The archaeology of the Space Age is a recent development that seemingly has an inaccessible subject matter. To the contrary, this chapter has shown that archaeolo-gists have been making creative contributions employing diverse sources of
181
evidence, from documenting launch pads and other facilities on military bases to interpreting satellite images of lunar sites. In addition, archaeologists have raised fascinating preservation issues about satellites in orbit and Apollo and other landing sites on the Moon. As the V-2, Apollo, and other programs fade in popular memory and culture, archaeologists will continue to furnish new insights into them by query-ing the copious survivquery-ing artifacts and documentary evidence. Perhaps space is the fi nal archaeological frontier (Capelotti 2004 ).
Acknowledgments Alice Gorman generously supplied a host of critical references, engaged with me in spirited e-mail discussions of many issues, and furnished very helpful comments on the chap-ter’s penultimate draft. I greatly appreciate her collegiality and value her many insights into Space-Age archaeology. I am also indebted to the archaeologists employed on US military bases for supplying pdfs of unpublished reports on missile and rocket activities: James Bowman, White Sands Missile Range, James N. Carucci, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Martha Yduarte, Fort Bliss.
References
Barclay, R.L., and R. Brooks. 2002. In situ preservation of historic spacecraft. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 55(5/6): 173–181.
Butowsky, Harry A. 1984. Man in space: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_
books/butowsky4/index.htm . Accessed 11 June 2012.
———. 1986. Man in space: These are the voyages of. U . S . National Park Service , CRM Bulletin 9(2): 5–7.
Campbell, John B. 2004. The potential for archaeology within and beyond the habitable zones (HZ) of the Milky Way. In Bioastronomy 2002 : Life among the stars , eds. R.P. Norris and F.H.
Stootman, 505–510. International Astronomical Union Symposium, Vol. 213.
Capelotti, P.J. 2004. Space: The fi nal [archaeological] frontier. Archaeology 57(6): 46–51.
———. 2010. The human archaeology of space : Lunar , planetary and interstellar relics of explo-ration . Jefferson, NC: McFarland Publishers.
Carroll, W.F., R. Davis, M. Goldfi ne, S. Jacobs, L.D. Jaffe, L. Leger, B. Milwitzky, and N.L.
Nickle. 1972. Introduction. In Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12 , 1–8. Washington, DC: NASA.
Clemens, Daniel E. 2009. Orbital artifacts in space. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage , ed. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 347–362. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Darrin, Ann G., and Beth L. O’Leary. 2009a. Introduction. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage , eds. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 3–16. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
——— (eds.). 2009b. Handbook of space engineering , archaeology , and heritage . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
David, Bruno, and Julian Thomas (eds.). 2008. Handbook of landscape archaeology . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Duran, Meliha S., J.K. Finney, Toni Laumbach, Martha Yduarte, Peter L. Eidenbach, and William B. Boehm. 1997. Jewels of the desert: Collections from the fi rst dump at White Sands proving ground. Human Systems Research, White Sands Missile Range Archaeological Report, No. 97-17. Tularosa, NM.
Eidenbach, Peter L., Richard L. Wessel, Lisa M. Meyer, and Gail C. Wimberly. 1996. Star throwers of the Tularosa: The early Cold War legacy of White Sands Missile Range. Human Systems Research, White Sands Missile Range Archaeological Report, No. 96-12. Tularosa, NM.
References
Enscore, Susan I. 1998. Operation Paperclip at Fort Bliss: 1945–1950 . Fort Bliss, TX: Pamphlet, Conservation Division.
Fewer, Greg. 2002. Towards an LSMR and MSMR (Lunar and Martian Sites & Monuments Records): Recording planetary spacecraft landing sites as archaeological monuments of the future. In Digging holes in popular culture: Archaeology and science fi ction , ed. Miles Russell, 112–120. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gibson, Ralph. 1999. Lunar archaeology : The application of federal historic preservation law to the site where humans fi rst set foot upon the moon . M.A. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.
Gold, Robert. 2009. Spacecraft and objects left on planetary surfaces. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage , ed. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 399–419.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gorman, Alice. 2005a. The cultural landscape of interplanetary space. Journal of Social Archaeology 5: 85–107.
———. 2005b. The archaeology of orbital space. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian space sci-ence confersci-ence 2005 , 338–357. Melbourne: RMIT University.
———. 2009a. Beyond the space race: The material culture of space in a new global context. In Contemporary archaeologies : Excavating now , eds. Cornelius Holtorf and Angela Piccini, 161–180. New York: Peter Lang, Frankfort am Main.
———. 2009b. The gravity of archaeology. Archaeologies : Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 5: 344–359.
———. 2009c. The archaeology of space exploration. In Space travel and culture : From Apollo to space tourism , eds. Martin Parker and David Bell, 139–154. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
———. 2009d. Heritage of earth orbit: Orbital debris—Its mitigation and cultural heritage. In Handbook of space engineering , archaeology , and heritage , eds. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L.
O’Leary, 381–397. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
———. 2011. The sky is falling: How Skylab became an Australian icon. Journal of Australian Studies 35(4): 529–546.
Gorman, Alice, and Beth O’Leary. 2007. An ideological vacuum: The Cold War in outer space. In A fearsome heritage: Diverse legacies of the Cold War , eds. John Schofi eld and Wayne Cocroft, 73–92. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Haden-Guest, Anthony. 1974. An archaeology of the space age. Harper ’ s Magazine , May, 37–40.
Hollenback, Kacy L. 2010. Landscapes. In Behavioral archaeology : Principles and practice , ed.
Michael B. Schiffer. London: Equinox.
Lehman, Milton. 1963. This high man: The life of Robert H. Goddard . New York: Farrar, Straus.
London III, J.R. 1993. The preservation of space-related historic sites. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 46: 279–285.
NASA. 1972. Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12. Washington DC: NASA.
Neufeld, Michael J. 2007. Von Braun: Dreamer of space, engineer of war . New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Nickel, N.L., and W.F. Carroll. 1972. Summary and conclusions. In Analysis of Surveyor 3 mate-rial and photographs returned by Apollo 12 , 9–13. Washington, DC: NASA.
O’Leary, Beth L. 2006. The cultural heritage of space, the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Antiquity 80(307). http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projGall/oleary/ . Accessed 19 Dec 2012.
———. 2009. Evolution of space archaeology and heritage. In Handbook of space engineering , archaeology , and heritage , eds. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 29–48. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Osiander, Robert, and Paul Ostdiek. 2009. Introduction to space debris. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage , eds. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 363–379.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Rathje, William L. 1999. An archaeology of space garbage. Discovering Archaeology , October, 108–112.
183
Schiffer, Michael B. 1991. The portable radio in American life . Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 1993. Cultural imperatives and product development: The case of the shirt-pocket radio.
Technology and Culture 34:98–113.
———. 2011. Studying technological change : A behavioral approach . Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Schofi eld, John, and Wayne Cocroft (eds.). 2007. A fearsome heritage: Diverse legacies of the Cold War . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Spennemann, Dirk H.R. 2004. The ethics of treading on Neil Armstrong’s footsteps. Space Policy 20: 279–290.
Spennemann, Dirk H.R., and Guy Murphy. 2009. Failed Mars mission landing sites: Heritage places or forensic investigation scenes. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage , ed. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 457–479. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Stooke, Philip J. 2009. Lost spacecraft. In Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heri-tage , ed. Ann G. Darrin and Beth L. O’Leary, 481–495. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
von Braun, Wernher. 1960. First men to the Moon . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Walsh, Justin. 2012. Protection of humanity’s cultural and historic heritage. Space Policy 28:
234–243.
Ward, Robert J. 2005. Dr. Space: The life of Wernher von Braun . Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Winders, Gertrude H. 1963. Robert Goddard, father of rocketry . New York: John Day.
References
185 M.B. Schiffer, The Archaeology of Science, Manuals in Archaeological Method,
Theory and Technique 9, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-00077-0_13,
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013
I suggest that crafting generalizations about the processes of discovery, communication, and evaluation should have a high priority in the archaeology of science. Our aim would be to contribute, generalization by generalization, to a behavioral science of
“sciencing” (to use White’s [ 1949 :3] neologism). Sociologists, philosophers, and others have established the foundations of this science, but an archaeological approach would, by privileging people–artifact interactions in activities (e.g., Edgeworth 2012 ), craft generalizations about processes that crosscut different proj-ects, investigators, discoveries, time periods, social groups, and polities. In this chapter I identify—and generalize in behavioral terms—several apparatus-intensive discovery processes, some of which are already known to students of science. (See Klahr et al. [ 2000 ] for a decision-making perspective on discovery.)
Although biographies, histories of discoveries, and histories of disciplines dis-cuss specifi c discoveries, there are few treatments of discovery as a set of patterned empirical processes susceptible to generalization . One reason for the dearth of gen-eralizations is that many researchers believe a discovery results from the investiga-tor’s personal history, psychological processes (e.g., Hanson 1958 ), or an ill-defi ned
“social milieu,” and thus are amenable only to biographical, psychological, or cul-tural analysis. Another reason is that reports of experiments chronicle an idealized sequence of events unrelated to the messiness, backtracking, and dead ends encoun-tered in actual projects ( Beveridge 1958 :111; cf. Hall 1956 :168). Gooding ( 1989 :64) notes that published experiments “refl ect the plan or the fi nished product, rather than actual practice,” and so they often leave out details of crucial interactions.
Fortunately, laboratory notebooks, anecdotes, autobiographical accounts, corre-spondence, oral history, and comparative studies make it possible to research the materiality of some discoveries in detail; and, signifi cantly, we may also repeat experiments (e.g., Cavicchi 2006 ; Gooding 1990a ). But it remains for us to system-atize—and generalize about—common discovery processes that may be abstracted from the details of specifi c projects.
186
A behavioral approach to discovery requires, ideally, that we explain a discovery by invoking relevant contingent factors (of the investigator and of the societal con-text) while placing it in a class of discoveries exhibiting a similar pattern of people–
artifact interactions—as described by a model. Discovery processes ought to exhibit many patterns whose descriptions require many models. As an outcome of archaeo-logical research, discovery models are generalizations about a class of investiga-tor–apparatus interactions that yield new scientifi c knowledge.