Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-4lvx9 Total loading time: 0.227 Render date: 2021-09-26T08:18:45.015Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD: CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY, REMOTE SENSING, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A NORTHWEST COAST SETTLER FORT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

Mark Axel Tveskov*
Affiliation:
Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology, Southern Oregon University, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520, USA
Chelsea Rose
Affiliation:
Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology, Southern Oregon University, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520, USA
Geoffrey Jones
Affiliation:
Archaeo-Physics, LLC, 4150 Dight Avenue #110, Minneapolis, MN 55406, USA
David Maki
Affiliation:
Archaeo-Physics, LLC, 4150 Dight Avenue #110, Minneapolis, MN 55406, USA
*
(tveskovm@sou.edu, corresponding author)

Abstract

Archaeological investigations at Miners’ Fort, a mid-nineteenth-century settler fort located in the US Northwest, is part of a larger inquiry into conflict archaeology and historical memory of settler colonialism and warfare in the region. Built by gold miners, Miners’ Fort overlooked the Pacific Ocean and was used significantly when the Tututni, Joshua, and Mikonotunne besieged it for a month during the Rogue River War of 1855–1856. Archaeological excavation targeting anomalies discovered through remote sensing revealed several features in context, including an indigenously designed hearth built by one or more Native American women who were wives of some settlers. Public archaeology created an opportunity for community building that included descendants of both settlers and indigenous people of the area. Although excavation is destructive to archaeological deposits, by implementing remote sensing and involving the public in the excavation process, a more accurate historical narrative can emerge, as well as a sense of ownership and inclusion among diverse stakeholders.

Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Fuerte de Mineros (Miners’ Fort), un fuerte del siglo 19, ubicado en el noroeste de norte américa, son parte de una investigación más grande de la arqueología del conflicto y memoria histórica de colonialismo y guerra en la región. Construido por mineros de oro, el Fuerte de Mineros dio vista al Océano Pacifico y fue utilizado intensamente cuando los grupos indígenas Tututni, Joshua, y Mikonotunne lo cercaron por un mes durante la guerra “Rogue River” de 1855–1856. Excavaciones arqueológicas fueron diseñadas para investigar anomalías identificadas por percepción remota, y descubrieron unas estructuras arqueológicas ‘in situ’, incluyendo un fogón de diseño indígena construido por la esposa nativa americana de un colono europeo. La arqueológica publica dio la oportunidad de conectarse con la comunidad, incluyendo con los descendentes de ambos colonos europeos e indígenas. Aunque la excavación es destructiva a los restos arqueológicos, sostenemos que combinar la percepción remota, la excavación, y la arqueología publica puede permitir que emerja una narrativa histórica más matizada y un sentido de propiedad e inclusión entre diversas partes interesadas.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by the Society for American Archaeology 

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

Allan, James M. 1997 Searching for California's First Shipyard: Remote Sensing Surveys at Fort Ross. Kroeber Anthropological Papers 81. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Anonymous 1856a “Arrival of Schooner Gold BeachCrescent City Herald, February 27, 1856:2.Google Scholar
Anonymous 1856b “Further from Northern California” Sacramento Daily Union, March 21, 1856:1.Google Scholar
Applen, Jeffrey 1997 Battle of Big Bend. MA thesis, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Oregon State University, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Arnott, Sigrid, and Maki, David 2016 Results of a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Wood Lake Battlefield, Yellow Medicine County, Minnesota. American Battlefield Protection Program Project: GA-2287-14-021. Sigrid Arnott Consulting, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Arnott, Sigrid, and Maki, David 2019 Forts on Burial Mounds: Interlocked Landscapes of Mourning and Colonialism at the Dakota-Settler Frontier, 1860–1876. Historical Archaeology 53(1), in press.Google Scholar
Arnott, Sigrid, Brosowske, Scott, and Maki, David 2013 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Fort Juelson, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Arnott, Sigrid, Jones, Geoffrey, and Maki, David 2013 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Indian Mounds Park. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Artz, Joe Alan, Bristow, Emilia L. D., and Whittaker, William E. 2013 Mapping Precontact Burial Mounds in Sixteen Minnesota Counties using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). Contract Completion Report 1976. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Beckham, Stephen Dow 1971 Requiem for a People: The Rogue Indians and the Frontiersmen. The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Beckham, Stephen Dow 1974 Fort Miner. Inventory Forms of Historic Places, Various Counties. Includes Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Umatilla, Washington, Wheeler, and Yamhill Counties from Multiple Years, Approximately from 1970–1990. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.Google Scholar
Bell, James W. 1991 Report of the Remote Sensor Survey at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Manuscript on file at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.Google Scholar
Bennett, Rebecca 2011 Archaeological Remote Sensing: Visualization and Analysis of Grass-dominated Environments Using Airborne Laser Scanning and Digital Spectra Data. PhD dissertation, Bournemouth University, University in Poole, England.Google Scholar
Bennett, Rebecca, Wilhelm, Kate, Hill, Ross A, and Ford, Andrew 2012 A Comparison of Visualization Techniques for Models Created from Airborne Laser Scanned Data. Archaeological Prospection 19:4148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William J., Sutherland, Alex, and Weaver, O.W. 1856 Letter of March 7, 1856. Crescent City Herald, May 21, 1856.Google Scholar
Bevan, Bruce W. 1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 1, United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Byram, R. Scott 2013 Triangulating Archaeological Landscapes: The US Coast Survey in California, 1850–1895. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility 65, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Byram, R. Scott 2005 The Work of a Nation: Richard D. Cutts and the US Coast Survey Map of Fort Clatsop. Oregon Historical Quarterly 106(2):254271.Google Scholar
Challis, Keith D., Kokalj, Žiga, Moscrop, Derek, and Howard, Andy J. 2008 Airborne Lidar and Historic Environment Records. Antiquity 82(318):10551064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Challis, Keith D., Forlin, Paolo, and Kincey, Mark 2011 A Generic Toolkit for the Visualization of Archaeological Features on Airborne LiDAR Elevation Data. Archaeological Prospection 18:279289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Anthony 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B.T. Batsford, London.Google Scholar
Conyers, Lawrence B. 2000 Final Report on Ground-penetrating Radar Mapping, Hudson's Bay Company Cemetery, Fort Vancouver Barracks (US Army), Vancouver National Historic Reserve, Washington. Manuscript on file at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Department of Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Conyers, Lawrence B. 2006 Ground Penetrating Radar. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: an Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Johnson, J.K., pp. 131160. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Conyers, Lawrence B. 2013 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Conyers, Larry, and Amanti, Lindsay 2003 Report on the Ground-Penetrating Radar Mapping: Fort Vancouver Cemetery. Manuscript on file at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Department of Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
Cross, Guy, and Voss, Barbara 1996 Geophysical Remote Sensing of Spanish Colonial Archaeological Remains: Presidio de San Francisco. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 9:330336.Google Scholar
Dalan-Daut, Rinita 1986 Letter report to Bill Willingham, USACE, Portland District, on the results of a magnetic survey at Vancouver Barracks. Geo-Recon International, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
De Vore, Steven L. 2012 Geophysical Survey of the East and South Vancouver Barracks at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Clark County, and a Two Acre Area at Whitman Mission National Historic Site, Walla Walla County, Washington (April 9–27, 2012). National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
Dodge, Orville 1898 Pioneer History of Coos and Curry County, Oregon. Capital Printing Company, Salem, Oregon.Google Scholar
Douthit, Nathan 2002 Uncertain Encounters: Indians and Whites at Peace and War in Southern Oregon, 1820s–1860s. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.Google Scholar
Edwards, Briece R., and Thorsgard, Erik 2013 Ground Penetrating Radar of Four Areas at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. THPO Report No. 2013-029 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon.Google Scholar
Gaffney, Chris, and Gater, John 2006 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus, Stroud, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Glisan, Rodney 1874 Journal of Army Life. A.L. Bancroft and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, Sara L. 2016 Indigenous Values and Methods in Archaeological Practice: Low-Impact Archaeology through the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project. American Antiquity 81:533549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, William F. 2011 Geophysics: Some Recommendations and Applications. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and Topic, edited by Geier, Clarence R., Babits, Lawrence E., Scott, Douglas D., and Orr, David G., pp. 1120. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Hargrave, Michael L. (editor) 1999 Geophysical and Archaeological Investigations of Historic Sites at Fort Riley, Kansas. US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Heimmer, Don H., and De Vore, Steven L. 1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations, revised edition. Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Hesse, Ralf 2010 LiDAR-derived Local Relief Models—a New Tool for Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 17:6772.Google Scholar
Horsley, Timothy, Wright, Alice, and Barrier, Casey 2014 Prospecting for New Questions: Integrating Geophysics to Define Anthropological Research Objectives and Inform Excavation Strategies at Monumental Sites. Archaeological Prospection 21:7586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Sgt. [i.e., Captain Edward O.C. Ord] 1856 Soldiering in Oregon. Harper's Magazine, Vol. XIII:52–26.Google Scholar
Kokalj, Žiga, Zakšek, Klemen, and Oštir, Krištof 2011 Application of Sky-view Factor for the Visualization of Historic Landscape Features in Lidar-Derived Relief Models. Antiquity 85(327):263273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2001 Final Report of Geophysical Investigations Conducted at the Mandan/Arikara Village, Fort Clark State Historic Site (32ME2), 2000. Submitted to the PaleoCultural Research Group, Flagstaff, Arizona, and the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismark.Google Scholar
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:435458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Michael, and Schablitsky, Julie M. (editors) 2014 Archaeology of the War of 1812. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
McBride, Kevin, Naumec, David, Bissonnette, Ashley, and Fellman, Noah 2017 Site Identification and Documentation Plan: Battle of Mistick Fort: English Withdrawal and Pequot Counterattacks II. Technical Report (GA-2287-13-014). Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, Mashantucket, Connecticut.Google Scholar
McBride, W. Stephen, and McBride, Kim A. 2011 Methods in the Archaeology of Colonial Frontier Forts: Examples from Virginia and West Virginia. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and Topic, edited by Geier, Clarence R., Babits, Lawrence E., Scott, Douglas D., and Orr, David G., pp. 123134. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
McDonald, Kendal 2000 Hudson's Bay Company Cemetery Site, Vancouver Barracks, Vancouver, Washington, Magnetic Survey, September 2000. Report to Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve, National Park Service. Z-Too, Archaeogeophysical Prospection, Beaverton, Oregon.Google Scholar
McDonald, Kendal 2008 Magnetic Survey Results. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology Research Report 208–1, Southern Oregon University, Ashland.Google Scholar
McKinnon, Duncan, and Haley, Brian S. 2017 Archaeological Remote Sensing in North America: Innovative Techniques for Anthropological Applications. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
Maki, David 2013 A Geophysical Investigation at the Wood Lake Battlefield Monument: LiDAR and Sub-surface Geophysical Investigations at the Site of the Final Battle of the US-Dakota War of 1862, Yellow Medicine County, Minnesota. Archaeo-Phyiscs Report of Investigations #196, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Murry, Tim 2011 Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology 40:363378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussett, Alan E., and Khan, M. Aftab 2000 Looking into the Earth: An Introduction to Geological Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaney, Michael S., Cremin, William, and Lynch, Daniel P. 2004 The Identification of Colonial Fort St. Joseph, Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(3–4):309321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, Patrick 2014 Results of Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys at For Klamath Grids A, B, and C, (Barracks, Officer's Quarters, and Gazebo Locations), Klamath County, Oregon. Museum Report 2014–009. Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Orr, David G., and Steele, Julie 2011 Mapping Early Modern Warfare: The Role of Geophysical Survey and Archaeology in Interpreting the Buried Fortifications at Petersburg, Virginia. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and Topic, edited by Geier, Clarence R., Babits, Lawrence E., Scott, Douglas D., & Orr, David G., pp. 7582. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Panich, Lee M., Schneider, Tsim D., and Byram, R. Scott 2018 Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements: Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central California. Journal of Field Archaeology. 43(2):152165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrington, Michael 1979 Geophysical and Aerial Prospecting Techniques at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology 6:193201.Google Scholar
Riley Melanie, A., Artz, Joe Alan, Whittaker, William E., Lillie, Robin M., and Sorensen, Andrew C. 2010 Archaeological Prospection for Precontact Burial Mounds Using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) in Scott and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota. Contract Completion Report 1768. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E.A. 1997 The Rogue River Indian War and Its Aftermath: 1850–1980. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Scott, Douglas D., Fox, Richard A. Jr., Conner, Melissa A., and Harmon, Dick 1989 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Big Horn. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Silliman, Stephen 2014 Archaeologies of Indigenous Survivance and Residence: Navigating Colonial and Scholarly Dualities. In Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology, edited by Ferris, Neal, Harrison, Rodney, and Wilcox, Michael V., pp. 5775. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somers, Lewis E. 1998 Geophysical Remote Sensing Survey of the Quartermaster Depot Dump at Fort Laramie National Historic Site. In Archeology at the Fort Laramie Quartermaster Dump Area, 1994–1996, edited by Walker, Danny N., 13:8190. Cultural Resource Selections, Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Denver Colorado.Google Scholar
Starbuck, David R. 2011 The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Štular, Benjamin, Kokalj, Žiga, Oštir, Krištof, and Nuninger, Laure 2012 Visualization of Lidar-derived Relief Models for Detection of Archaeological Features. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:33543360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunseri, Jun, and Byram, R. Scott 2017 Site Interiography and Geophysical Scanning: Interpreting the Texture and Form of Archaeological Deposits with Ground-Penetrating Radar. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 24(4):14001424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, Dorothy, and Sutton, Jack (editors) 1969 Indian Wars of the Rogue River. Josephine County Historical Society, Grants Pass, Oregon.Google Scholar
Tushingham, Shannon, and Brooks, Richard 2017 A Synergistic Study of Indigenous Persistence and Colonial Entanglements at Hiouchi (Xaa-yuu-chit). Oregon Historical Quarterly 118(1):108139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tveskov, Mark A. 2007 Social Identity and Culture Change on the Southern Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist 109:431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tveskov, Mark A. 2015 Archaeological Investigations at the Battle of Hungry Hill Site, Josephine County, Oregon. SOULA Report No. 2015.1. Southern Oregon University, Ashland.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark A. 2017 A “Most Disastrous Affair”: The Battle of Hungry Hill, Historical Memory, and the Rogue River War. Oregon Historical Quarterly 118(1):6495.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark A., and Cohen, Amy 2014 Frontier Forts, Ambiguity, and Manifest Destiny: The Changing Role of Fort Lane in the Cultural Landscape of the Oregon Territory, 1853–1929. In Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology, edited by Ferris, Neal, Harrison, Rodney, and Wilcox, Michael V., pp. 191211. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tveskov, Mark, and Johnson, Katie 2014 The Spatial Layout and Development of Fort Lane, Oregon Territory, 1853–1856. In Alis Volat Propriis: Tales from the Oregon Territory, 1848–1859, edited by Rose, Chelsea and Tveskov, Mark, pp. 115134. Association of Oregon Archaeologists Occasional Papers No. 9.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark, and Johnson, Katie 2018 The Archaeology of the Battle of Big Bend. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology Report No. 2008-01. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology, Ashland.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark, and Rose, Chelsea 2019 Disrupted Identities and Frontier Forts: Enlisted Men and Officers at Fort Lane, Oregon Territory, 1853–1856. Historical Archaeology, in press.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark, Crebbin, Kyle, and Johnson, Katie 2015a Archaeological Investigations at the Fort Klamath Site (35KL3311), Klamath County, Oregon. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology Research Report 2015.07. Southern Oregon University, Ashland.Google Scholar
Tveskov, Mark, Rose, Chelsea, and Johnson, Katie 2015b Archaeological Investigations of Camp Castaway and the Wreck of Captain Lincoln. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology Research Report 2012.07. Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Webster, G. 1884 The Rogue River Indian War of 1855–56. Overland Monthly, September 1884:235–240.Google Scholar
Whaley, Gray H. 2010 Oregon and the Collapse of Illahee: U.S. Empire and the Transformation of an Indigenous World, 1792–1859. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, William E. 2009 Testing the Effectiveness of Ground-Penetrating Radar at Three Dragoon Forts in Iowa and Wisconsin. Historical Archaeology 43(4):5674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. Mark, and Shapiro, Gary 1982 A Search for the Eighteenth Century Village at Michilimackinac: A Soil Resistivity Survey. Archaeological Completion reports No. 4. Mackinac Island State Park Commission, Mackinac Island, Michigan.Google Scholar
Wilson, Douglas C., and Langford, Theresa E. (editors) 2011 Exploring Fort Vancouver. Fort Vancouver National Trust, in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle, and London.Google Scholar
Witten, A.J. 2006 Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD: CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY, REMOTE SENSING, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A NORTHWEST COAST SETTLER FORT
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD: CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY, REMOTE SENSING, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A NORTHWEST COAST SETTLER FORT
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD: CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY, REMOTE SENSING, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A NORTHWEST COAST SETTLER FORT
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *