in the twenty-first century it may be difficult to imagine a University of South Carolina’s Horseshoe 53 time when there was no “historical archaeology” as we see it today. But the Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology that I founded was only a gangly teenager, some thirteen years old, and the Society for Historical Archaeology was only six years old in 1973. It would be four more years until the publication of my book Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (1977). The Horseshoe Project was also a transition from my work on seventeenth - and eighteenth-century English colonial America in the Carolinas and Maryland (South 2005: 107–210, 2008) to my second “career” studying the sixteenth-century French and Spanish efforts on Parris Island, the site of the Spanish capital of La Florida at Santa Elena (South 1997). Today it is still difficult in many arenas to justify costly archaeological endeavors on sites from the recent past. It is up to the archaeologist and sponsors to recognize the value of such sites and act accordingly. Thirty-five years ago, fresh from work conducted as part of the observation of the tricentennial of the founding of Charleston, South Carolina, I was called upon to work Figure 4.1. Current layout of the Horseshoe on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia. (Hollis 1968) 54 Stanley South in the virtual backyard of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology—in the front yard of the University of South Carolina. The Project In the spring of 1973 archaeological investigations were conducted on the Horseshoe common, the oldest part of the campus. These excavations were directed toward the exposure of evidence of early wells and other features in support of a broader proposed renovation plan for the buildings and grounds. The historical archaeology process involves research into the documentary record as well as excavated material evidence, and the text that follows relies on both types of information. Discovered in the documentary research is an invoice for “two well buckets” and “two chains with lap rings” (Figure 4.2). The initial research effort was prompted by concerns over proposed campus renovations and may be considered by some to be a form of cultural resource management (CRM). Often CRM archaeology is thought by administrators to be an unwanted but necessary precursor to development or renovations. Universities accepted large amounts of federal funding and so are morally, and sometimes legally, obliged to meet federal guidelines regarding historic preservation when dealing with properties that meet the minimal criteria for significance as defined in...