This paper is intended to address the specific role played by archeological research in the production of a reconstructed historical dwelling complex at Historic Bethabara park in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Historic Bethabara is the site of the first Moravian settlement in North Carolina, and has been the subject of extensive archeological investigation aimed at preservation, reconstruction, and interpretation since the 1960’s (e.g. South 1972; Clauser 1978; Idol et.al. 1996). The particular research discussed here (Idol et. al. 1996) was part of a privately-funded project aimed at the reconstruction of the "1754 sleeping hall," the first dwelling structure to be constructed by the initial small party of Moravian settlers at the site, and was conducted in the spring of 1996 by Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories. The excavations were intended to locate archeological evidence of the sleeping hall as predicted from eighteenth-century maps of the site. It is argued in this paper that the resulting reconstruction has little relation to evidence uncovered by archeologists. This paper discusses the role of archeology in the production and legitimization of this reconstruction, as well as the various meanings attached to this structure in past and present contexts.

Since the early 1960’s, archeology has had a significant role in the ongoing preservation, reconstruction, and interpretive efforts at Bethabara. One of the primary roles of archeology at Bethabara has been in the "ground truthing" of the extensive historical maps and records pertaining to the site. Interpretive displays in the visitor center museum emphasize this view of archeology as a "handmaiden to history," downplaying archeologists’ role in the construction of fresh interpretations of the past, and emphasizing archeology’s positive contributions towards the continued accumulation of objective knowledge of the past. In particular, the role played by archeology in confirming the accuracy of historical maps is emphasized.

This view of historical archeology as primarily oriented towards "filling holes" in and materially confirming the documentary record is generally incompatible with most recent anthropological and archeological theory (Little 1994). This view of archeology has several unfortunate consequences. Firstly, the impression is conveyed to museum visitors that Historic Bethabara represents a "snapshot" of the material past, rather than a carefully chosen interpretation of elements of the past. It could be argued that the elements that have been given the greatest visual impact in Historic Bethabara’s reconstructions are those which represent an isolated and "helpless" existence in the wilderness for the Moravian community at Bethabara. These reconstructions are given historical context in the Bethabara visitors’ center museum, which emphasizes the industriousness, communal cohesion, and well-integrated culture of the Moravians. The vital importance of Bethabara’s non-Moravian neighbors to the community’s success is underplayed through references to "carving a home in the wilderness," although the Moravian settlement was carefully planned as a commercial venture with access to travel, communication, and local markets (Hartley 1987:35-40).

This interpretive approach is well summed up by a 1965 letter from W.S. Tarlton (then superintendent for the North Carolina Department of Archives and History) to Edwin L. Stockton, secretary and treasurer of the Southern Province of the Moravian Church and a primary organizer of early preservation efforts at Bethabara. In this letter, supporting the reconstruction of a palisade which surrounded part of the settlement during the French and Indian war, Tarlton wrote that this reconstruction "will have a great intrinsic interest and at the same time will impress the viewer with the tiny, almost helpless scale of Moravian beginnings in Wachovia" (Morris 1994:28). This stockade, which stood from 1756 to 1763, was never tested in any way and serves now to present a degree of "helplessness" greater than any which may have existed in this period, during which Bethabara served as a regional "strong point" in the colony, a place referred to by Overhill Cherokee raiders as a "great town" which they "feared to attack" (Hartley 1987:34). The 1754 sleeping hall, which was used as a dwelling for a brief period during early Moravian occupation of the site, presents the same aspect of "helplessness" and "tiny scale" to the modern visitor, downplaying historical Moravian connections to international power structures. This portrayal of initial helplessness fits in well with capitalist equations of "worth" and financial achievement when placed in juxtaposition with the visible evidence of Moravian successes present today in Winston-Salem. The Beroth family, founders of Beroth Oil and a local chain of convenience stores, descendants of one of the original Moravian settlers at Bethabara, provided the funds for the restoration of the sleeping hall (Burlington Times-News [BTN], 17 March 1996). If the Beroths are taken to represent the interests of the wealthy Moravian population in Winston-Salem today, it could be maintained that the facts presented in this reconstruction have been to some degree selected with reference to these material and ideological interests. The presentation of archeology as neutral data-collection acts to mask the operation of these interests, whatever their effects may be.

Secondly, the aforementioned view of the minutely-detailed objectivity of archeological data serves to obscure the actual epistemology of the historical and archeological research behind the Bethabara reconstructions. The report issued by Wake Forest Archeology Labs prior to reconstruction bears little resemblance to the actual material reconstruction of the dwelling, stating that "excavation at the site of the 1754 sleeping hall ... revealed a cultural presence at the location as computed from historic maps, but cannot clearly associate any features or artifacts with the 1754 structure. Although perhaps two features are more likely to be associated with the sleeping hall than others, no clear connection exists between enough features to allow an accurate reconstruction of the 1754 sleeping hall based on archeological evidence" (Idol et. al. 1996:39). The report goes on to state that the hypothesized architectural form of the sleeping hall, involving sill supports for its corner posts (and a resulting absence of postholes), would likely result in a lack of structural evidence. The authors of the report conclude that, "although the archeological investigations cannot support any single interpretation of the architecture of the sleeping hall, neither can they refute it" (Idol et. al. 1996:40).

Historic Bethabara Director Rodney Meyer’s April 1996 proposal for the reconstruction of the "1754 Bethabara Settlement" puts a different spin on these data, stating that "Dr. Ned Woodall of the Wake Forest Archeological Laboratories recently excavated the southeast corner of the Sleeping Hall and confirm(ed) its exact location and established that the corner posts rested on sills, rather than being buried in post holes. He found that the Brothers probably dug shallow holes about six feet apart through the soft surface soil to reach the underlying hard pan. They then filled the shallow holes with small, flat rocks to create a foundation upon which to rest the sills that supported the large, heavy building" (Meyer 1996a:4). A second proposal for the "restoration" of the Sleeping Hall, dated May 5 1996, is somewhat more cautious in its interpretation, but still clearly states that "the location of the 1754 sleeping hall indicated on the July 1754 Map was confirmed in recent archeological excavations" (Meyer 1996b:7). In contrast, the Wake Forest report openly entertains the possibility that "the computed location of the sleeping hall, and therefore the Wake Forest excavation unit are in error and any archeological evidence of sleeping hall architecture is undiscovered" (Idol et.al. 1996:39-40). Finally, a number of small structures and a "bake oven," which are shown on the various historical maps which guided the project, are reconstructed on the basis of no archeological evidence whatsoever.

In the 1754 sleeping hall reconstruction, what is presented as a "synthesis" of separate, independent data sources, is in reality the result of the public, visible use of "scientific" and therefore "objective" data collection techniques to publicly justify an interpretation based upon other sources. The usual public silence of archeologists masks this disarticulation of data sources, and reinforces the perceived "accuracy" of the reconstructions when the archeologists are mentioned in local newspapers (e.g. BTN, 17 March 1996) as well as in internal documents. All of this reconstruction is presented in a museum context in which archeological research is claimed as a primary means by which factual accuracy has been attained in the preservation efforts. Finally, potential internal dissension and discussion at Historic Bethabara has been quieted through the contracting of the archeology to an outside agency, thus absolving the archeologists of direct responsibility for the content of the reconstructions. Of course, if the findings of the Wake Forest archeologists had strongly diverged from the historical record, this would likely have been taken into account in the sleeping hall reconstruction.

What can be said at this point concerning the various meanings connected to the sleeping hall and the present reconstruction, as they are connected to past and present practice, and the practice of archeology? The archeologists’ report detailing the investigation of the site (Idol e. al. 1996:44-45) interpreted the projected form of the 1754 sleeping hall (a single, large room) as expressive of the "collectiveness" of the Moravian settlement effort, and as a mechanism by which each settler could be observed and controlled by the others. That is, the sleeping hall is said to represent a particularly Moravian desire for collective control of the personal lives of individuals.

It would probably be a mistake, however, to characterize the material remains of this brief period as characteristic of Moravian practice and values in general, or to say that Moravian ideology can be characterized straightforwardly as a functional "system" with any consistent relationship to practice. The 1754 sleeping hall was replaced in 1755 with a dwelling structure containing separate quarters for the minister and the business manager (Clauser 1978:27), who apparently needed less "watching" than the others. The initially primarily communal economic system at Bethabara was soon superseded at Bethania with a German village pattern of common woods and pasture and privately owned or controlled means of production (fields and tools), which was in turn superseded by a pattern of large, privately-held farms similar to those of their British neighbors (Thorp 1986). In addition, investigation of local tax, court and internal Moravian records dating to the last quarter of the 18th century indicate distinct patterns of unequal distribution of individual material wealth within the Moravian community, active engagement in the growing national and world trade networks which characterized early capitalism (Thomas 1994:25-26), and direct participation in local politics at the Surry county court at Richmond. All of this activity coexisted with an official doctrine of communal separation from civil society, self-sufficiency, and non-competition between members of the church (Thorp 1986; Shirley 1991).

Rigorous adherence to this ideology was compromised from the start by the strong emphasis on craft production and commercial activity in the organization of the Moravian settlements (Thorp 1986), along with a combined theory of private ownership of means of production and economic non-competition. As a result, Moravians could, and did, choose between various communal and/or individual strategies to achieve ends which were partially based on self interest and "foreign" values, and which were also partially structured by communitarian church values and centralized economic control by internal governing bodies. Controversy within the Moravian church over the structure of life in its settlements is well-documented for both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Shirley 1991; Smaby 1988).

By the mid-nineteenth century, Moravian commerce and production, now centered at Salem since 1766, was dominated by competitive participation by individuals in a capitalist production and marketing system. This "capitalist" production had the characteristic southern feature of African-American slave labor in the Moravian craft shops and in the textile mills of the prominent Moravian Fries family, a productive labor source which had been denied Moravians by the church until the 1820’s (Shirley 1991: 236). This process of assimilation is documented by historian Michael Shirley (1991), who sees the capitalist market as increasingly dominant over local production and trade throughout the first half of the 19th century, subverting church authority over Moravian tradesmen and shopkeepers and resulting in the cultural separation of economic and religious life. This initial economic assimilation was followed in the late 19th and 20th centuries by the rise of the tobacco and textile businesses in Salem’s non-Moravian neighboring city of Winston, the intermingling of leading Moravian and non-Moravian families into an ethnically indistinct (or more generally "Caucasian") dominant ethnic group, and a growing ideological connection between the "new" wealth of Winston and a local colonial history that it never had (Smith 1977; Wellman and Tise 1976). Names and images from the Moravian past occur today attached not only to churches and history museums, but also prominent secular institutions such as Wachovia bank. Significant funding for land acquisition, research and preservation at Bethabara has come from "non-Moravian" sources such as the Mary Reynolds Babcock foundation (Morris 1984:38,81). The board of trustees at Historic Bethabara includes representatives from Wachovia Bank and Trust, R. J. Reynolds, and Sara Lee Industries (Morris 1984:94), indicating significant "non-Moravian" moneyed interest in Bethabara.

In many ways, the process of Moravian "assimilation" was analogous to the economic differentiation of peasant communities connected to capitalist markets as modeled by Roseberry (1976) or, more similarly, to the processes by which the culturally-integrated industrial production of mid-19th century Shaker communities were destroyed by competition with capitalist industry, turning Shaker religious ideology from a powerful determinant of production into an "aesthetic" (Leone 1981). It is important, however, to recognize that, in many ways, the "dominant ideology" of Moravian society had never been so well-integrated, complete, and functional as it has commonly been seen as in the light of currently perceived contradictions and cultural dysfunctions, and as it is presented at the Bethabara visitor center museum.

For its intended and actual "consumers," it is difficult to systematize the meanings such a reconstruction may hold. For the members of the Beroth family, the reconstruction may serve as a source of pride in the accomplishments of their ancestor among the initial settlers, or in personally being able to bring about an accurate reconstruction of a significant place in local history. These successes are all the more prominent in a built environment so well-stocked with Moravian names attached to evidence of material wealth. This perception may extend to other members of the dominant class, insofar as it acts to give historical "prior claim" to the landscape, and also insofar as the early Moravians at Bethabara can be used as an historical proxy for European Americans in general. That is, these historical reconstructions act in some ways to legitimate current social and economic relationships.

None of these current meanings has any necessary connection to the scholarly interests of the archeologists who excavated the purported sleeping hall site. This paper has tried to show that, while following their own agendas, archeologists are made necessary participants in the creation of these ideologically "active" artifacts, but have little control over the specific forms taken by these products, or meanings attached to them. The processes by which these products and meanings are produced occur in a material context in which archeologists take on the role of "outside" contractors engaged in the collection of neutral, objective historical data, and in which the material presentation of the past is substantially controlled by current moneyed interests. These interests are themselves the product of historical processes which have resulted in the economic and cultural assimilation of Moravians into Anglo-American culture, and the converse attachment of Anglo-American culture to Moravian Colonial history. In the absence of effective means for the transmission of the results and scholarly interpretation of archeological research to the visiting public, actual scientific data is not always necessary for institutional control of the presentation of the past, although the visible presence of scientists may be.

Clauser, John W. 1978 The Excavation of the Bethabara Pottery Kiln: Analysis of Nineteenth Century Potting Techniques. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.

Hartley, Michael O. 1987 Wachovia in Forsyth. Ms. on file, Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Idol, Bruce S., Stephen T. Trage and Roger W. Kirchen 1996 Report on Excavation at the Bethabara 1754 Sleeping Hall Site, Forsyth County, North Carolina. Ms. on file, Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Leone, Mark P. 1981 The Relationship Between Artifacts and the Public in Outdoor History Museums. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376:301-313.

Little, Barbara J. 1994 People With History: An Update on Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):5-40.

Meyer, J. Rodney 1996a 1754 Bethabara Settlement Reconstruction Proposal (8 April 1996). Ms on File, Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

1996b 1754 Sleeping Hall Restoration Proposal (5 May 1996). Ms. on file, Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Morris, David R. 1994 Permanence for the House of Passage: The Establishment of Historic Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of History, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Roseberry, William 1976 Rent, Differentiation, and the Development of Capitalism among Peasants. American Anthropologist 78:45-58.

Shirley, Michael 1991 The Market and Community Culture in Antebellum Salem, North Carolina. Journal of the Early Republic 11:219-248.

Smaby, Beverly Prior 1988 The Transformation of Moravian Bethlehem: From Communal Mission to Family Economy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Smith, James Howell 1977 Winston-Salem in History, Volume 8: Industry and Commerce, 1896-1975. Winston-Salem: Historic Winston-Salem, N.C.

South, Stanley 1972 Discovery in Wachovia. Ms. on file, Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Thomas, Brian W. 1994 Inclusion and Exclusion in the Moravian Settlement in North Carolina, 1770-1790. Historical Archaeology 28(3):15-29.

Thorp, Daniel 1986 Assimilation in North Carolina’s Moravian Community. The Journal of Southern History 52(1):19-42.

Wellman, Manly Wade and Larry Edward Tise 1976 Winston-Salem in History, Volume 7: Industry and Commerce, 1766-1896. Winston-Salem: Historic Winston-Salem, N.C.

Library Index