Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:35:13.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One Neighborhood, Two Communities: The Public Archaeology of Class in a Gentrifying Urban Neighborhood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2009

Robert C. Chidester  and
David A. Gadsby
Robert C. Chidester
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
David A. Gadsby
Affiliation:
American University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Hampden Community Archaeology Project (HCAP) is a public archaeology project in a former textile mill neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland. Since the early 1990s the area has been transformed by gentrification. There are now two distinct communities (an older, working-class community and a newer, upper-middle-class community) in the neighborhood. The goal of HCAP is to create a critical public dialogue on issues of class and economic inequality relevant to the current issues facing the neighborhood. After three years of public archaeology in Hampden-Woodberry, the project has achieved some notable successes but has also run up against several roadblocks.

Type
Articles
Information
International Labor and Working-Class History , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , Fall 2009 , pp. 127 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Eley, Geoff, A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society (Ann Arbor, MI, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Eley, Geoff, “Peace in the Neighbourhood,” Left History 12 (2007): 111–125Google Scholar.

2. Green, James, Taking History to Heart: The Power of the Past in Building Social Movements (Amherst, MA, 2000)Google Scholar.

3. The pioneering volume on gender in archaeology is Gero, Joan M. and Conkey, Margaret W., eds., Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar. For examples of African-American community activism within archaeology, see the case studies in McDavid, Carol and Babson, David, eds., “In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation in African-American Archaeology,” Historical Archaeology 31, no. 3 (1997)Google Scholar.

4. Marxist theory has always been an important part of anthropological and archaeological theory, but in the more conservative domain of historical archaeology, it has largely been laid aside for Weberian explanations of class and class formation. A recent resurgence of both critical and classical Marxist theory in historical archaeology serves as an important foundation of this study. See Leone, Mark P., “A Historical Archaeology of Capitalism,” American Anthropologist 97 (1995): 251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McGuire, Randall and Reckner, Paul, “The Unromantic West: Labor, Capital, and Struggle,” Historical Archaeology 36, no. 3 (2002): 44–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar for examples of each strain of Marxist theory.

5. Pamela J. Cressey, Ruth Reeder, and Jared Bryson, “Held in Trust: Community Archaeology in Alexandria, Virginia” (paper presented at the online conference, Linkages to the Past—Heritage, History and Archaeology, 2003; available online at www.archaeology.org.au/session3/paper.pdf). Last accessed November 6, 2008.

6. Leone, Mark P. and Potter, Parker B. Jr., “Introduction: Issues in Historical Archaeology,” in The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, eds., Leone, Mark P. and Potter, Parker B. Jr. (Washington, D.C., 1988), 1–22Google Scholar; Leone, Mark P. and Potter, Parker B. Jr., “Archaeological Annapolis: A Guide to Seeing and Understanding Three Centuries of Change,” in Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, eds., Hodder, Ian and Preucel, Robert W. (Malden, MA, 1996), 570–598Google Scholar; Leone, Mark P. et al., “Can an African American Historical Archaeology Be an Alternative Voice?” in Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, eds., Hodder, Ian et al. (London, 1995), 110–124Google Scholar; Mark P. Leone, personal communication, February 22, 2008.

7. For a thorough theoretical treatment of archaeological activism as praxis, see Gadsby, David and Barnes, Jodi, “Activism as Archaeological Praxis: Engaging Communities with Archaeologies that Matter,” in Archaeologists as Activists:  Can Archaeologists Change the World?, ed., Stottman, M. Jay (Tuscaloosa, AL, forthcoming 2010)Google Scholar. For examples of archaeological engagement with descendant communities, see the following: Greer, Shelly, Harrison, Rodney, and McIntyre-Talloway, Susan, “Community-Based Archaeology in Australia,” World Archaeology 34 (2000): 265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leone et al., “African American Historical Archaeology;” McGuire, Randall, “Archaeology and the First Americans,” American Anthropologist 94 (1992): 816–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGuire and Reckner, “The Unromantic West;” and Moser, Stephanie et al., “Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt,” World Archaeology 34 (2000): 220–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Deetz, James, In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life, revised and expanded edition (New York, 1996)Google Scholar.

9. McGuire and Reckner, “The Unromantic West.”

10. See, i.e., McGuire, Randall H., Archaeology as Political Action (Berkeley, CA, 2008)Google Scholar; and Tilley, Christopher, “Archaeology as Socio-political Action in the Present,” in Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History, and Socio-politics of Archaeology, eds., Pinsky, Valerie and Wylie, Alison (Albuquerque, 1989), 104–116Google Scholar.

11. As a research strategy, CBR has been developed primarily by social scientists working in community health and development research or with indigenous communities. See, i.e., Austin, Diane E., “Partnerships, Not Projects! Improving the Environment through Collaborative Research and Action,” Human Organization 63 (2004): 419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lassiter, Luke E., The Power of Kiowa Song: A Collaborative Ethnography (Tucson, AZ, 1998)Google Scholar; Menzies, Charles, “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitkxaala,” Canadian Journal of Native Education 28 (2004): 15–32Google Scholar; and Wallerstein, Nina and Duran, Bonnie, “The Conceptual, Historical, and Practice Roots of Community Based Participatory Research and Related Participatory Traditions,” in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, eds., Minkler, Meredith and Wallerstein, Nina (San Francisco, 2003), 27–52Google Scholar.

12. Austin, “Partnerships, Not Projects!”; David A. Gadsby, “Can Archaeology Raise Consciousness? A Case Study from a Working-Class Baltimore Community” (presented at the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., 2005); David A. Gadsby and Robert C. Chidester, “History From ‘The Bottom’ Up: A Research Design for Participatory Archaeology in Hampden-Woodberry, Baltimore, MD” (College Park, MD, 2004; http://www.heritage.umd.edu/CHRSWeb/AssociatedProjects/hampden/oralhistories.htm); Lamphere, Louise, “Bringing the Family to Work: Women's Culture on the Shop Floor,” Feminist Studies 11 (1985): 519–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marshall, Yvonne, “What Is Community Archaeology?” World Archaeology 34 (2000): 211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McDavid and Babson, “In the Realm of Politics.”

13. See, i.e., Wallace, Anthony F.C.'s historical ethnography, Rockdale: The Growth of an American Village in the Early Industrial Revolution (New York, 1978)Google Scholar.

14. Federal Gazette January 10, 1804, cited in Olson, Sherry H., Baltimore: The Building of an American City, revised and expanded edition (Baltimore, 1997), 47Google Scholar.

15. Olson, Baltimore, 47–48, 71–77; “Valuable Mill and Farm for Sale,” Baltimore American May 28, 1833; “[Description of Baltimore Mills],” Baltimore American September 25, 1843; and “The Rockdale Factory for Sale at Public Auction,” Baltimore American March 2, 1850.

16. “A Library at Woodberry,” Baltimore Sun October 3, 1860; “Tour of Woodberry Mills,” Baltimore Sun August 8, 1872.

17. “Labor Meeting at Woodberry: The Ten Hour System in the Factories—Speeches by the Workingmen, Etc.,” Baltimore Sun April 6, 1874. See also “Suspension of Labor at Druid Mills,” Baltimore Sun April 2, 1874; and “Settlement of Druid Mills Difficulties—the Operatives Return to Work,” Baltimore Sun April 3, 1874.

18. Weeks, Thomas C., ed., First Biennial Report of the Bureau of Industrial Statistics and Information of Maryland, 1884–1885 (Baltimore, 1886)Google Scholar.

19. Thirty-second Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor and Statistics of Maryland, 1923 (Baltimore, 1924), 124; Harvey, Bill, “The People Is Grass”: A History of Hampden-Woodberry, 1802–1945 (Baltimore, 1988), 36–37Google Scholar. See also Otey, Elizabeth L., The Cotton Mill Workers on Jones Falls, Baltimore (Baltimore, 1924)Google Scholar.

20. Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Social Change (Cambridge, MA, 1991)Google Scholar.

21. David A. Gadsby, “Remembering and Forgetting Baltimore's Industrial Heritage: Archaeology, History, and Memory” (paper presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Jose, CA, 2006); Stables, Eleanor, “[Neighborhood Watch] Hampden, Baltimore, Md.,” National Geographic Explorer 22, no. 3 (2005): 20Google Scholar.

22. Zukin, Sharon, The Cultures of Cities (Malden, MA, 1995)Google Scholar.

23. Hartigan, John, “Remembering White Detroit: Whiteness in the Mix of History and Memory,” City and Society 7, no. 2 (2000): 11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Marketing pamphlet for Clipper Mill Condominiums, Streuver Bros. Eccles & Rouse (Baltimore, 2005); in possession of the authors.

25. For a fuller discussion of our research design, see Gadsby, David A. and Chidester, Robert C., “Heritage in Hampden: A Participatory Research Design for Public Archaeology in a Working-Class Neighborhood, Baltimore, Maryland,” in Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, eds., Little, Barbara J. and Shackel, Paul A. (Lanham, MD, 2007), 223–242Google Scholar.

26. For the most recent official numbers, see U.S. Census, “Fact Sheet, Zip Code Tabulation Area 21211: Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights.” Electronic document available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=21211&_cityTown=21211&_state=&_zip21211&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y. Last accessed February 6, 2008.

27. For a personal story of class and educational opportunity (or the lack thereof) in Hampden-Woodberry, see Jancius, Angela, “Class for a Downwardly Mobile Generation,” in More Unequal: Aspects of Class in the United States, ed., Yates, Michael D. (New York, 2007), 165–172Google Scholar.

28. Beverly Scieszka, letters to David Gadsby and Robert Chidester, June 29, 2005; in possession of the authors.

29. Contemporary anthropological research protocols require the maintenance of anonymity for informants. More information about the ethnographic research conducted in 2007 can be found in Chidester's dissertation, “Class, Community, and Materiality in a Blue-Collar Baltimore Neighborhood: An Archaeology of Hampden-Woodberry” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2009).

30. For more on this state of affairs, see Gadsby, David A. and Chidester, Robert C., “Class, Labour, and Community,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, eds., Carman, John, McDavid, Carol, and Skeates, Robin (Oxford, England, forthcoming 2010)Google Scholar.

31. Santow, Mark, “Running in Place: Saul Alinsky, Race, and Community Organizing,” in Transforming the City: Community Organizing and the Challenge of Political Change, ed., Orr, Marion (Lawrence, KS, 2007), 28–55Google Scholar.

32. Harvey, “The People Is Grass,” 25–26. While Hampden-Woodberry has certainly remained a racially homogenous community to a striking degree, the evidence for such a tacit agreement is ambiguous given the documented history of labor activism in the community during this period (Gadsby and Chidester, “Heritage in Hampden,” 230).

33. For accounts of blockbusting in Baltimore, see Durr, Kenneth D., Behind the Backlash: White Working-Class Politics in Baltimore, 1940–1980 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Orser, W. Edward, Blockbusting in Baltimore: The Edmonson Village Story (Lexington, KY, 1994)Google Scholar.

34. Gadsby and Chidester, “Heritage in Hampden,” 225, 231; Robert C. Chidester, “Race and Local Citizenship in a Post-Industrial Baltimore Community” (paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference in Citizenship Studies: Race and Citizenship, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 2007).

35. Harvey, “The People Is Grass,” 58.