The Battle for Blair Mountain more


 The Social and Environmental Upheaval of Blair Mountain: A Working Class Struggle for Unionization and Historic Preservation Brandon Nida And Michael Jessee Adkins 2010 Introduction Armed miners gathered by the thousands in the late autumn of 1921, streaming out of the hills and hollows of West Virginia. Many wore blue overalls and tied red bandanas around their necks as a uniform, while others were dressed in their military gear from the recently ended First World War. They were a mixture of Appalachian hill folk from Scots-Irish ancestry, African-Americans who had migrated out of the Deep South, and emigrants from Italy, Wales, Poland, and other European countries. This coalminer army was assembling to confront a severely oppressive social and economic system maintained by coal operators in the region. After a generation of labor conflict in the West Virginia coalfields, mining communities erupted in the largest open class war in US history (Savage 1990: 3-6). Their struggle culminated on the ridges surrounding Blair Mountain in a fierce five-day battle against a private army backed by coalmine owners. This conflict occurred in a larger international context where labor movements were gaining momentum worldwide. Workers’ councils in Germany seemed on the cusp of obtaining political control during 1917-1918. The 1919 General Strikes in Barcelona, Winnipeg, Seattle and Belfast symbolized a growing solidarity and militancy among the industrial world’s workers. In Britain, a general strike originating with coal miners brought the United Kingdom to a grind for ten days in May of 1926. Most significantly, the Bolshevik Revolution installed a socialist government in Russia through violent revolution. Labor struggles in the US were no less significant, although this heritage is often Biography Brandon Nida is a native West Virginian, a graduate of Marshall University at Huntington, West Virginia, and is currently a doctoral student in archaeology at UC Berkeley. His interests are in social inequality, political economy, archaeology of labor conflict, and hunter-gatherer archaeology. He can be reached at nida13@berkeley.edu, and welcomes any communication. Michael Jessee Adkins holds a B.A. in Humanities and M.A. in Sociology from Marshall University. He is a military combat veteran, scholar, and member of the National Anthropology Honor Society (Lambda Alpha, Beta Chapter). His research interests include social conflict theory, archaeology, Appalachian studies, and working class social movements. 2 marginalized in American historical discourse (Durrenburger 2006; McGuire 2008: 107). The history of violent labor struggles such as the Ludlow Massacre and the Haymarket Affair contradict Americanist narratives of enterprise, individuality, and a classless society that help maintain, reinforce and mask power structures and inequalities (Foote 2003: 7, 134; Hamilakis and Duke 2007; McGuire and Reckner 2003: 84; McGuire and Walker 1999: 159; Shackel 2001: 657; Smith 2006). Blair Mountain is one such episode of violent labor conflict that raises discomforting issues about the industrialization of America. The coal industry was central to the growth of American prosperity in that it supplied the ‘cheap energy’ essential for the foundries and factories that propelled the industrial revolution. But the workers often toiled in poverty and brutal conditions, and they paid the true cost of this prosperity while receiving the least of its benefits. The insurrection was an attempt to gain basic human rights, and it was open class warfare at the heart of American state capitalism. It is where the collective might of unionized power struck hardest, and only the federal government could halt it. The miners seized territory and property, at one point controlling and managing over 500 square miles (Savage 1990: 130). Although this conflict was the second largest rebellion in America, next to the Civil War, this battle has been largely forgotten. Today, a different conflict is being waged at Blair Mountain, and this time it is for the life of the mountain itself. Coal companies are attempting to conduct an extremely destructive form of coal extraction called mountaintop removal (MTR) at the site. This process would literally ‘obliterate’ the mountain and all traces of the miners’ rebellion from the surrounding landscape (Foote 2004: 7). Archaeology has been an important tool in the efforts to preserve the battlefield, through both research and political action. Surveys undertaken by Dr. Harvard Ayers of Appalachian State University highlighted the archaeological significance and integrity of the site, which was crucial in the site’s nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although being listed on the register 3 does not entirely protect the battlefield, it was a significant step in securing the mountain’s future. Unfortunately, the site was recently delisted due to a coal-operator backed opposition, a decision that a group of concerned citizens and academics are currently challenging. Since the story of Blair Mountain is largely unknown, our purposes in writing this chapter are to introduce the topic and raise awareness of the site’s threatened status. To accomplish these goals, we focus on four elements of our research at the site. First, we describe the historical context of the labor insurrection in order to deconstruct narratives that have served to marginalize the battle in national discourse. Second, we discuss the actual battle while incorporating initial archaeological analysis of the battlefield. The third section examines the way in which the heritage of Blair Mountain is currently being reinterpreted and asserted in the contemporary struggle against mountaintop removal. Finally we explore the ways in which an engaged archaeology can be utilized in contemporary political struggles such as labor and environmental justice movements. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Battle of Blair Mountain was the culmination of more than forty years of class struggle and social transformation within West Virginia. It is best understood within this context, although traditional narratives have often constructed it within negative stereotypes associated with central Appalachia. The region gained notoriety when the Hatfield-McCoy feud broke out in Mingo County along the West Virginia and Kentucky border during the 1870s and 1890s. This conflict quickly became fodder for national newspapers and pulp fiction of the day, which caricaturized it as a blood feud between two fierce and backward mountain clans. In reality, the ‘feud’ was a political and economic contest between two competitors in the lumber trade (Bailey 2001: 25). Regardless, the sensational stories sold print and the negative stereotypes were perpetuated. 4 Accounts of labor struggle in the West Virginia coalfields are usually constructed from similar stereotypical conceptions of Appalachian culture. Labor strikes were seen as being violent because the people were backwards, irrational, lawless, and militant (Corbin 1981: xiv; Wheeler 1976: 83). Blair Mountain was largely portrayed in the national press as that of a feud between hotheaded mountaineers, instead of an economic or class conflict (Blizzard 2004: 115; Bailey 2001: 25). Rather than relying on stereotypes, we will explore the historical context in order to deconstruct these narratives. Figure 1: State of West Virginia. The distance from Charleston to Blair Mountain was roughly 50 miles. The miners’ ultimate goal was to reach Matewan and liberate Mingo County from martial law that was enacted by the state to break an ongoing strike in the county. 5 Why the Miners Marched While the coal industry as a whole was notorious for its dangerous work conditions and problematic labor relations in the early twentieth century, these issues were often at their worst in the southern coalfields of West Virginia (Shogan 2004: 32-38). The coal industry operated with near impunity in the southern coalfields, under a system where local and state government officials were either in the pay or influence of coal operators (Blizzard 2004; Savage 1990; Wheeler 1976). One primary mechanism of operator control was through the company-town system (Shogan 2004: 9; Wheeler 1976: 85). These towns were justified by operators as providing basic necessities to their workers in an isolated region. But the company-owned towns allowed coal operators to exert an immense degree of control over the miners’ social, political, economic, and personal lives (Wheeler 1976: 84). The company store was a major instrument through which coal operators maintained these feudal conditions. Miners were paid in company money called ‘scrip’ which was redeemable only at the company store, allowing the operators to have an enormous degree of economic leverage. When wages rose, so would the prices at the company store. The operators’ influence also reached beyond the economic sphere – children attended company schools, company doctors provided medical care, and company preachers preached the gospel of the coalmine owners. Most significantly, the company owned the houses in which the mining families lived. If a miner was injured, killed or joined the union, the company would force the family out, often at gunpoint (Fishback 1992: 348; Wheeler 1976: 81). In addition, mining families lived under constant threat from Baldwin-Felts detectives and other coal company agents who used terror, murder, and espionage to thwart pro-union activity. Continual harassment and violence by the detective agents created an atmosphere of fear and charged emotions 6 (Wheeler 1976: 81-82). Complete disregard by the state and federal government of their grievances frustrated the miners even further (Blizzard 2004: 161; Fishback 1995: 439). The Gathering Storm In the midst of these conditions, The United Mine Workers (UMW or UMWA) gained a foothold within the southern coalfields in Mingo County beginning in the spring of 1920. The UMW’s organizing effort promptly led to a bitter 28 month long strike of which the Blair Mountain battle was part. Coal operators used every means available to block unionization, and leading the coal operators’ offensive were the Baldwin-Felts detectives (Blizzard 204: 109; Savage 1990: 18). This inflammatory situation set the stage for a gunfight in the town of Matewan on 19 May 1920. When a group of Baldwin-Felts agents arrived in Matewan and evicted striking miner families from their company houses, the pro-union sheriff and mayor questioned the legality of the evictions. After a few tense moments, gunfire erupted between the two groups. The mayor was shot first, and then Sheriff Sid Hatfield killed Albert Felts, the brother of the agency’s founder Thomas Felts. Seven detectives in all were killed including Albert and Lee Felts in what became known as ‘The Matewan Massacre’ (Savage 1990: 21). This episode garnered national attention, and with a Hatfield from West Virginia involved the press once again cast the story as that of feuding mountaineers (Blizzard 2004: 116). In the coalfields, Sid Hatfield gained heroic status among the miners and provided momentum to the organizing efforts. Throughout 1920 and into 1921 the union gained strength in Mingo County, as did the resistance of the coal operators. Each side bolstered their arsenals, and miners began waging guerilla warfare after the mines were reopened with armed guards and replacement workers (Blizzard 2004: 135; Shogan 2004: 114). On the first of August in 1921, Sid Hatfield was called to the McDowell County Courthouse to answer an indictment for allegedly dynamiting a coal tipple the prior spring. As 7 Hatfield, his friend Ed Chambers, and their wives walked up the courthouse steps, a group of BaldwinFelts agents gunned down the two unarmed men. Word of the slayings spread quickly as Sid and Ed’s bodies returned to Matewan. The news outraged the miners and they began to pour out of the mountains to take arms (Savage 1990: 73; Blizzard 2004: 239). Talk began to spread of a march to Mingo County to end the martial law that had been declared in the area, free imprisoned miners, and organize the county. However, the anti-union Sheriff Don Chafin of Logan County, his private army, and Blair Mountain stood directly in the miners’ way (Shogan 2004: 166). Logan County was a major coal operator stronghold, and Don Chafin was the main agent of operator control in the county. Operators paid Chafin fees for his deputies, and the Logan County law enforcement in turn prevented union organizers from entering the county through intimidation, beatings, and murder (Wheeler 1976: 79; Blizzard 2004: 226). Miners began gathering near the state capitol of Charleston around 7 August 1921, and by the 24th had grown into a force of roughly 10,000 (Blizzard 2004: 200). The type of march that the miners planned to engage in had a long tradition in Appalachian labor movements (Blizzard 2004: 208). Miners would congregate and hold rallies and speeches for a number of days. They would then march through the countryside proselytizing about the union, much in the same manner as the great tent revivals in frontier America during the 1800s. But with the coal operators’ increasing use of violence, these marches became militarized. By 1921, both sides had accumulated a large store of weaponry including machine guns and high-powered rifles (Blizzard 2004: 208). The miners moved out from Charleston on the 24th of August toward Mingo County (Savage 1990: 79). Before the marchers travelled very far, the leaders of the regional UMW District 17 overtook the advancing army. They persuaded the miners to stop the march after conveying messages from Washington that the repercussions would be harsh if the insurrection continued (Wheeler 1976: 80). The 8 miners grudgingly turned back and waited for trains that had been arranged to move them out of the area (Savage 1990: 86-9). But the trains arrived late, and in the meantime the shaky truce was shattered by a deadly night incursion of Sheriff Chafin’s men into union territory (Blizzard 2004: 256). The march was back on, and the miners were even more determined break Don Chafin’s defenses and reach Mingo (Savage 1990: 107). THE BATTLE On to Mingo By the 28th of August, skirmishes between scouting parties of the enclosing forces began to break out in the area around Blair Mountain (Associated Press 29 Aug. 1921:1). The first day of open war began on the morning of the 31st, with the miners starting their assault on the entrenched defenses of Don Chafin’s army (Wheeler 1976: 81). The most intense fighting was reported to be concentrated at Blair Gap, Crooked Creek Gap and Beech Creek Gap (Savage 1990: 117). An Associated Press correspondent observed some of the action at the center of the three-mile defensive line at Crooked Creek (AP 1 Sept. 1921:1). This line was linked to other defensive positions stretched over ten miles along the ridges, with machine guns overlooking the hollows that rose to the gaps (see figure 2) (Ayers et al. 2006:13). Miners attempted numerous times to assault these strongholds, but heavy machine gun fire held them back (AP 1 Sept. 1921:1). On September 1st, a force of roughly 500 miners assaulted Craddock Fork, a hollow that runs to Crooked Creek Gap. Three hours of constant fire resulted in one of the Logan defender’s machine guns jamming. With this lull, the miners rushed and broke through the lines (Shogan 2004: 197). Before sunrise on the 2nd of September it was reported that the miners were less than a mile from Logan (Savage 1990: 137). This crucial part of the battle remains murky due to the fact that until recently the 9 only evidence about the battle was historical documents, which had inherent biases within them. The miners would not speak to reporters or allow them into the territory they controlled. This meant that the Logan defenders controlled information coming out of the region, and they heavily censored it to downplay the miners’ success (Savage 1990: 137). Figure 2: Unscaled map of the Blair Mountain Battlefield, redrawn and modified from Meador 1991:60. The defensive lines from Blair Gap to Mill Creek extended over ten miles, with the gaps fortified the heaviest. On the 2nd of September, federal troops were mobilized into West Virginia and began moving into position behind both armies (Wheeler 1976: 81). By the fifth of September, the whole warfront was quiet (Associated Press Sept. 6 1921: 13). During the roughly five days of fighting, it is estimated that over one million rounds were fired (Ayers et al. 2006: 2). A search for bodies and cached weapons 10 began soon after the shooting ceased, but these efforts were fruitless because the miners had carried away all their casualties. Estimates put the number of miners killed during the battle at an exceptionally low number at around 20 people. The true number of casualties remains unknown due to the miners’ continued silence regarding their dead and wounded (Blizzard 2004: 269). In the aftermath of the insurrection, the UMW was severely weakened in West Virginia. Coal operators and the state of West Virginia felt they could deal a deathblow to the union, and they took advantage of the situation (Blizzard 2004: 288). Leaders of the strike were tried on charges of treason against the state, and the lengthy trial drained the UMW’s funds (Blizzard 2004: 300). By the end of the 1920s only 512 union miners remained in West Virginia, a drop that was part of an overall nationwide decline in labor (Blizzard 2004: 343). But after the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, the southern coalfields rapidly organized and became a stronghold of union working class culture throughout the twentieth century. CONTEMPORARY CONFLICTS IN THE COALFIELDS Today, the Blair Mountain battlefield is the site of new conflicts due to proposed mountaintop removal operations (MTR) at the site. Because of the imminent threat from MTR, Blair Mountain’s historical significance as a place of resistance is being reinterpreted in the contemporary struggle against MTR. The red bandanas worn by the union miners in 1921 have reemerged, this time tied around the necks of anti-MTR activists. With this ‘rediscovery’ of Blair Mountain, community activists are transforming their understanding of their own struggle and its historical contextualization. In the process, they layer new meaning and remembrance to the site, and are involved in “active placemaking” through the creation of a “rallying point” in the fight against MTR (Badcock and Johnson 2009: 139; 11 Foote 2003: 32). Archaeological work has been a crucial part of the preservation and reinterpretation of the mountain. Blair Mountain’s Nomination to the National Register Until recently there has been a relative lack of archaeological interest in Blair Mountain except for Kenneth King – a local resident, self-trained archaeologist, and grandson of a union miner that fought in the battle. King has spearheaded the preservation efforts since 1991, and has initiated and participated in most of the archaeological research undertaken at Blair Mountain. In 2006 Dr. Harvard Ayers conducted an archaeological survey at the site in cooperation with King. The survey has served to clarify the historic record, promote awareness of the site, and advance the movement for preservation. Fifteen sites were located in the survey and the investigators concluded that the overall battlefield has a high degree of integrity for 14 out of the 15 sites surveyed (Ayers et al. 2006: 14). Ayers and King, along with Dr. Barbara Rasmussen from West Virginia University, led the effort to nominate Blair Mountain to the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) in 2005. Their efforts resulted in the mountain’s placement on the NHRP on 30 March 2009. This victory was shattered on 7 July 2009 when local newspapers announced that Massey Energy Company was challenging the nomination to the National Register. On 10 January 2010, the site was officially taken off the list. The coal operators’ opposition was based on objections of property owners to the listing, for which a simple majority was needed for the site to be removed. The initial vote was 35 owners in favor of listing and 22 objectors. But immediately after the listing the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer found that eight letters had been miscounted. After the changes were made, the final count became 30 objectors against the listing to only 27 in favor. This resulted in the process of delisting beginning in July of 2009. Dr. Harvard Ayers and an attorney investigated these objector 12 claims and discovered that five were not legal objectors (Ayers pers. comm. Jan. 10 2010). In fact, Ayers and his attorney found that two of the objectors were dead –- one person for over 27 years! Even with these findings, the WV SHPO refused to reevaluate the listing on grounds that it fell outside of their duties as pertained to federal code 36 CFR 60, which regulates the NHRP. The National Park Service and Keeper of the Register strongly recommended the WV SHPO to investigate Ayers’ claims and resubmit the listing, but could not force the state agency to do so. On December 30, 2009, the site was delisted and returned to eligible status on Section 106 regulation. While this affords the battlefield certain protections, in the southern coalfields of West Virginia where coal owners still wield enormous influence, Blair Mountain’s future is now precarious. This next part discusses in more detail the threat to both the mountain and the heritage it embodies, as well as its reinterpretation in the context of a grassroots social movement. Mountaintop Removal Mountaintop removal is an extremely destructive form of coal extraction employed primarily in impoverished regions of central Appalachia. Large swaths of forest are cleared, and the entire soil surface is stripped to the bedrock (House and Howard 2009:1). Explosives are then used to blast the rock until a coal seam is exposed, and the mountain overburden is pushed into surrounding valleys, known as valley fill (Palmer 2010:148). The entire coal extraction process, including washing the coal to make it ‘clean’, creates a large amount of toxic residue that is disposed of throughout the Appalachian landscape in large earthen dams or abandoned mines. As a result, serious health issues linked to the toxicity of the groundwater are prevalent throughout the region (Palmer 2010: 148). The scale of MTR operations is huge; the EPA calculates that over 1.4 million acres of land will be destroyed by the end of 2010 (House and Howard 2009: 2). 13 The largest conductor of MTR mining, Massey Energy Company, is also the primary foe of the UMWA due to the company’s vehement anti-union position (Burns 2007: 27; UMW Journal May/June 2009: 12). Overall the southern coalfields of West Virginia, which were bastions of union solidarity from the 1930s through the 1990s, are turning anti-union with the increase in MTR operations (Burns 2007: 27). The majority of mountaintop removal operations are non-union; many union deep-shaft miners grumble about losing jobs to what they consider the ‘heavy equipment operators’ on surface mines. MTR, coupled with increasing mechanization of the coal industry, has caused a precipitous drop in mine employment in West Virginia. In 1970, there were 45,261 miners employed in the state. In 2002, that number was 15,377 and declining (Burns 2007: 13). All the while, coal production during this time increased from 143 million tons to 163 million tons of coal mined annually (13). The impact of MTR on Appalachian life and culture is one of the most important aspects of the MTR issue. There is a strong tie of Appalachian people to the land – the mountains are the backbone of our culture. Denise Giardinia, a writer of Appalachian life, best expresses what the mountains and their destruction mean to many of us: In the hundred odd years since the coal industry came to this part of West Virginia, land has been taken, miners have been worked to death, streams have been polluted, piles of waste have accumulated, children have grown up in poverty. But throughout all the hardships…the mountains have essentially remained. They were symbols of permanence, strength, hope. No more. Nothing worse can be taken from mountain people than mountains. The resulting loss is destroying the soul of the people. (Giardinia 2005) This statement expresses the sense that many local residents, some of whose families have lived in the area for up to ten generations, feel about the destruction of a landscape that is richly embedded with history and meaning (Anschuetz et al. 2001: 173; Ballard 2002: 19-22; Foote 2003: 32; Johnson 2007; Wilson and David 2002). The important interrelationships between memory, identity, and place in Appalachian social construction are being unraveled with the destruction of the mountains. 14 Placemaking and Resistance at Blair Mountain Kenneth Foote notes that four modes of commemoration exist for sites of tragedy or violence – sanctification, designation, rectification, and obliteration (2003: 7). While the dynamics of the Blair Mountain site contains elements of all four of these modes, the most significant is that of ‘obliteration’. For in a very literal and irreversible sense MTR operations would completely erase the landscape of Blair Mountain and its inscribed meaning. The threat from MTR at Blair Mountain has caused the site and its historical significance to be thrust back into remembrance in a context where community activists are once again contending against the power of the coal industry. As Foote notes, this “emergence often spurs extensive public debate over the meaning and significance of the original tragedy and, as a consequence, lends insight into the sentiments and social forces that shape landscape" (Foote 2003: 32-33). Although West Virginia has a long and rich tradition of activist movements, this history is mostly absent in West Virginian education and discourse. Appalachians’ activist streak may be one of our most valuable hidden treasures, and we intend for our work at Blair Mountain to expose this aspect. An interesting example of how Blair Mountain is drawn upon by the activist community is seen in an article from the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition’s newsletter Winds of Change. Terry and Wilma Steele, a union mining family who are prominent activists in the anti-MTR movement, wrote a recent article titled ‘United against MTR: red bandanas, dreadlocks, clean-cut, old folks and young’ (2009:25). In this piece, the Steeles explain how Blair Mountain intersects environmental and labor issues (Steele and Steel 2009: 25). The Steeles discuss two Labor Day events from the summer of 2009 – one sponsored by the UMW near Racine, WV (to the east of Blair Mountain), and the second held by 15 Massey in Logan County (just west of Blair Mountain). Terry and Wilma state that directly between stands Blair Mountain, both spatially and metaphorically. In the article, the authors use the name Don interchangeably to discuss both Don Blankenship (CEO of Massey Energy Company) and Don Chafin in the context of past and present conflicts, On the right is Don standing at Logan…with his bought judges, DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] agents and many misled souls. Don stands with promises of jobs and security. In one hand, is a new mining permit, and in the other is dynamite. In his heart and mind is power to put down the UMWA, the environmentalists, and to mine coal his way: nonunion, unregulated, any way he wants!” (25). They continue: Eighty-eight years ago in the months of August and September another Don, backed by big coal and Gov. Morgan, rained down explosives on Blair Mountain and the union miners. There were many red bandanas streaked with blood and sweat but redeemed by honor and courage….Now, another Don, backed by big coal and Gov. Manchin, is trying to remove Blair Mountain from the Historic Register. Don has it in his crosshairs and armed with explosives, he plans to blast it away (25). Terry and Wilma then go on to directly call upon the history of Blair Mountain, describing the anti-MTR movement in a merging of past and present, “Standing up to these giants is a ragtag, multicultural, red bandana army made up of old UMWA miners, their families and environmentalists...Their mission: stop MTR!” In all this, concerned citizens such as the Steeles are drawing on and adding to a rich history of activism in Appalachian culture. They are producing their own conceptions of their history that is prideful and meaningful to them based upon traditional themes important in Appalachian life, and containing information about the past that can be used in today’s struggles. In this process they layer new meaning onto Blair Mountain and are involved in “active placemaking” (Badcock and Johnson 2009). 16 ARCHAEOLOGY AND POLITICAL ACTION Don’t Spend Time Mourning…Organize! It may seem that the situation in West Virginia is overly bleak, but there is much to be optimistic about. Communities are fighting back, coalitions are being formed and attention is beginning to be drawn to the situation in the coalfields regarding MTR. Blair Mountain is starting to move from obscurity into potentially transformative historical remembrance. We intend for our research to advance both causes, because we see them as interlinked. Our overall research is not limited to investigating the archaeology of Blair Mountain; it also involves community engagement and political action. For us it is necessary to stand on the picket lines, attend the meetings, and work closely with communities to best address their concerns. These actions are not undertaken just for academic purposes, but rather because issues such as MTR affect ourselves and people we care about. Emancipatory Archaeology Research for our archaeological work at Blair Mountain is framed by “an emancipatory theory for the working class” (Duke and Saitta 1998; McGuire and Reckner 2003; McGuire and Walker 2003; Wood 2002). This activist theory builds upon innovations from feminist, Indigenous, African-American, and Marxist standpoints to construct archaeological research that engages working or lower class families (Blakey and LaRoche 1997; Conkey and Spector 1984; Conkey 2005; Franklin 2001; Harding 2004; McGuire 1992, 2008; Watkins 2000; Zimmerman 2005). The overarching concerns of a workingclass archaeology are to analyze, illustrate, and discuss the experiences of workers in the past in order to facilitate social change and understanding in the lives of workers today (Duke and Saitta 1998:1). It is at core collaborative and seeks to engage community members and other stakeholders in the process of knowing and writing their history (Duke and Saitta 1998: 6). 17 Emancipatory archaeology begins from the understanding that knowledge production, such as the construction of historical narratives, is itself a process of social construction (Conkey and Spector 1984; Fowler 1987; Hamilakis and Duke 2007: 25; Harding 2004: 1; McGuire 2008: 14; Shackel 2001: 656-7). Archaeology is political, and archaeological methods and interpretations have often bolstered inequalities and asymmetrical social relationships (Conkey and Spector 1984; Trigger 2006; McGuire and Walker 1999: 159; Smith 2004: 1; Wobst 2005: 18). But archaeology also has the power to be transformative or emancipatory for marginalized people around the world. In recent years, many scholars have worked to realize this potential by building an engaged archaeology (Blakey 1997; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2006; Conkey 2005; Faulkner 2000; Green et al. 2003; Hamilakis 2005; McGuire 2008; Shackel 2004; Smith 2007: 160). Part of this shift is to look at the practical applications of archaeology to the lives of subordinate peoples and constructing alternate ways of engaging with various communities. The base of our activist research is long-term commitment to local communities, and our research at Blair Mountain is being developed with short and long term goals in mind (Harris 2005; Zimmerman 2005; Wobst 2005). These objectives are drawn from engagement with multiple groups including descendants of combatants, labor organizations, local residents, and community organizations. From our initial discussions, we have identified three goals that various stakeholders have expressed interest in – preservation of the battlefield, building a museum or center at the site (as per McGuire and Reckner 2003), and developing it in a commemorative way such as an interpretive hiking trail (as per Gonzalez 2007). Tied into these goals are research questions drawn from the various stakeholders. Some questions relate to the military movements of the combatants and the locations where heavy fighting occurred. Other local residents have expressed interest in the common, everyday aspects of mining life – 18 the ‘what was it like back then for my grandma or grandpa’ question. This is something to which historical archaeology is well suited to answer due to its ability to combine documentary evidence with material culture studies. Another area of interest for local community members and activists is the larger political context of the miners’ struggles and its relation to contemporary social problems in Appalachia. For this concern, we utilize the materialist dialectic as a metaphor to explain social change and to link the historical processes between past and present struggles. In addition we utilize a Gramscian-style (1971) analysis of hegemony in order to examine the way in which the power of the coal operators was maintained and contested. By understanding the above three areas of interest as a nestled hierarchy, we can move from the particulars of the battle to the everyday conditions of the mining families, and then to the larger process and institutions underlying the labor conflict. Tracing these institutions and structures historically through time in a dialectic framework will allow us to situate the political struggles in the coalfields today. The process of building an emancipatory archaeological program at Blair Mountain is still in its initial stages. The primary focus of this beginning phase is identifying and engaging possible stakeholders. Because we are native West Virginians and activists within the anti-MTR movement, certain social networks are open to us that we can draw upon in our organizing efforts. This has enabled us to meet and collaborate with key community members in the immediate locale of Blair Mountain, as well as local historians, descendants of the combatants, modern day union members, and environmental groups. We are currently developing networks between various stakeholders to establish a base of support for preservation and commemoration efforts. This summer (2010), we will begin giving informal tours of the site to UMW miners and local community members. Additional commemorative and educational events are being planned such as a march and rally for the 90th anniversary of Blair 19 Mountain in 2011. This event will involve a variety of academic, labor, community, environmental, and historical preservation groups. Blair Mountain is particular in the aspect in that it is a major labor heritage site that has become significant for a grassroots environmental movement that is largely working class. This intersection of concerns that the mountain embodies has enormous potential to further dialogue between labor and environmental groups. Currently, avenues to cultivate heritage tourism at the site are being discussed, such as developing ecologically low-impact hiking trails with educational markers that describe the history of the battle (as per Gonzalez 2007). Additionally, Kenneth King has long been a proponent of a museum or tourism center near the mountain that discusses the history and labor struggles of the region. This is one of the long-term goals of our involvement, and we are attempting to lay the groundwork for a major investment such as a museum. We are also currently in the process of gathering and archiving key documents and artifacts regarding the miners’ insurrection in 1921, with plans to curate them within the community. In addition, the data from the archaeological surveys as well as historical documents are being digitized and entered into a central database, with the intention of giving this to the WV State Historic Preservation Office to be stored for future scholars. These projects will serve to educate the public about Blair Mountain and its role in local history, and work to preserve its significance for future generations. Future Archaeological Work Archaeological work at Blair Mountain will continue with collaborative and collectivist methods. We are building upon the work of Ayers and King in exploring and documenting more sections of the battlefield. The ongoing archaeological research of the site is tied directly to the preservation of Blair Mountain, the betterment of the surrounding community and facilitating discussion of labor history. 20 Future archaeological investigations promise to be exciting and rich with large areas of the battlefield yet to be examined. In addition, we are currently attempting to locate contextual tent colonies that housed striking miners in order to broaden the social dimension of our research. This will allow us to look at aspects of mining community life such as racial, ethnic and gender dynamics (Ludlow Collective 2001; Wood 2002). Currently, we are surveying and locating the approaches and positions of the miners, which has had relatively little prior investigation. Archaeological investigations have just begun to shed light on the heavy fighting along Crooked Creek. From the survey conducted in 2006, the large quantity of bullets, short-range casings, and evidence of close-quarter fighting behind the defensive line suggests this location was the site of a break through (Ayers et al. 2006: 7). In addition, this location may have been only one of multiple instances of breakthroughs of the defensive lines due to similar evidence at other hotspots (Ayers et al. 2006:15-16). Current archaeological research is focusing on these locations in order to analyze the timeline and movements of the attackers. Our analysis utilizes Geographic Information Systems software to model the topography and analyze viewsheds, line of sight, weaponry ranges, and artifact patterning across the battlefield to more accurately understand troop movement. CONCLUSION Blair Mountain is a standing reminder of the long struggle for labor rights in West Virginia. Central Appalachia has for generations been a central battleground between owners and workers, even though the region has largely been decentered in both labor and American history. We intend for this article to illustrate the fact that West Virginians have struggled for generations for the basic human rights to live and work in decent conditions. Especially important is the understanding that the conflicts of the early twentieth-century are not detached from present struggles. While the issues and conditions 21 may have changed, they are still instances in a steady stream of exploitation and resistance that continues today. The issues discussed in this chapter are found not only in Appalachia. The deep structural problems we face are ones that many people globally are contending with – from indigenous peoples to inner city youth to factory workers in China. Activist research can and should be part of their struggle, serving to illuminate, connect, and improve the lives of people living in systems of exploitation and domination. We hope this chapter demonstrates some ways in which collaborative efforts between academics, environmentalists, labor unions, social justice advocates, and other community organizations can be used in the betterment of workers lives today. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anschuetz, K.F., Wilshusen, R.H. and Scheick, C. (2001) ‘An archaeology of landscapes: perspectives and directions’. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9(2): 157-211. Associated Press (29 August 1921) ‘Mingo Marchers Fight With Police; Five Miners Fall’, New York Times: 1. --- (6 September 1921) ‘Policing by the Army’, New York Times: 13. Ayers, H., Rothrock, Z. and King, K. (2006) Archaeological Investigations of the Battle of Blair Mountain: May 13 to November 19, 2006, on file (unpublished), West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office. Badcock, A. and Johnston, R. (2009) ‘Placemaking through protest: an archaeology of the Lees Cross and Endcliffe protest camp, Derbyshire, England’. Archaeologies, 5(2): 306-322. Bailey, R. (2001) Matewan before the Massacre, dissertation. Morgantown, WV: West 22 Virginia University. Ballard, C. (2002) ‘The signature of terror, violence, memory, and landscape at Freeport. In B. David and M. Wilson, eds. Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press: 13-24. Blakey, M. and LaRoche, C. (1997) ‘Seizing intellectual power: the dialogue at the New York African-American Burial Ground’, Historical Archaeology 31: 84-106. Blizzard, W.C. (2004) When Miners March. Gay, WV: Appalachian Community Services. Burns, S.S. (2007) Bringing Down The Mountains, Morgantown: West Virginia University Press. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. and Ferguson, T.J. (2006) ‘Memory pieces and footprints: multivocality and the meanings of ancient times and ancestral places among the Zuni and Hopi’. Current Anthropology 108: 148-162. Corbin, D.A. (1981) Life, Work, and Rebellion in the Coal Fields, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Conkey, M. (2005) ‘Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies’, Archaeologies 1: 9-59. Conkey, M. and Spector, J. (1984) ‘Archaeology and the study of gender’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1-29. Duke, P., and Saitta, D.J. (1998) ‘An emancipatory archaeology for the working class’, assemblage 4. Online journal. Available HTTP: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/ adsdata/assemblage/html/4/4duk_sai.html (accessed 11 July 2009). Durrenburger, Paul (2006) ‘On the invisibility of class in America’. Anthropology News 23 47: 9-10. Faulkner, N. (2000) ‘Archaeology from below’. Public Archaeology 1(1): 21-33. Fishback, P.V. (1995) ‘An alternative view of violence in labor disputes in the early 1900s: the bituminous coal industry, 1890-1930’. Labor History, 36(3): 426-456. Foote, K.E. (2003) Shadowed Ground: America's Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy 2nd ed., Austin: University of Texas Press. Fowler, F. (1987) Uses of the past: archaeology in service of the state. American Antiquity 52(2): 229-248. Franklin M. (2001) ‘A black feminist inspired archaeology?’ Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 108-125. Giardina, Denise (June 2005) ‘The Battle of Blair Mountain….revisited’, Appalachian Voices. Online Journal. Available HTTP: http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/ site/ voice_stories/the_battle_of_blair_mountainrevisited/issues/29. (accessed 13 September 2009). Gonzalez, Sara (2007) ‘Making pathways through traditions: an update on the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 41(1): 42-3. Gramsci, A. (1971) Selection from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed. by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith, New York, NY: International Publishers. Hamilakis, Yannis (2005) ‘Whose world and whose archaeology? The colonial present and the return of the political’. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 1(2): 94-101. Hamilakis, Y. and Duke, P. (2007) ‘Archaeology and Capitalism’. Left Coast Press, 24 Walnut Creek, CA. Harding, S. (2004) ‘Introduction: standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophical, and scientific debate, in S. Harding (ed.) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. New York, NY: Routledge: 1-15. Harris, H. (2005) ‘Indigenous worldviews and ways of knowing as theoretical and methodological foundations for archaeological research’, in C. Smith & H. M. Wobst, (ed.) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge: 33-41. House, S. and Howard, J. (2009) Something's Rising: Appalachians Fighting Mountaintop Removal. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Johnson, M. (2007) Ideas of Landscape, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. LaRoche, C., and Blakey, M. (1997) ‘Seizing intellectual power: the dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Historical Archaeology 31(3): 84–106. Little, B., and Shackel, P. (2007) Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Ludlow Collective, The (2001) ‘Archaeology of the Colorado Coal Field War 19131914’, in V. Buchli and G. Lucas, (eds.) Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, New York, NY: Routledge: 94-107. McGuire, R.H. (1992) A Marxist Archaeology, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. --- (2008) Archaeology As Political Action, Berkeley: University of California Press McGuire, R.H. and Reckner, P. (2003) ‘Building a working-class archaeology: the Colorado Coal Field War Project’, Industrial Archaeology Review 25: 83-95. McGuire, R.H. and Walker, M. (1999) ‘Class confrontations in archaeology. Historical 25 Archaeology 33: 159-183. Meador, M. (1991) ‘The Redneck War of 1921: the Miner’s March and the Battle of Blair Mountain, in The Goldenseal Book of the West Virginia Mine Wars, edited by K. Sullivan, Charleston, WV: Quarrier Press. Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, W. H. Schlesinger, et al. (2010) ‘Mountaintop mining consequences’. Science 327: 148-149. Savage, L. (1990) Thunder in the Mountains: The West Virginia Mine War 1920-21, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Shackel, P.A. (2001) Myth, Memory, and the Making of the American Landscape. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Shogan, R. (2004) The Battle of Blair Mountain: The Story of America’s Largest Labor Uprising. Boulder, Colorado: Basic Books. Smith, L. (2004) Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge. --- (2006) Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. --- (2007) ‘Empty Gestures? Heritage and the politics of recognition’, in Cultural Heritage and Human Rights: 159-171. Steele, T. and Steele, W. (2009) ‘United against MTR: Red bandanas, dreadlocks, cleancut, old folks and young’, Winds of Change, newsletter of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, October 2009, Huntington, WV. Trigger, B. (2006) A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. United Mine Workers (May/June 2009) ‘Don’s World: Massey Energy’s CEO defines a 26 rogue coal company, United Mine Workers Journal 120(3): 10-13. Watkins, J. (2000) Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press Wheeler, H.N. (1976) ‘Mountaineer Mine Wars: an analysis of the West Virginia Mine Wars of 1912-1913 and 1920-1921’, The Business History Review, 50(1): 69-91. Wilson, M. and David, B. (2002) ‘Introduction’, in B. David and M. Wilson (eds.) Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press: 1-9. Wobst, H.M., (2005) ‘Power to the (indigenous) past and present! Or: The theory and method behind archaeological theory and method’, in C. Smith & H. M. Wobst, eds. Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge: 17-32. Wood, M.C. (2002) Women's work and class conflict in a working-class coalmining community, in M. O’Donovan (ed.) The Dynamics of Power, Occasional Paper 30. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale: 66-87. Zimmerman, L.J. (2005) ‘First, be humble: working with Indigenous Peoples and other descendant communities’, in C. Smith and H.M. Wobst (eds.) Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. London: Routledge: 301-314. 27