Which Benjamin Franklin--Yours or Mine? Examining Responses to a New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court Patrice L. Jeppson, Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

ABSTRACTS Resumen: La reciente revision de las campafias arqueologicas llevadas a cabo en la mansion de Benjamin Franklin en Filadelfia (excavada entre 1953 y 1975) revelan una nueva historia muy significativa para las comunidades que riven en la actualidad en Estados Unidos. La historia de Franklin, inicialmente poseedor de esclavos y posteriormente abolicionista da un giro completo cuando, en sentido figurado, los descendientes de la comunidad Afro-americana, por cuya libertad Franklin luchO, excavan la historia de Franklin para crear un lugar de culto para la memoria histOrica nacional. Asi mismo se ha encontrado una nueva historia relevante para los Nativos Americanos, el Movimiento de los Trabajadores, las mujeres y los colectivos de gays y lesbianas. A la luz de un contexto mas amplio que engloba varias temas colectivos se analizan las diversas respuestas a estas nuevas interpretaciones.

E

E

O -4 O ~a cc

24

R~asum~:Une r~acenteevaluation de l'archeologie effectu~e sur le site de la demeure de Benjamin Franklin ~ Philadelphie (d~terr~e 1953-1975) revele l'interpr~tation d'une nouvelle histoire d'int~r~t aux communaut~s modernes des Etats-Unis. L'histoire de Franklin, d'abord proprietaire d'esclaves puis devenu abolitioniste est r~volue lorsque les descendants de la communaute afroam~ricaine que Franklin s'est evertue ~ lib~rer, fouillent l'histoire de Franklin pour la creation d'un monument a la memoire nationale historique. On trouvera aussi des faits nouveaux d'int~r~t pour les Americains natifs, sur le mouvement travailliste, sur les femmes et les homosexuels. On examine de nouvelles reponses sur ces sujets & la lumi~re des contextes plus ouverts a la base des programmes communautaires.

More than twenty years ago, Bruce Trigger (1985) pointed out that the most common of the archaeology story patterns are nationalist in nature and emphasise the decisive historical role of the presumed ancestors of modern ethnic groups or nations. And indeed, as we all know, archaeology and nationalism have a long and often sordid past (see, among others, Kohl and

A New Story from the Historical Archdeotogy 5ire of Fronklin Court

25

Fawcett 1995). Because of this, it has been suggested that scholars speaking on this issue should be willing to criticise archaeological narratives as both scientific hypotheses and literary texts (Silberman 1995). Boytner, Swartz Dodd, and Killebrew (2004) do just this in terms of one specific element of the archaeological story pattern: They explore instances where social/cultural groups--forming the agents and sources of change--appropriate archaeology to promote, advance, and achieve political goals. Boytner also states that intellectual integrity and the ability to ask and confront difficult questions about this appropriation enable us to move forward and try to understand the way we (archaeologists) generate knowledge. 1 This focus on the appropriation of narratives in policised contexts provides an opportunity for explaining the ambiguity and uncertainty that I have experienced in bringing forth some recent research results. These stem from a reexamination of archaeology previously conducted at the site of Franklin Court--the location of the ruins of Benjamin Franklin's mansion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--which comprises a major U.S. National Park Service (NPS) park theme at Independence National Historical Park (INHP) (see Greiff 1985; Jeppson 2005; National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1969, 1997). 2 This is an archaeological site with a civil religious dimension. By civil religion, 3 I am referring to the actions of the state in the constant regeneration of a social order--in this case, the symbols of the civil faith of American democracy reenacted by civil ritual at a historical site in a national park. 4 The assessment findings support a new story that updates the site in a way that can be useful for the needs of communities in the present. This is occuring just as Franklin himself is being reinvented for a new age by a bevy of historians: An inherited nineteenth-century understanding of the man emphasising the economically frugal, up-by-the-bootstraps aspect of his life is being stripped away in an effort to see what a recontextualised eighteenth-century Franklin has to offer the modern world. In bringing the results of this particular project forward, I have had to assess the ways that various social groups are informed about Franklin's history and consider the lens through which they evaluate the relevancy and risk of new interpretations to their agenda and worldview. I have been left questioning whether this new story will ever see the light of day and what that means if so and if not. Boytner and colleagues' (2004) focus involves case studies or theoretical approaches that explore the appropriation of the archaeological record in relationship to interests linked to nationalism, gender, sexuality, and other concerns. The case study that I present here considers a bit of all these, as well as the appropriation of archaeological data (or not, as the case may be) by local elites. Boytner and colleagues are interested in models that explore the dynamism inherent in heritage formulation. My model (by coincidence) comes via Franklin: Franklin was an early, central figure in the philosophical tradition that became known as American pragmatism, which informs a lot of to-

26

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

day's politically engaged archaeology (Campbell 1999)--including my own (e.g., Jeppson 2000, 2004a, 2006; Jeppson and Brauer 2000, forthcoming; McDavid 2002). Pragmatism values the practical over the theoretical by placing all knowledge and truth in direct relation to verifiable practises. More of an outlook than a true model, inquiries under a pragmatist orientation essentially aim at enlightening the common experience and advancing the common good (Rorty 1998; West 1989). In bringing this outlook to bear on an archaeologically based heritage formulation in an overtly politicised environment, ! find it helpful to distinguish between the study of the past (otherwise known as history) and the past infused with present purposes (also known as heritage).

The Case Study: The Archaeology of an Icon and Its Role in a National M o n u m e n t to Democracy Legislation by the 107th U.S. Congress (2002) established the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission Act to study and recommend activities to honor Benjamin Franklin on the three hundredth anniversary of his birth (in January 2006). One resulting action is that an assessment of Franklin-related historical archaeology research was commissioned by five Franklin-founded Philadelphia institutions--the American Philosophical Society, the Franklin Institute of Science Museum, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the University of Pennsylvania (see Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium 2003). This historical archaeology research project is in response to the needs of three commemoration initiatives--an international loan exhibit, a Frankliniana Database of Franklin material culture, and educational outreach disseminated over the Internet-and it constitutes a portion of the consortium's legacy contribution (Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium 2003; Jeppson 2005). This assessment includes a study of the archaeological research previously done at Franklin Court--the site of a home built at Franklin's direction in 1765, where Franklin resided during the period 1775-1776 (the critical time of the United States' birth, in which he plays an important role) and where Franklin lived during the final years of his life, from 1785 until 1790. This house site was searched for and located in the 1950s and was then extensively excavated in the 1960s and again in the 1970s by and for the National Park Service a~ part of the master plan for establishing a sacred shrine to U.S. democracy known today as INHP (Greiff 1985; National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1969, 1997). This national park commemorates the birthplace of the nation, and, among other points of interest, it contains the location of the signing of the Declaration of Independence as

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

27

well as the home of the Liberty Bell.5 Franklin's significance in the park's interpretation is that Benjamin Franklin, whose home was in Philadelphia, personified the spirit, ideals,.curiosities, and ingenuity of a developing America (see Figure 1). This archaeological site opened to the public as a richly interpreted memorial garden and museum complex 30 years ago, during the U.S. bicentennial year (in 1976). Today, Franklin Court is the second most-visited site at Independence Park (after the Liberty Bell). As of the tercentenary of Franklin's birth in 2006, more than six million visitors will have learned about Benjamin Franklin and his times via archaeologically derived artefacts and interpretations at Franklin Court. The archaeological interpretations on display at the site remain those created in the 1970s. The tercentenary-era assessment (conducted 2003-2005) involved surveying the long history of Franklin Court's archaeological study. The aim was not a formal reanalysis of the previously recovered archaeological evidence but rather an evaluation of the findings of the previous archaeological researchers using a twenty-first-century historical and urban archaeological perspective. 6 This archaeology-of-archaeology project has provided important, unrecog-

Figure 1. The Franklin House Interpretation Includes Ghost Framing and Portals for Viewing the Original, Excavated Foundations. Courtesy of Independence National Historical ParkArchives:Multiplex Slide Collection,"Event," 1963-1975: Franklin Court, 7-4-0.

28

PATRICE L, JEPPSON

nised, and untapped resources useful for new stories about Franklin and Franklin Court. These resources include previously identified artefacts postulated for a new interpretive use, previously unidentified resources, and, in relation to concerns about national narratives, the passage of time has made once-irrelevant information relevant and useful for telling the story of Franklin and Franklin's house and its discovery (Jeppson 2004b, 2005). I have reported (and continue to report) on these findings in other venues, but here I deal specifically with the reception of these new findings for this civil religion site. I briefly recap the resources identified and provide some understanding about how and where they lend themselves as chapters for a new story.

Some Materialised Artefacts Useful for a New Story The newly identified archaeology-of-archaeologyfindings stem from what the past archaeological research at Franklin Court left behind. As we know, archaeology not only studies material culture but produces material culture in the process--the textual and graphic materialisations of archaeological practise produced in our field notes and drawings, reports, and photographs (see Lucas 2001:202, 211-212). While Gavin Lucas (2001) generally and Marley Brown and Andrew Edwards (2004) in historical archaeology in particular have advocated the use of such artefacts of practise for reexcavation needs, and Berggren and Hodder (2003) and Nick Shepherd (2003) have utilised such resources for examining the process of the construction of archaeological knowledge, this Franklin tercentenary project explores the potential value of materialised archaeological research products for interpretation needs. 7 In short, 30 to 50 years after the original research, the archaeological documentation lends itself as a resource for new Franklin Court interpretations. One of these new stories is the history of making a national shrine: a peak at the nation more than 200 years into Franklin's experiment. The ambiguity and uncertainty that I mention involves whether this new story will see the light of day and what does it mean if so and if not.

An African American Chapter in a New Story In brief, the first discovery leading to this particular new story (which can easily accompany other Franklin Court historical interpretations) began on the first day of the project. The first file I opened contained a 1956 preliminary archaeological report written by National Park Service archaeologist Paul Schureacher, who directed the first excavations at the site in 1953 and 1955. Eight black-and-white photographs (archaeological record shots) were glued into the back of this report. These were taken as overview and feature shots, al-

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Sire of Franklin Court

29

though they show the excavators, perhaps included for the purposes of providing scale. The fieldworkers in the photograph are African American. This site history was news to me. Also in the file was an original, hand-typed onionskin-paper contract entifled "Estimate for excavation of Benjamin Franklin's Court to locate and record all walls which may give us clues as to the location of Benjamin Franklin's home" (Schumacher 1953a:1). This contract provided the pay scale for an archaeologist ("GS-9 at $422 per month") and "6 laborers9 .. if at union wages.. 9 $1.75 per hour" (emphasis added), along with a recommendation of using workers"from Local 57" (Local 57 is the Laborers International Union--a construction and industry union, or building trades union).S The daily field notes for the first day of excavation, in May 1953, record that four labourers were hired from the union at this pay scale (Schumacher 1953b, 1956). The archived 1960s archaeological documentation covers the work at Franklin Court conducted by regional NPS archaeologists B. Bruce Powell and Jackson Ward "Smokey" Moore, Jr., who directed a crew of NPS construction workers. The photographic documentation reveals that these fieldworkers included African Americans. This field crew, averaging six men over many months of excavation, reexposed the 1950s work done a decade earlier and excavated several new features associated with Franklin's house (National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1960, 1970; Powell 1961, 1962a). The field notes and photograph collections indicate that the 1950s- and 1960s-era African American field crews were involved in all aspects of the excavation, including troweling, screening, and washing artefacts9 A later-dated cassette tape in the archives further confirms their contribution (National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1978). On this tape, NPS staff and ex-staff are gathered together to view silent film footage shot between ten and twenty years earlier (during the 1960s). As the film footage unwinds, and as the gathered parties attempt to identify sites, cardinal directions, and the who, what, when, where, and why of what they are seeing, one of the officials centrally involved in making Independence Park can be heard saying (in response to the archaeology then on the screen), "Many of these contract labourers were very, very, good even though they had never done any archaeological investigation work or been part of a team. They knew what to throw away and what to keep" (Yoelson in National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1978). My assumption had been that the construction workers excavating at Franklin Court brought valuable insight to the project, having experience with the urban city's underbelly at a time when urban archaeology was only beginning, and, indeed, archaeologist Powell (1962b) writes in an American Antiquity article about special artisans and equipment and skills needed to interpret the concrete bowels of the city. He mentions that this also "costs a lot;' noting that $2.20 per hour is paid for common labour, and he states, "It might not be

30

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

entirely out of line to note that laborers [in Philadelphia] make more than archaeologists do in some areas" (580-583). The passage of time has made this kind of Franklin Court information relevant and potentially useful for telling the story of Franklin and Franklin's mansion and its discovery by U.S. citizens. This archaeology-ofarchaeology information comes just at the time of renewed interest in Franklin's later life, the last five years of which are spent at Franklin Court and which represent the pinnacle period of Franklin's enlightenment thinking put into practise--including that which goes beyond his Revolution and Independence contributions. 9 This period of Franklin's life is marked by participation in the abolitionist movement. Once a slave owner, Franklin becomes president of the antislavery movement in the New World. He pens and submits antislavery petitions to Congress (which are not accepted). 1~He opens his house to the antislavery society for meetings and lends his name and image to their cause (one of the first, if not the first, uses of celebrity for such a secular cause). In 1788, the first cameos in the New World bearing A m I N o t a Ma n and a Brother are shipped from England by Wedgwood to Franklin. 11 The materialised archaeological artefacts from Franklin Court help to demonstrate, in one sense, the story of Franklin the slaveholder and then abolitionist coming "full circle": 12 Figuratively speaking, the descendants of the community whom Franklin worked to help free are found to have excavated Franklin's history for the needs of U.S. citizens (i.e., the creation of a national historical memory). Importantly, INHP is currently trying hard to better meet and work more cooperatively with local ethnic communities to try to find ways to interpret their diverse cultural heritage in the park's portrayal of the American Experience. 13Among other agenda items, there is an acknowledgment that African American cultural representations need to be better addressed and that local history of the city of Philadelphia (a predominately black city) needs to be better addressed since the park is currently perceived as only for tourists and for whites, x4 The park interpreters at Franklin Court that I have talked with about this data think that this information would be useful for interpretation with the thousands of schoolchildren who visit Franklin Court, many of whom are African American. This is only anecdotal support for the new story, as is the comment by one black staff member at the park who said that he had been working at the park for decades and only now was "his" history starting to be part of it. 15 Members of the NPS INDE Cultural Resources staff have expressed interest in this story, albeit there was an initial, reasonable concern that not all of the names for these fieldworkers are available for citation. ~6 There was also an initial, again reasonable concern that a racial disparity could be seen, as depicted in the photographs, given that the African Americans are shown doing manual labour. The new (materialised) artefacts perceived this

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

31

way would not meet the needs of the park service's new initiative. The fact that union workers were involved makes a significant difference in this case.

A Labour History Chapter in the New Story Formal recognition of the long-forgotten role of the early fieldworker has emerged as an academic concern within archaeology with several researchers examining the subaltern fieldworker as replaceable tools in the machinery of excavation (e.g., Berggren and Hodder 2003). This research sees a distanced control of the unskilled worker that was possible because there was little interest in detailed contextual relationships in the objectcentered approach found in early archaeology. This approach recognises the topic's contribution to understanding archaeology's social practise and its developing methods. This approach does not apply to Franklin Court, however, as there the artefact context was the basis for identifying period structural remains. Moreover, a subaltern approach is about making a more democratic archaeology, rather than about archaeology helping make a more democratic society (in a pragmatic sense), which is the aim of this new story from Franklin Court. Toward this end, Philadelphia is a union town. The beginning of the sustained trade union organisation of U.S. workers began in Philadelphia in 1794, and the key structural elements characterising U.S. trade unionism found today started in Philadelphia in 1827 (when central labour bodies united craft unions within a single city). Philadelphia's labour history, like all labour history, is the story of the struggle for collective rights of workers and Philadelphia workers, and their organisations were and are important defenders and progenitors of democratic change in society. There has been a long tradition of union labourers embracing the language of the U.S. founding fathers at the site of what is now Independence Park--creating a physical connection between workers' grievances and the nation's founding ideals (just as the suffragists, the gay community, the Native American community, and multiple other groups over time have done), lr A union worker chapter in the new Franldin Court story may resonate with the union family, especially given that at this time labour unions are under contraction and also under attack (even called un-American and, in one case, labeled a terrorist organization) by today's political, social, and economic leaders on the conservative right. TMGiven the erosion of job security, the decline of real wages, and the reality of a transforming economy, work is a highly problematic arena for all twenty-first-century U.S. workers. Maybe the story of the monument "brought to you (in part) by the union" will be relevant to this large local community, and maybe the role of the "citizen worker" building a site of memory about U.S. democracy will resonate with the U.S. worker who is conscious of the shriveling of human and civil rights in the workplace

32

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

(Green 1997:5-7). Franklin himself of course had much to say on the value of work, on the value of play, and on the importance of social justice. The union angle has been realised as being useful for mitigating the new use of the 1950s materialised artefacts in any case.

A Native American Chapter to a New Story The next interesting artefact that I unearthed in the archives was a typed transcript of an NPS oral history interview conducted in 1977 with regional archaeologist John Cotter (National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1977). In talking about the 1960s research at Independence Park, Cotter identifies Jackson Ward Moore (who worked at Franklin Court) as a Native American, saying, "It is interesting that most archaeologists are of course doing work in Indian site explorations and Smokey returned the favor by being an Indian who excavated in the historical area of one of our notable historical figures." Oral history conducted with Jackson Ward Moore for this Franklin tercentenary project reveals that he is a Chippewa and that he went into anthropology hoping to do prehistory but ended up undertaking some of the earliest historical archaeology research at a number of National Park Service sites (including Appomattox Courthouse, Fort Fredericka, Fort Smith, Bent's Old Fort, and Fort Union Trading Post). He also worked at Mesa Verde and at other prehistoric NPS sites. ~9 With the passage of time, this site history has become a potential community resource. Native Americans have long been one of the country's most overlooked minorities. Reservation needs, casino gambling, traditional religion, and federal recognition have remained critical to how Native American identity is perceived or configured in American Indian relations with academia and with the state and federal government. Meanwhile, 4.1 million Americans recently checked the American Indian or Alaska Native box on their 2000 census. As Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, recently said, "for a huge long time it was not a good thing to be an Indian in this country. But it's starting to be a good thing again" (quoted in Boser 2004:52). Today, American citizens are acknowledging this heritage proudly, and the history of their ancestors is finally being officially appreciated. For example, Native Americans finally have a place of honour in a national museum on the National Mall, in Washington, DC, which its director, Richard West of the Southern Cheyenne tribe, points out, "is not about Native Americans but of them" (Boser 2004:52). The new story from Franklin Court includes how a Native American had a central role in building this nationalshrine site to U.S. democracy. The Franklin shrine is of this community, too. Closer to home--meaning our disciplinary home--Native American archaeologists have pointed out how American Indians involved in archaeology have to deal with the scientific colonialism of archaeologists and archaeology,

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

33

whereby American Indians and other Indigenous peoples "are seen as containers transporting culture rather than the owners, creators, or architects of cukures under consideration" (Watkins 2002:37). Perhaps considering, with hindsight, the role that Jackson Ward Moore played in constructing national history sites provides useful disciplinary self-reflection that will help deconstruct the ethnic disparity that exists in American archaeology. However, this new chapter in the making of the monument story, even given its broader community uses, might continue to marginalise not only the Native American but also the Indigenous archaeologist whom, as Watkins (2002) has pointed out, is often forced into a position of choosing allegiances either to archaeology or to American Indian and Indigenous values.

A Gender-Equality Chapter to a New

Story

Additional artefacts of interest for this new story came from the archived 1970s-era research at Franklin Court. This research phase included several individual contracts, the first three of which were awarded to the University of Pennsylvania's Department of American Civilization (which by then had started the first program in historical archaeology). This work was conducted by Barbara Liggett and Betty Cosans. Archaeologists and draftsmen were hired as crew. The objective of this phase of work was to examine the unexplored areas of the site of Franklin's mansion and garden to answer several specific questions initiated in the buildup to constructing the Franklin Court site at INHP and possibly reconstructing the house (Cosans 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d, 1974e; Liggett 1970a, 1970b, 1970c, 1970d, 1971a, 1971b, 1972). What the documentation signifies, in hindsight, is that this is a team of female contracted archaeology principals in the early 1970s. I was already familiar with this phase of Franklin Court research, but, before looking at the site's history in toto, I had never given thought to the relevance of the female project leader status. I came into archaeology in the early 1980s, when women were visible in the field and involved in a number of urban projects. But in this assessment study, I realised that this is an early date for both the gender and the contracting aspects of such archaeology work. One oral informant (a crew member) said to me while I was interviewing him about his tenure at the site in the 1970s, "If I hadn't had a female boss then, you might not be interviewing me now" (personal communication from William Henry, 17 July 2003). A quick survey of the Conference of Historic Site Papers found that Barbara Liggett contributes as the first female who is a sole author, in issue 10. A Queer Chapter to a New Story In the oral history interviews conducted about this 1970s-era research, all but one of the archaeology informants mentioned that the late Barbara Liggett

34

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

had been open about her sexual orientation (the word out was then not in use). 2~ This information was conveyed by these informants not as gossip but because such openness was not common in those days and hence it was important in their understandings of Liggett as an individual. I initially thought this recollection was not relevant information although I did think (and was correct in at least one anecdotal case) that this information would be of some interest to historical archaeologists who are lesbian. I admit that I had a debate with myself about whether or not this information should be treated when writing up the oral history transcript. But this oral history was being gathered in a time of social, legal, and political ups and downs for the U.S. gay and lesbian community. Same-sex rights, civil unions, and an anti-same-sexmarriage amendment were daily features on television and radio n e w s and in the courts, and same-sex rights were a conservative voting issue in the national election. I reconsidered the importance of this information and asked several straight friends and colleagues whether they thought that maybe this was a story of value, and they said, emphatically, "No." More specifically, they thought that it should not be a story and for the same reasons why I had been hesitant about including i t - - a desire to live in a world where being African American or Native American is not an issue, where whether one is male or female is not an issue, and where sexual orientation is not an issue, where being gay should not matter, and that all rights are deserving by everyone with no separating out or from what others have as possibilities for the pursuit of life and happiness. My choice in the past has always been to treat this topic in as normalising a fashion as possible--to the point of treating it as insignificant. I am aware, of course, that the archaeological record has been recently investigated in relationship to issues of sexuality; indeed, Boytner and colleagues (2004) make mention of this in relation to appropriation of the past in politicised contexts. Issues of sexuality are also recognised in our professional societies--or not, as the case may sometimes be. For example, there has been debate about whether the annual conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology should be held in a city with an antigay civil code, and there was a recent exchange of opinions in the Society for Historical Archaeology newsletter concerning a Gender and Minority Affairs Committee request that gay- and lesbian-based indicators be included in the new membership survey. But I admit that I was slow to realise that this Franklin Court information might be relevant in light of broader social issues that are not insignificant: For the same reason that I did not want this chapter of Franklin Court's historiography to have to be important, I realised that it could not be denied that the information was relevant for a history interpretation to others. In fact, I think that this information might be of interest to members of the gay and lesbian community, and anecdotal experience (providing one lesbian couple visiting Philadelphia a tour of Franklin Court) has

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

35

indicated that this is likely true: I specifically asked if this was useful interpretive information and was told, "Yes, this story helped make this site relevant to our lives." It bears noting that Philadelphia has many communities who could be receptive to this chapter of this new Franklin Court story. For example, Philadelphia is the first U.S. city to commission gay-themed travel commercials, promoting itself as a gay tourist destination. The Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation has a three-year, $1 million gay tourism campaign with 30-second television ads (run on Bravo, MTV, VH1, and the Style cable channels) and various print ads that run under the slogan PHILADELPHIA------GET YOUR HISTORY STRAIGHT AND YOUR NIGHTLIFE GAY (Fischer 2004; Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation 2004; Philadelphia Business Journal 2003; Strauss 2004). These ads include an image of Franklin flying a rainbow kite (see Figure 2). This development has been called "a new story of tolerance from the city known as the cradle of liberty and the birthplace of democracy" (Strauss 2004: A03). The antigay Christian right decries the use of this and other cultural icons for such a purpose, calling this campaign "a direct assault on our cultural foundation" (Murray 2003). I have come to understand that this chapter of the new Franklin Court story is not inconsequential. It matters--to those on all sides of the issue. Indeed, the gay community has previously appropriated sites at Independence Park in the course of seeking equal rights: In the late 1960s, just before the 1970s-era excavations at Franklin Court, there was an annual series of demonstrations at the park, calling attention to the contradictions between the country's founding documents and gay life experience (Mires 2002). A Pennsylvania state historical marker commemorating these first marches in the 1960s was erected near Independence Hall in March 2005 (Dubin 2005; Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 2005).

Responses to the New Story These artefacts of the archaeological process provide a peek at the American experiment more than 200 years down the road. The particularistic aspects of this history are interesting--if overlooked in their time. I think that Franklin would have found these snapshots of twentieth-century Americans at work on America's history fascinating (although it should maybe be kept in mind that he also thought the experiment would not last beyond 200 years). This new story of the making of a national shrine is an interpretation that extends beyond the bicentennial-era theme shaping the interpretations at Franklin Court. With this new story, the Franklin Court site and its history are assimilated and represented in terms that speak to various community needs in the

36

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

Figure 2. Gay-FriendlyImagesof Franklin Are Part of the GreaterPhiladelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation'sThree-Year,$1 Million Gay Tourism Campaign.Courtesy of the GreaterPhiladelphiaTourism and Marketing Corporation.

present. The process of archaeology artefacts contributes contextual richness for a new understanding of U.S. history and historicity. But all this has created a quandary for me. Is using archaeology to support minority histories that broaden the national metanarrative actually contributing to the co-opting of minority history (essentially reestablishing institutional power via a new metanarrative)? This seems quite possibly so when I consider how the story of Franklin as an abolitionist is not embraced by all constituencies (e.g., Waldstreicher 2004). For example, I was originally thinking that part of the tercentenary's contribution might be seeing whether the site would qual-

A New Story from the HistoricalArchaeology Site of Franklin Court

37

ify for a designation marking Franklin's abolitionist activities (Jeppson 2005). Currently, the extant structures at Franklin's property have National Register status, but the archaeological site (excavated too early for consideration) does not. I began researching the possibility of National Historical Landmarks recognition for the archaeological residues under the Underground Railroad Archeology Initiative (a National Historical Landmarks Archeology Initiative) that combines an NPS-coordinated special resource study to commemorate and interpret the Underground Railroad with the National Historical Landmarks Archeological Initiative (Morrison 1998; National Park Service National Register 1998).21 These efforts aim to recognise "the effort--sometimes spontaneous, sometimes highly organised--to assist persons held in bondage in North America to escape from slavery" between 1780 and 1865 (National Park Service National Register 2005). 22 I found that INHP had recently updated the park's themes, adding the Underground Railroad and antislavery movement. As part of this updating, the archaeological site of Franklin's house was included in the associated (updated) Underground Railroad Addendum to the Park's National Register listing (National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 2002a). However, I also learned that the archaeological site had been nominated--and then unnominated--for recognition as part of the separate NPS Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program. 23This constituency holds that they cannot recognise the site of Franklin Court--the site where the first president of the first U.S. abolitionist society lived and where the society occasionally met--because no illegal acts are known to have taken place at Franklin Court (Tara Morrison, personal communication November 2003). As far as is known, this is true, and given how this history is overlooked, this more restricted focus is important: "The activities at Franklin Court are above ground, not underground.., and not all abolitionist sites are Underground Railroad sites even though all Underground Railroad sites are abolitionist sites" (Jed Levin, personal communication November 2003). The Franklin Court site does not fit this program's mandate--and it is the program's mandate. At the same time, in the United States and elsewhere, there is a constituency now actively claiming the abolitionist history of their European forefathers (see Hochschild 2004). Their needs present a competing and conflicting historical interest. I also learned of happenings elsewhere in Independence Park that rendered similar insight into community needs and outlook. Specifically, ideas advanced for displaying Wedgwood's abolitionist medallion for interpretive use elsewhere in the park were reconsidered when African American park interpreters advised about the use of the item's supplicant imagery.24 From this I learned that a new presentation about Franklin's antislavery efforts via the use of this historical, symbolic item is not a simple or easy adoption. On the other hand, a park chief curator has recently expressed interest in using some of the materialised artefacts identified in this assessment for the purposes of interpreting the park's Franklin site history (Karie Deithorn, personal communication

38

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

15 October 2005). The legacy of this research may thus include enriching a historiographical display mounted at the Archaeological Laboratory in the Independence Living History Center at Independence Park. Meanwhile, the tercentenary entity that commissioned the Franklin Court archaeological assessment finds this particular new story interesting but not particularly relevant for its shorter-term project needs. Its material culture interest leans toward decorative art Frantdiniana, and it is selective in the use of the assessment's results (only a handful of recommendations were acted on). While the decisions reflect inherent academic biases and values derived from the use of different databases, the tercentenary folks are also operating on a much more macro scale: They are looking for marble busts, paintings, furniture, and scientific instruments that can be used to support a major (and exciting) exhibition focussing on Franklin as a person of unique ideas and Franklin as an international figure. Historical archaeology, with its material residues of the everyday life experience, does not offer a lot to this type of effort. The tercentenary exhibition (Benjamin Franklin: In Search of a Better World) is a unique and invaluable contribution for international and U.S. audiences, especially in that it is coming at a time when U.S. citizens need to remember that they are but one player in global society (just as was true in Franklin's time) and to remind other nations how Franklin and U.S. ideals are worthwhile ideas, even if the United States appears (to those elsewhere and even to some at home) to be drifting away from original intentions. One unexpected aspect of this assessment study has been my deeper understanding of the power of the different powerbrokers involved in establishing a Franklin metanarrative. The Franklin Tercentenary Commission/ Consortium--a congressionally mandated group controlled by local Franklin-initiated institutions--represents, in effect, the interests of an elite segment of local society. Directors and supporters of these institutions have regularly included political and economic elites, as well as members of the Social Register. These local, Philadelphia-based Franklin-related institutions chose not to include (as part of the tercentenary legislative body) the also locally based but federally administered Franklin entity of Franklin Court (National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 2002b). Thus, one of the most major, if not the major, visitation site for the public's learning about Franklin---located literally down the street--is not part of the main tercentenary commission/consortium. While conducting the archival research for this project, I learned that there is a long history of local competition about Franklin's legacy. 25 Moreover, recent historical research (Mires 2002) reports how deeper in the nineteenthand early-twentieth-century past, the elite in Philadelphia who were often involved with these same institutions--struggled to preserve many examples of Philadelphia's history, which included attempting to keep the hoi polloi from appropriating the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall as symbols (Mires 2002). In the case of Franklin's history and the pending tercentenary celebra-

A New Story from the HistoricalArchaeology Site of Franklin Court

39

tions, the situation involves a valid research agenda, and the entities represent a liberal and often old-money constituency and not one generally considered false left.26But inevitably, their actions will be perceived by some as a sign that this social group is under threat: Philadelphia's local dynamics--its politics, economics, and the demographics of elite society--have changed. Many of the political and economic elites in this majority black city are African American, including two of the last three mayors. The old establishment is no longer the only player running the city. Archaeologists only provide resources that others can then choose to use or not. I personally believe that it is not up to archaeologists to write another community's history. We can only write about it: "Communities should be and need to be free to write the history that they want and need" (Jed Levin, personal communication 2004). So now I am left wondering, does rejection, lack of interest, or conflict over a new history interpretation such as this one mean a failure on archaeology's part? Might this instead be a sign that communities have access to new tools for participation with divisive stances anew? Might communities be defining themselves in their not using our resources? Considering these kinds of questions and concerns seems an especially relevant responsibility in this particular case because Franklin is at the heart of the matter. Franklin asked questions about everything---especially about those things that were taken for granted. However, in pragmatism, a theoretical tradition "that advances the idea of human well-being through science and service;' it is "actions, results, and consequences that matter, not philosophical theorizing and speculation" (Campbell 1999:253-257). This assessment study was undertaken for the needs of the tercentenary commission's 2006 commemorative projects and as part of its longer-term legacy contribution. I have no control over the level of implementation of these findings in the commission's forthcoming commemorative activities, and most of my recommendations were not selected. However, I can and do present the full range of assessment findings, when and where relevant (those selected for the commission's activities and those not). The findings discussed here, which were not selected, do appear to have legacy potential. There is generally a disconnect between what outside scholars find in researching a national park's resource and what the park's own resource managers are responsible for (with NPS research usually representing the leading edge of public history interpretation). In this case, there are Independence Park personnel--both on the front lines (interpretative staff) and behind the scenes (resource managers)--who indicate that this research is of possible use to the park. Likewise, my contact at the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation was intrigued by the new interpretation and asked if a copy of this article could be circulated in its office. This difference in interest seems to mirror the distinction that Lowenthal (1998) draws between history and heritage, whereby "history explores and explains pasts grown ever more opaque over time" while "heritage clarifies pasts so as to infuse them with present purposes" (xv).

40

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

Conclusion More than 30 years ago, U.S. historical archaeologists mentioned the need to reexamine their assumptions and relation to the values and intellectual history of their own society (e.g., Leone 1973; Schuyler 1976). At that time, during the bicentennial year of the country's founding, historical archaeologist Robert Schuyler (1976:37) stated that "it is questionable if archaeological images of America will contribute to American national identity; in fact, they could very well help to undermine that identity" (referring to the "melting pot"). 27 Schuyler's postulation then has been proven true over time, as historical archaeology research is often directed at studying one or another social group or ethnic movement, even when considering said groups in interaction or (as in this case study) sequentially. But Schuyler (1976) also suggested that "archaeology has tremendous potential for a scientific study of nationalism (national identity) as a cultural and evolving process" (39). He said that archaeologists had to decide "do we want to see and comprehend the past as we would like to see it or as it actually was" and that "archaeology could contribute to either view but that to exist archaeology would have to choose the latter goal" (Schuyler 1976:39). My pragmatist orientation means that in dealing with Franklin Court, I want to describe the country and its history in terms of what it can become, as well as in terms of what it once was and is now. Yes, we in the United States need to face unpleasant truths about ourselves, but we also need to understand that these are not the last words on our national character. It is easy to think of America as a society conceived in racial, gender, and economic inequality and that it is irredeemable because of many of its past--and present--actions. But as philosopher Richard Rorty (1998) points out, that is a spectatorial sentiment, not a participatory orientation. The archaeological site documentation for Franklin Court, 30 to 50 years in the making, comprises cultural artefacts that can contribute new images to national identity as it was and as it can be. This is relevant because while the significance of the Franklin Court memorial site complex, like that of Independence Park as a whole, includes the history of the nation's founding, it also "extends to the ways Americans have remembered that history at its place of origin" (Mires 2002:vii). The memorial's resources allow individuals to participate in the processes of remembering--and forgetting--aspects of the nation's history. This new story about the making of Franklin Court can help people make decisions about what they remember--whether it will be ideas from way back then or how the ideas from way back then work now.

Acknowledgments This B. Franklin 300 research was made possible through the invaluable assistance of many others. At INHP, this includes Karen Stevens, Andrea Ashby

A New Story from the Historicol Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

41

Leraris, Bob Giannini, Mary Hogan, Thomas Degnan, (emeritus) Penny H. Batchelor, Anna Coxe Toogood, Karie Diethorn, Jim Mueller, Renee Albertoi, and Sue Glennon. At NPS Northeast Region this includes Tara Morrison, then coordinator for the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, and led Levin. At B. Franklin 300, this includes Connie Hershey as well as Page Talbott, Conover Hunt, Melissa Clemmer, and Ann Brandt. Archivist Alessandro Pezzati (University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology) kindly provided assistance with the John Cotter Papers. William Henry, William Hershey, Robert Giannini, Betty Cosans-Zeebooker, David Orr, Daniel Roberts, and Jackson Ward "Smokey" Moore provided interesting and important details during oral history sessions and informal talks and via telephone and e-mail correspondence. Robert Schuyler and Benjamin Pyldes facilitated this research opportunity. Karen Brauer, Carol Nickolia, Janet Asimov, and Tom Levin provided helpful feedback during this paper's preparation. I thank Ann E. Killebrew, Ran Boytner, and Lynn Swartz Dodd for inviting me to participate in their Society for American Archaeology symposium and the discussants Lynn Swartz Dodd, Sandra Scham, and Mark Leone.

Notes 1. Correspondence from Ran Boytner in relation to the Boytner, Lynn Swartz Dodd, and Ann E. Killebrew symposium "Archaeologically Based Heritage Formulation in Overtly Politicized Environments," presented in 2004 at the annual conference of the Society for American Archaeology. 2. Cultural resources in U.S. National Parks are organised in terms of thematic frameworks. These reflect current scholarship and are designed to represent the full diversity of the American past. The theme topics are identified as part of park planning and represent the professional judgments of NPS cultural resource specialists, state historic preservation offices, specially convened boards or committees of scholars, other federal agencies, and other sources. 3. In using this term, I follow T. Dunbar Moodie (1975), who defines civil religion as "the religious dimension of the state. As such, it is invariably associated with the exercise of power and with the constant regeneration of a social order; it provides a transcendent referent for sovereignty within a given territory. The ultimate nature and destiny of political power is thus connoted in the symbols of the civil faith and reenacted by civil ritual" (296). For other examples of this for the needs of historical archaeology research, see Jeppson (1997). 4. As used in this article, the terms American and America occasionally have historical or emic relevance or reference, and a substitution of United States or United States of America is not always appropriate. As such, their usage in this article should not be taken to imply a naive United States of America-centric outlook that equates this one nation-state with "the Americas;' overlooking the many North, Central, and South American nation-states (which is, sadly, far too common an occurrence seen in the United States). The United States of America only comes into being during

42

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

Franklin's lifetime, and so he first lives in the British American colonies. In this particular sentence, the word choice is used deliberately in highlighting an emic, cognitive reference: The population in the United States would not commonly think in terms of, nor use, the term U.S. democracy. 5. The park contains Independence Hall, a World Heritage Site, where both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were created, "the principles set forth in these being of importance not just to American history but which have guided lawmakers all over the world" (see http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/78), and also more than twenty other buildings interpreting the events and the lives of the colonial population during the years when Philadelphia was the capital of the United States, 1790 to 1800 (see www.nps.gov/inde). The park has several hundred historical archaeology sites, one of which has a prehistoric component. Franklin--Man of Ideas is one of the three original park themes, now extended to five (Greiff 1985a, 1985b; National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1997). 6. The primary resources utilised in this assessment include original archaeological site records, site drawings, field notes, field photographs, and preliminary and final reports, as well as artefact catalogues and the recovered artefact assemblages. Oral history was conducted with some of the archaeological practitioners involved in these archaeology projects. Secondary sources on Philadelphia and colonial-era archeology and its history were also consulted. Primary NPS research resources (e.g., the INHP Archives Card File, Historic Structure Reports) and primary and secondary NPS administrative history resources (General Management Plans and studies detailing the construction of Franklin Court as part of INHP) were also accessed. Cultural resource management documents related to the National Register nomination and amendment for Franklin Court were accessed. Academic studies evaluating aspects of Franklin Court's archaeology and its interpretation were also utilised. The history of the public interpretation at the various Franklin-related sites was examined using popular tourism publications, period newspaper clippings, slide and photograph collections, interpretive training and outreach materials, surviving exhibition materials, oral history interviews, and informal observation study. Information was likewise gathered from NPS personnel who interact regularly with the public at Franklin Court and with the NPS manager of the INHP Web pages containing Franklin archaeology content. 7. This is archaeological collections reuse in the broadest sense of the term: survey of all the primary and secondary documentary and archaeological resources---many of which had not been accessed for research purposes in 30 or more years. Collections reuse is receiving significant renewed attention (e.g., Bacharch and Boyd 2003; Ellick 2003). 8. Additional background research revealed that the National Average Wage Index for 1953 was $3140; the Median Wage Index for a family was $4100; the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour. The labour wage for archaeological fieldwork at Franklin Court is thus $ I higher. At this time, black households in the northern U.S. states had two times the income of those in the South (see www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ p53.html and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/dOO/dtO79.asp). 9. Twelve new books, as well as major History Channel and PBS television specials, have introduced the updated Franklin. See, among others, Campbell (1999), Isaacson (2003, 2005), Morgan (2002), and Wood (2004).

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Frankfin Court

43

10. In 1879, Franklin wrote Address to the Public, urging abolition, which was sent to the Congress of the United States. Copies can be found archived at www.quotes2u .com/histdocs/franklin.htm and www.quotes2u.com/index.htm. 11. This motto and its associated image of a kneeling African in chains is the earliest and most clearly identified symbol of the abolitionist movement. A popular overview of the medallion, including an image, can be found at www.wedgwood museum.org.uk/slave.htm. See also Margolin (2002). 12. I am grateful to Independence Park Historian Coxe Toogood for this succinct turn of phrase. 13. The U.S. NPS is now actively involved in civic engagement (Director's Order 75A) in rethinking the parks for the twenty-first century: "Civic engagement is all of the activities that strengthen the public's understanding of the contemporary relevance of our [U.S.] heritage resources, both natural and cultural, and encourage participation in and dialogue about their future. NPS philosophy and expectation for civic engagement goes beyond legal requirements for including the public in decision-making" (see www.nps.gov/civic/policy/policy5.html). 14. A rapid ethnographic assessment procedure conducted by Low and colleagues (2002) was commissioned by INHP in 1997 (in preparation for a new general management report) to assess ethnic group values and identification with the park. 15. A number of developments in the park are bringing the enslaved and free African and African American experience during the colonial-era Philadelphia to the forefront. See, for example, the NPS/INHP (]ed Levin) community partnership white paper on the ]ames Dexter site, archived at www.nps.gov/inde/archeology/dexter2.htm. 16. Only two names from the 1950s field crew are mentioned in the field notes. More information could, and hopefully will, be learned from other NPS records still to be explored. 17. In the nineteenth century, strikes over working conditions were staged at Independence Hall. In 1835-1836, demonstrations grew in size from 2,000 to 10,000 members (Mires 2002). 18. On 23 February 2004, during a private meeting with state governors in the White House, U.S. education secretary Ron Page called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" The National Education Association is the largest teachers union in the United States, with 2.7 million members. As the its president has pointed out, "having a cabinet official use language that places an organization and its members within the same class as people the current President has been adamant about destroying shows a high level of malice" (www.nea.org/presscenter/support nea.html). 19. Oral history and oral testimony from Jackson Ward "Smokey" Moore has provided the tercentenary project with invaluable insights, anecdotes, and clarifications about the 1960s-era research. Cotter misidentified Moore as a Seminole. Moore related to me that he is Chippewa. 20. As used here, the term queer, which is emic to the gay, lesbian, and transgender communities, is in keeping with its use in queer theory (Dowson 2000). 21. The National Historical Landmarks Archeological Initiative has three components: to develop nominations of new archeological sites, to increase public and

44

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

professional awareness of archeological National Historical Landmarks, and to improve documentation about existing archeological National Historical Landmarks. In 1997, the executive board of the Society for Historical Archaeology passed a resolution that endorses the Underground Railroad Archaeology Initiative and encourages participation in it by professional archaeologists. This initiative supports the ultimate goal of improving public understanding and appreciation of the history of the Underground Railroad from the perspective of archeological resources and cultural landscapes. Given its federal context, the archaeology site is already protected, and therefore National Historical Landmarks status is not critical for an archaeological protection need. Nor does a listing serve to necessarily authenticate the worth of the historic place in public perception any more so than currently exists. However, National Historical Landmarks listings have become an essential component of the public memory, especially now that the listings are part of searchable public databases. Obtaining National Historical Landmark status will help Franklin Court to be better used and appreciated by tourists and other interest groups, such as students, researchers, ethnic heritage groups, and so. 22. NPS (National Park Service National Register 2005) describes the Underground Railroad thusly: "The primary importance of the underground railroad was that it gave ample evidence of African American capabilities and gave expression to African American philosophy.... The secondary importance of the underground railroad was that it provided an opportunity for sympathetic white Americans to play a role in resisting slavery. It also brought together, however uneasily at times, men and women of both races to begin to set aside assumptions about the other race and to work together on issues of mutual concern." 23. This program coordinates preservation and education efforts nationwide and integrates local historical places, museums, and interpretive programs associated with the Underground Railroad into a mosaic of community, regional, and national stories. The project builds on and is supported by community initiatives around the country as well as by national legislation passed in 1990 and the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998. 24. An image of one of these medallions (a kneeling African male in wrist chains) dating to 1788 is archived on the Web pages of the American Philosophical Society, www.amphilsoc.org/library/guides/franklin/958.jpg (accessed April 2004). Regional archaeologist Jed Levin advised me of this possible negative response to the medallion when I spoke to him about the possibilities of using the medallion's history in an updated interpretation of Franklin. An image of the medallion had been recently proposed for use at Independence Park in interpreting the history of slavery at the site of the executive mansion (under what is now the Liberty Bell's pavilion) where the eight enslaved workers that George Washington brought to Philadelphia had lived and worked. 25. One example involves a sum of money that Franklin left in trust for the cities of Boston and Philadelphia that was to be divided at 100 years, half to be reinvested for dispersal in another 100 years--which has accrued significant interest. The INHP Archive Newspaper Collections contain the news coverage of the often acrimonious battles among Franklin-related Philadelphia institutions to stake a claim as the holder of Franklin's "memory" in the effort to acquire the Philadelphia proceeds of the

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

45

Franklin trust. Another probable example involves how in 1976---the same year that Franklin Court was dedicated as a federal memorial to Franklin under the auspices of the National Park Service--the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial at the Franklin Institute of Science was also dedicated, even though the congressional legislation for this was formally passed years earlier, in October 1972. The congressional act creating this memorial charges that "the National Park Service will make appropriate reference to the memorial in its interpretive and informational programs" (Article IIb). In 1972, NPS was developing the federal memorial garden and museum complex of Franklin Court and generating a lot of local and national interest. 26. Philosopher Richard Rorty (1998) explains false left as an unconscious true motive underpinning the activities of liberals that actually serves to maintain the status quo. A false leftist perception leads to cultural rather than political acts when, even working with the best of intentions, an act is mere rhetoric and not action (i.e., if the information generated is not in a useable form for the masses). 27. This metaphor is strongly associated with the United States. It refers to how societies develop in that the people of heterogeneous origins (the pot's "ingredients") are combined yielding a common (assimilated) culture,

References Cited Bacharch, I., and C. Boyd 2003. Out of the Basement: The Use and Accessibility of Archaeological Collections. Symposium presented at the Fifth World Archaeological Congress, Washington, DC. Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium 2003. About the Consortium. Electronic document, www.benfranklin300.org, accessed June 2004. Berggren, A., and I. Hodder 2003. Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:421-434. Boser, U. 2004. A New Museum: Finally a Place to Honor America's Native Peoples. U.S. News & World Report 4:52. Boytner, R., L. Swartz Dodd, and A.E. Killebrew 2004. Archaeologically-BasedHeritage Formulation in Overtly Politicized Environments. Symposium abstract prepared for the Society for American Archaeology conference, Salt Lake City. Brown, M.R., III, and A.C. Edwards 2004. The Third Time's the Charm at Colonial Williamsburg: Archaeologies of Archaeology and the Refinement of Site Interpretation in Historical Archaeology. Paper presented at the Society for Underwater and Historical Archaeology annual meeting, St. Louis.

46

PATRICE L. JEPP$ON

Campbell, I. 1999. Recovering Benjamin Franklin: An Exploration of a Life of Science and Service. Open Court, Chicago. Cosans, B. 1974a. Franklin Court, Vol. I: Franklin Court. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives. 1974b. Franklin Court, Vol. II: 314 Market Street. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives. 1974c. Franklin Court, Vol. III: 316 Market Street and 318 Market Street. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives. 1974d. Franklin Court, VoL IV/V: 320 Market Street, 322 Market Street, Rubble Removal Contract. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives. 1974e. Franklin Court, Vol. VI, Franklin Court Catalogue and Remarks. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives. Dowson, T. 2000. Why Queer Archaeologies? An Introduction. World Archaeology 32:161-165. Dubin, M. 2005. Marking Their Places in History: 14 Phila.-Area Sites to Get Familiar Signs. Philadelphia Inquirer 24 March:B01. Fischer, J. 2004. Groundbreaking TV Ad Set to Promote "Gay-Friendly" Philly. Electronic document, http:/ /philadelphia.about.com/od/gayandlesbian/a/gay_phila_ a.htm, accessed March 2005. Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation 2004. Gay Friendly Travel Information. Electronic document, www.gophila .com/gay/index.htm, accessed March 2005. Green, J. 1997. Why Teach Labor History? OAH Magazine of History 11:5-7. Greiff, C.M. 1985a. Independence: The Creation of a National Park. Heritage Studies. MS. INHP Archives. 1985b. History of Franklin Court. Audiotape of presentation to NPS interpretive staff and resource managers on 1 October 1985. East Division, INHP Interpretation and Visitor Services. Hochschild, A. 2004. Against All Odds. Mother Jones. Electronic document, www.motherjones .com/news/feature/2004/01 / 12_403.html, accessed January 2004. Isaacson, W. 2003. Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. Simon and Schuster, New York. 2005. A Benjamin Franklin Reader. Simon and Schuster, New York. Jeppson, P.L. 1997. Leveling the Playing Field. In The Contested Territory of the South African Past: A "Public Versus a People's"Form of HistoricalArchaeology Outreach. In In the

A New Story from the HistoricalArchaeology Site of Franklin Court

47

Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation African-American and Plantation Archaeology. Special issue of Historical Archaeology, edited by C. McDavid and D.W. Babson, 31 (3):65-83. 2000. "What Do You Think It Is?" Lessons Learned during a Year of Archaeology at the Baltimore County Public Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical and Underwater Archaeology Annual Conference, Quebec City, Canada. 2004a. Pitfalls, Pratfalls, and Pragmatism in Public Archaeology: A Case Study. In

Interpretation for Archeologists: A Guide to Increasing Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, edited by T.S. Moyer, H.A. Hembrey, and B.J. Little. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/IforA/respon 3.htm, accessed June 2005.

2004b."Not a Replacement but a Valuable Successor . . .": A New Story from Franklin's Mansion in Colonial Philadelphia. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology annual conference, Montreal. 2005. Historical Fact, Historical Memory: The Archaeological Evidence Related to

Benjamin Franklin and His Life: Historical Archaeology Research Undertaken for the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium. Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium, Philadelphia. Forthcoming. Doing Our Homework: Rethinking the Goals and Responsibilities of Archaeology Outreach to Schools. In Changing the World with Archaeology: Activist Archaeology, edited by J. Stottman. Ieppson, EL., and G. Brauer 2000. Pitfalls, Pratfalls, and Pragmatism in Public Archaeology; or, Lessons Learned during a Year of Archaeology in the Baltimore County Public Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco. Forthcoming. Archaeology for Education Needs: An Archaeologist and an Educator Discuss Archaeology in the Baltimore County Public Schools. In Past Meets Present: Archaeology and the Public, edited by I.H. Jameson Jr. and S. Baugher. Kohl, EL., and C. Fawcett (editors) 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Leone, M.P. 1973. Archaeology as the Science of Technology: Mormon Town Plans and Fences. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by C.L. Redman, pp. 125-150. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Liggett, B. 1970a. Completion Report, 1970. Department of Interior Contract 14-10-5-95057, Archaeological Work at Franklin Court conducted by B. Liggett. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives, EC. Field Documentation, INHP Box 11/8. 1970b. University of Pennsylvania Contract 14-10-5-950-57 (Anthony Garvan and Murray Murphey) B. Liggett, Director. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives, EC. Field Documentation, INHP Box 11/8.

48

PATRICE L. JEPPSON

1970c. University of Pennsylvania Contract 14-10-5-391-25 (Anthony Garvan and Murray Murphey) B. Liggett, Director. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives, F.C. Field Documentation, INHP Box 11/8. 1970d. University of Pennsylvania Contract 14-10-5-391-022 (Anthony Garvan and Murray Murphey) B. Liggett, Director. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives, F.C. Field Documentation, INHP Box 11/8. 1971a. Final Report. Archaeological Investigations at Franklin Court, Vol. II. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives: Acc. 2665-2668. 1971b. Final Report, Archaeological Investigation at Franklin Court Independence National Historical Park, Conducted by the University of Pennsylvania for NPS 1970-1971 in fulfillment of the terms of contracts 14-10-5-950-57, 1410-5-391-022, and 14-10-5-391-025. By B. Liggett, Consultant, Historical Site Archaeology, Department of American Civilization, University of Pennsylvania. Submitted 9-17-7. MS. Independence National Historical Park Archives, F.C. Field Documentation 1971 Report (1 of 2) INHP Box/File 11/16. 1972. F.C. Field Documentation, Acc. No. 2668. MS. INHP Archives, Box/File 11/11.

Low, S.M., D. Taplin, S. Scheld, and T. Fisher 2002. Recapturing Erased Histories: Ethnicity, Design, and Cultural Representation--A Case Study of Independence National Historical Park. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 19:282-299. Lowenthal, D. 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lucas, G. 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. Routledge, London. Margolin, S. 2002. "And Freedom to the Slave": Anti-Slavery Ceramics 1787-1865. In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Electronic document, www.chipstone .org/publications/CIA/2002/Margolin/2002MargolinText.html, accessed September 2003. McDavid, C. 2002. Archaeologies That Hurt: Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology. World Archaeology 34:303-314. Mires, C. 2002. Independence Hall in American Memory. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Moodie, T.D. 1975. The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid, and the Afrikaner Civil Religion. University of California Press, Berkeley.

A New Story from the HistoricalArchaeology Site of Franklin Court

49

Morgan, E.S. 2002. BenjaminFranklin.Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Morrison, T. 1998. The UGRR Archaeology Initiative. CRM 4:46-47. Electronic document, http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/21-4/21-4-15.pdf, accessed September 2003. Murray, J. 2003. For Whom the (Liberty) Bell Tolls. Electronic document, www.lifeway .com/lwc/article main_page/0%2C 1703%2CA%253D 155699%2526M%25 3D150019%2C00.html, accessed October 2004. National Park Service 2004. Civic Engagement: Working with Communities to Tell the Whole Story through Preservation, Interpretation, and Education. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/civic/index.html, accessed December 2004. National Park Service, Independence National Historical Park 1960. Independence National Historical Park Archives Photograph and Slide Collections, Franklin Court 1960, Working Photograph Collection. 1969. Master Plan, Independence National Historical Park. 1970. Independence National Historical Park Archives Photograph and Slide Collections, John Cotter Slide Collection. 1977. Independence National Historical Park Archives Interviews and Biographical Data Files. Series 1. Interview with John Cotter, 8 June 1977, conducted by G.A. Palmer, C.P. McCollum transcriber. 1978. Independence National Historical Park Archives Tape Collection. Marry Yoelson (cassette tape), Commentary on Silent Films of Archaeology Dig, Independence Square in 1957; Demolition of Franklin Court, 1959; Franklin Court Dig, 1970-1971. 1985. Independence National Historical Park Archives Constance M. Greiff, Administrative History Project Working Files, 1939-1985, Box/File: 1/28. 1997. General Management Plan, Abbreviated Final Report. Independence National Historical Park Archives. 2002a. National Register Amendment, Independence National Historical Park, Underground Railroad and Anti-Slavery Movement. Prepared by Anna Coxe Toogood. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/inde/archeology/NRamend .htm, accessed September 2003. 2002b. Franklin Court. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/inde/Franldin Court/ Pages/index.html, accessed July 2003. National Park Service, National Register 1998. Underground Railroad Resources in the US Theme Study. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/underground/thhome.htm, accessed July 2004. 2005. Aboard the Underground Railroad: A National Register Travel Itinerary. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/underground/ugrrintr .htm, accessed June 2005.

50

PATRICE L. JEPP$ON

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 2005. Gay Rights Demonstrations State Historical Marker. Electronic document, www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/DOH/descriptresults.asp?markertext=gay&mar kertextsubmit=Search+by+Keywords, accessed April 2005.

Philadelphia BusinessJournal 2003. Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin Marketing Philly to Gays. Electronic document, www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2OO3/l l/17/tidbitsl.html, accessed December 2004. Powell, B.B. 1961. Franklin Court Collections: T-31, Orianna Street Trench, July-Dec. 1960. April-September 1961. Independence National Historical Park Archives: Powell Acc. No. 696 (4). Series I: Reports Box 10, Folders 17-25. 1962a. The Archeology of Franklin Court. Independence National Historical Park Archives: Powell, Acc. No. 696 (3). Series I: Reports Box 10, Folders 26-18. 1962b. Problems of Urban Archaeology. American Antiquity 27:580-583. Rorty, R. 1998. Achieving Our County. Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America. Harvard Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Schumacher, P. 1953a.Archeological Field Notes: Franklin Court Archeology-East SideArcheological Project No. 4 INPH Archives: Schumacher, Acc. No. 59. Series I: Reports Box 10, Folders 1-3. 1953b. Estimate for excavation of Benjamin Franklin's Court [Archaeological Project No. 30 renumbered as 4]. INPH Archives: Schumacher, Acc. No. 59. Series I: Reports Box 10, Folders 1-3. 1956. Preliminary Exploration of Franklin Court Archeological Project No. 4, May-Sept. 1953. 1956. MS. INPH Archives: Acc. No. 117. Series I: Reports Box 10, Folder 12. Schuyler, Robert 1976. Images of America: The Contribution of Historical Archaeology to National Identity. Southwestern Lore 42(4):27-39. Shepherd, N. 2003. "When the Hand That Holds the Trowel Is Black": Disciplinary Practices of Self-Representations in Archaeology and the Question of "Native" Labour. Paper presented at the Fifth World Archaeology Congress, Washington, DC. Silberman, N.A. 1995. "Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples": The Politics and Poetics of Archaeological Narrative. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practiceof Archaeology, edited by P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 249-262. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Stauss, R. 2004. Philadelphia Invites Gay Tourists in TV Ad: Campaign Targets a Lucrative Market. Washington Post 3 July:A03. Electronic document, www.washington post.com/wp-dyn/artides/A24376-2004Ju12.html, accessed 20 December 2004.

A New Story from the Historical Archaeology Site of Franklin Court

51

Trigger, B. 1985. Romanticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics,and the PracticeofArchaeology, edited by P.L Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 263-279. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. U.S. Congress, 107th 2002. Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Act, H.R. 2362. Electronic document, http:// thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2362.ENR, accessed July 2003. Waldstreicher, D. 2004. Runaway Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Slavery, and the American Revolution. Hill and Wang, New York. Watkins, [. 2002. Marginal Native, Marginal Archaeologist: Ethnic Disparity in American Archaeology. SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 2(4):36-37. West, C.

1989. The America Evasion of Philosophy: The Genealogy of Pragmatism. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Wood, G.S. 2004. The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin. Penguin Books, New York.

Patrice L. Jeppson is a historical archaeology consultant to the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She has conducted research on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sites in the eastern United States and South Africa and nineteenth- and twentieth-century sites in the western United States. From 2003 through 2005, she worked as the historical and public archaeology consultant to the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission. Jeppson received her Ph,D. from the program in historical archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania. Her public archaeology orientation involves expanding outreach endeavours to include direct civic engagement.