Category Archives: About the IABP

Common References

Much of this blog comes from the research and writing that I am doing for my dissertation. Because of this, what you see written here typically:

  1. Uses a lot of references, and…
  2. Uses many of the same references repeatedly!

To keep my posts short, I’m posting my most common references here. “New” or more “unique” references for any given post will be listed in said post. For those who don’t already know, primary references are those which directly report historical or archaeological facts that are used in analysis, such as site reports (archaeology), newspapers (history), and oral testimonies (history). Secondary references are those which draw upon primary and other secondary literature to analyze and argue. I am including dissertations in secondary references, even though archaeological dissertations often contain “primary” data. To be honest, the primary/secondary distinction is, in my opinion, less important and a wee bit more arbitrary in archaeology than it is in history.

Primary Archaeology | Secondary Archaeology | Primary History | Secondary History

Primary Archaeological References

Bowden, Bradley, and Lynn L. Larson
1997     Cultural Resource Assessment Japanese Camp and Lavender Town, Selleck, King County, Washington. Submitted to King County Parks, Planning and Resource Department. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington.

Getz, Lynne M.
1987     Cedar River Watershed Cultural Resource Study. Prepared for the Seattle Water Department by Lynne Getz. Copies available from Cedar River Watershed Education Center, North Bend, Washington.

White III, William, Sharon A. Boswell, and Christian J. Miss
2008     Results of Data Recovery and Site Evaluation Excavations at the Japanese Gulch Site 45SN398, Mukilteo, Washington. Submitted to Sound Transit. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington.

Secondary Archaeological References

Carlson, David
2017     The Issei at Barneston Project: An investigation into issues of race and labor at an early twentieth-century Japanese American sawmill community. Archaeology in Washington 17 (Summer): 30-62.

Ross, Douglas E.
2010     Comparing the Material Lives of Asian Transmigrants through the Lens of Alcohol Consumption. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(2):230–254.

2012a    Late Nineteenth-and Early Twentieth-Century Japanese Domestic Wares from British Columbia. In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter, pp. 2–29. Chipstone Foundation, Fox Point, Wisconsin.

2012b    Transnational Artifacts: Grappling with Fluid Material Origins and Identities in Archaeological Interpretations of Culture Change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31(1):38–48.

Primary Historical References

Hoover Institution
n.d.       Survey of Race Relations (Digitzed Materials). Digital Collections at Stanford. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

Ito, Kazuo
1973     Issei: A History of Japanese Immigrants in North America. Translated by Shinichiro Nakamura and Jean S. Gerad. Executive Committe for Publication of Issei, a History of Japanese Immigrants in North America, Seattle.

Olson, Ronald
1924a    Interview with Mr. Matsui, Japanese Foreman, St. Paul and Tacoma Company. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 202, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924b    Interview with J. Nagai, Worker, St. Paul and Tacoma Company. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 202, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924c    General Information Regarding the Pacific National Lumber Company. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 205, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924d    General Information regarding Carlisle Pennell Lumber Company, Onalaska, Washington. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 207, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016..

1924e    General Information regarding Walville Lumber Company, Walville, Washington. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 208, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924f    General Information Regarding the N&M Lumber Company. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 210, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924g    General Information Regarding Ernest Dolge, Incorporated (Lumber). Survey of Race Relations, Box 27, No. 200. Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

1924h    Interview with R. Ode, Eatonville Lumber Company Foreman. Survey of Race Relations, Box 28, No. 204, Hoover Institution Archives. Electronic document,, accessed May 1, 2016.

United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army)
1972     Logging and Sawmill Operation. Technical Manual No. 5-342, Department of the Army, Washington D.C. Accessed Online via Google Books.

United States Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census)
1910     Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910 Population. Barneston Precinct, King County, Enumeration District 12.

1920     Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920 Population. Barneston Precinct, King County, Enumeration District 9.

Secondary Historical References

Azuma, Eiichiro
2005     Between Two Empires: Race, History, and Transnationalism in Japanese America. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Beda, Steven C.
2014     Landscapes of Solidarity: Timber Workers and the Making of Place in the Pacific Northwest, 1900-1964. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of History, University of Washington, Seattle.

Brown, Chris, and John Schroeder
1996     Barneston, Washington: An Investigation of Place and Community through Photographs, Maps and Oral Histories. Prepared for Seattle Water Department by Chris Brown and John Schroeder. Copies available from Cedar River Watershed Education Center, North Bend, Washington.

Carlson, Linda
2003     Company Towns in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Daniels, Roger
1998     Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Dubrow, Gail, Donna Graves, and Karen Cheng
2002     Sento at Sixth and Main: Preserving Landmarks of Japanese American Heritage. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Ficken, Robert E.
1987     The Forested Land: A History of Lumbering in Western Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

Geiger, Andrea
2011     Subverting Exclusion: Transpacific Encounters with Race, Caste, and Borders, 1885-1928. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Gilbert, Richard, and Mary Woodman
1995     Barneston’s Japanese Community. Prepared for Seattle Water Department by Richard Gilbert and Mary Woodman. Copies available at Cedar River Watershed Education Center, North Bend, Washington.

Hall, Nancy Irene
1980     Carbon River Coal Country. Courier Herald Publishing Company, Enumclaw, Washington.

Ichioka, Yuji
1988     The Issei: The World of the First Generation Japanese Immigrants, 1885-1924. The Free Press, New York and London.

Japanese Association of the Pacific Northwest (JAPN)
1907     Japanese Immigration: An Exposition of Its Real Status. Japanese Association of the Pacific Northwest. Copies available at University of Washington Libraries, Seattle.

Klingle, Matthew
2007     Emerald City: An Environmental History of Seattle. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Oharazeki, Kazuhiro
2016     Japanese Prostitutes in the North American West, 1887-1920. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

Olson, Ronald
1927     The Orientals in the Lumber Industry in the State of Washington. Unpublished report, Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this?

This website documents the Issei at Barneston Project, an NSF-funded doctoral dissertation research project investigating the daily lives of early 20th century Japanese immigrant and Japanese American sawmill town workers at Barneston, Washington.

Who is involved in this project?

The Principal Investigator is Sara Gonzalez, and the co-Principal Investigator and Project Director is David Carlson. Because David is a graduate student, and the PI must be a qualified professional archaeologist, Sara Gonzalez acts as the project PI. For information on consultants, paid workers, and volunteers, see the People section of this site!

How often do you update?

I’m aiming to update about once a month, though that may be reduced to once every two months during particularly busy times. I may also perform minor updates, to fix images or wordsmith previous posts.

Where are the images or detailed discussions of artifacts?

Due to landowner concerns over looting, we have agreed to not publicize images of artifacts on this blog, nor will we describe any artifacts in great detail. This blog will focus more on the history of the site, the archival research, and the process of archaeological research.

Can I comment on posts?

Yes, for the most part. Some posts don’t allow comments, but most posts with content about the site (background information, descriptions of methods, etc.) will allow commenting. Comments are moderated; I will do my best to stay on top of approving individual comments in a timely manner (ideally, within 24 hours). I do not yet have a specific comment policy, though I will endeavor to develop one in the future.

If your comment doesn’t appear within 24 hours, or you cannot comment on a particular post (but wish to do so), feel free to shoot me an email about it! You can reach me at davidrcn[at]

How is the project funded?

The IABP is currently being funding through a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (Grant #1743498). Prior to this, the project received pilot study funding from the University of Washington Department of Anthropology.

I’m interested in asking questions/volunteering/finding out more information. How can I contact you all?

That’s great to hear! You can contact the co-PI and director, David Carlson, via email at davidrcn[at]

Key Archaeological Terms

I realized that, while I will try to make this blog as accessible as possible, there are still some key terms that need to be defined. So, here they are! I will update this post as time goes on.

Archaeological Terminology

Artifact: Artifacts are generally defined as portable archaeological evidence, objects that were made, modified, or used by people. They include everything from projectile points to wire nails. Artifacts are often broadly grouped into categories, such as metals, ceramics (e.g. pot fragments), glass, lithics (stone), faunal remains (animal bones), floral remains (plant remains). Those latter two are sometimes referred to as ecofacts, but that’s not a term I commonly use.

Feature: Features are non-portable archaeological evidence, such as hearths or architectural remains. “Non-portable” here means that they cannot be removed from the archaeological record without fundamentally altering their form. A ceramic fragment removed from the record still retains its form as a ceramic; a hearth, when excavated, loses its shape and integrity by virtue of the excavation.

Site: How you define an archaeological site is something that is often contested in archaeology. Sites can be collections of artifacts and features, areas defined by oral or written histories, or simply ‘the area the archaeologist was able to survey’. When we refer to the Barneston site, we are referring to the town and its “immediate vicinity” (itself an ill-defined term). The Japanese American Community is a site within Barneston that is similarly defined, and similarly vague.

Provenance: The 3-dimensional location of any artifact, feature, or other object-of-interest on an archaeological site. Maintaining control of provenance is key to archaeological research, as the associations and contexts associated with material culture helps us determine its function.

Association: The spatial relationship between any two or more artifacts, features, or other objects-of-interest. Often we express this by saying that “X is associated with Y”, which means that X appears to have some spatial relationship with Y. X and Y might be in the same pit together, or in the same stratum, or household. “Scatters”, for example, are clusters of artifacts that are associated with one another by virtue of the fact that they are found grouped close together relative to other artifacts on the site.

Context: Oh boy, this is a complicated concept. It can refer to a lot of different things. Instead of giving one definition, I’m going to give a few that matter for this project:

  • Context can refer to relevant details about the surroundings of an artifact, feature, or object-of-interest. For example, let us say you find some modern trash on your archaeology site. Next to you is a large plateau, on top of which currently live people. The context of your surroundings suggests that that modern trash may be from people throwing their refuse off of the side of the plateau. This helps you understand how your site may have been contaminated with modern material. This requires that you pay attention to your surroundings, to the local social and natural environment. It requires that you understand the context surrounding your finds.
  • Context can refer to a kind of action, a means of developing interpretations about the past. Here we use context as a verb, to contextualize.

Survey: An archaeological survey is, at its simplest, any attempt to geographically locate archaeological material. Archaeologically surveys are usually concerned with the amount, concentration, and extent of archaeological material, as well as their integrity. Integrity here refers to the extent to which archaeological material has been disturbed since it was originally deposited in the ground. Since we are often interested in what happened before and when the material was deposited, anything that modifies the material afterwards is potentially biasing. Archaeological surveys are usually low- or minimally-intensive, which means we try to minimize (even more so than normal) how much we disturb the archaeological record.

Excavation: Excavation involves more detailed sub-surface investigation of an archaeological feature, site, or area of interest. In excavations, we remove dirt in a systematic and careful manner and screen whatever we remove through shaker screens to collect artifacts or other archaeological material.