Rogers Archaeology Lab

History of Cattle Oiler and the River Basin Surveys

    During Julia’s internship here, she did a lot of background research on the Cattle Oiler archaeological site, and the history of the River Basin Surveys more broadly. This research led her into trying to figure out the elusive past of the Great Plains Native American groups who lived around the Missouri River Basin in villages like the Cattle Oiler site or H.P. Thomas in the past, as we’ve told you about in previous posts (Click here: 1, 2, 3, 4). For those of you who are new to Plains archaeology, we hope this post will help explain these events, people, and places.

    The Cattle Oiler site (39ST224) is one of several archaeological sites along the Missouri River excavated during the River Basin Surveys (RBS) project, which ran from the summer of 1945 to 1969 (Snyder et al. 2000, 17).

Image by Julia Grasso. Original photograph by Daniel E. Moerman, 5/12/1965. “Big Bend. Site 39ST224. High shot of 39ST224, Photo NW.” Field Number E65-L1-5. 4x5 Tri-X Pan. Courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

    The River Basin Surveys Project started when the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation started developing extensive plans to implement water-control programs and dams across the major rivers of the Great Plains (Jennings 1985, 282). Archaeologists realized the threat to prehistoric and historic sites throughout the U.S that would result from these actions and took steps to save the prehistory of the area before these sites were flooded. One of the more extensive construction projects planned by the U.S. government during this period was the installation of dams all along the Missouri River, where five dams would be used to provide hydroelectric power, irrigation and reduce the risk of flooding in the surrounding area (Wedel 1967, 590). As a result, “90% of evidence of human use of the [river’s] main stem” would be destroyed (Jennings 1985, 282).

    Various institutions at the federal and local level partnered together to form the River Basin Surveys (RBS) and the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program (IASP) to save these resources; among these institutions were the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, the Smithsonian (including the Bureau of American Ethnology), the National Park Service, the Committee for the Recovery of Archeological Remains, and many local universities, museum, and historical societies. This multi-decade undertaking not only trained the next generation of archaeologists but also created a collection of archaeological materials that is unparalled in its size, scope, and the systematic manner of its excavation. Over three million specimens were collected, providing a massive corpus of evidence to draw from to create "a detailed picture of centuries of prehistoric life and early contact with European traders and settlers" (Hull-Walski et al. 2012). 

    For more about this massive undertaking (along with many great photos!), download this PDF poster created by one of our Collections Managers in Anthropology, Deborah Hull-Walski (et al.), "Dammed If We Do and Dammed If We Don't: The River Basin Surveys and Interagency Archeological Salvage Programs 60 Years After."

    You might be familiar with similar salvage archaeology projects that have happened in response to dams, such as the Aswan Dam project in Egypt, which necessitated the relocation or emergency excavation of many Egyptian archaeological sites.

"The statue of Ramses the Great at the Great Temple of Abu Simbel is reassembled after having been moved in 1967 to save it from being flooded." Source Wikipedia.

"The Aswan Dam: During its construction in the 1960s, the Aswan Dam held back greater amounts of water each year. As the water rose, many important archaeological sites were flooded, such as these sphinxes lining the avenue of the Temple at Wadi es-Sebua. In 1964, the sphinxes and temple were rescued and put on higher ground." Image and text source. 

    While Cattle Oiler did not have towering statues and temples, it was nevertheless an important archaeological site to save from the Big Bend Dam. Cattle Oiler is a multicomponent site, which means it was occupied in several different phases over time. There have been several investigations into the site, beginning as early as 1956 by Harold Huscher. The last excavations of Cattle Oiler were conducted by Daniel D. Moerman in May through June 1965 and finished by David T. Jones in July and August of the same year (Moerman and Jones 1966, 1).

Overall site map of the Cattle Oiler site (39ST224) (Moerman and Jones 1966, 6).

    One of the larger questions concerning Cattle Oiler is, which Plains Indian culture occupied the site? The components present at the site are the Initial Middle Missouri (IMM) and Extended Middle Missouri (EMM). While often used in Plains Indian literature, IMM and EMM are general terms signifying different time periods and cultural groups who occupied the Missouri River Basin. Cattle Oiler is predominantly associated with the IMM phase, lasting from AD 1000 to 1100 (Johnson 2007: 168). Evidence suggests that sites such as Cattle Oiler, located further south along the Missouri River, were abandoned around AD 1100 to 1200, before the beginning of the EMM phase (AD 1200 to 1300) (Johnson 2007: 185). However, Cattle Oiler contains EMM components, which raises many questions. 

    How can a site previously abandoned contain components from a chronologically later group? One of the possibilities for the time discrepancy is that EMM groups intruded on IMM villages during the site’s occupation, either sharing their culture with the present groups or totally replacing IMM people. Another possibility is that after the site was abandoned, EMM groups adopted the site long after IMM groups left.  In either scenario, the material culture of each group was enmeshed with the other.

“Distribution of Plains Village components within the Middle Missouri subarea during Period 6 (AD 1500-1550)” (Johnson 2007, 186).

    So, who are the elusive IMM and EMM groups? The Plains Village Indians occupying the Missouri River basin from their first settlements in the initial Middle Missouri period (AD 1000 to 1100) to the final Post-Contact Coalescent period (AD 1650 to 1886) include several different descendant Native American groups: the Mandan, Hidatsa, and the Arikara. As an IMM period site, Cattle Oiler is more often culturally affiliated with the ancestral Mandan and Hidatsa groups.

    Finally as a note of curiosity, you may be wondering how on earth the site got the name, "Cattle Oiler." What the heck is a cattle oiler? Well, because of the relatively flat vistas (the area being the Great Plains, after all), there were not always big noticable natural features to name the archaeological sites after.  Since we will never know what name the ancestral Native groups gave to their village, archaeologists at the time named it after the only distinguishing feature on the landscape: a cattle oiler left over from a farmer who grazed his cattle in the area. A cattle oiler is a device that farmers provide for their cows so that they can scratch any pesky itches, and while doing so, oil themselves on the brushes that release insect repellent (video(s)). The more you know...  :)

One type of cattle oiler seen in use. Image Source.

For more on unraveling the connections between IMM and EMM prehistoric groups, see our next post where Julia shares her final report on the comparison of the pottery from round vs. circular houses at Cattle Oiler. 

 By: Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist Contractor, and Julia Grasso, Intern. 

References Cited

Jennings, Jesse D. 1985  River Basin Surveys: Origins, Operations, and Results, 1945-1969. American Antiquity 50(2): 281–296.

 Johnson, Craig M. 2007  A Chronology of Middle Missouri Plains Village Sites. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 47. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

 Jones, David T. 1969  Investigations at the Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST224, Big Bend Reservoir, South Dakota. Revised version of Moerman and Jones, 1966.

Snyder, Lynn M, Deborah Hull-Walski, Thomas D. Thiessen, and Myra J. Giesen 2000  Postwar Partners in Archaeology: the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the River Basin Surveys in the Missouri River Basin (145-1969). CRM 1: 17–20.

Wedel, Waldo R. 1967  Salvage Archaeology in the Missouri River Basin. Science 156(3775): 589–597.

 

Objects with Many Voices; People with Two Spirits

  Archaeology is a frustrating discipline at times. Its public perception is hampered by films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, which have presented the public with fantastic, sensationalized, and incorrect images of what archaeologists actually do. Whenever I tell people that I study archaeology, they constantly exclaim, “Oh you want to be like Indiana Jones?” or “We have our own Lara Croft in here, haha.” I do an inward “palm-to-the-face” each and every time because archaeology is not about treasure hunting, or, for that matter, destroying the structures and artifacts we are supposed to be analyzing. A culture or society is not defined by its shiniest and most expensive objects. One has to remember that it is people who we are studying and their relationships with each other and with their world, their material culture being a reflection of those relationships. Over the years, I have come to learn that frequently the most mundane-looking artifacts can reveal the greatest amount of information and the most significant facets of a culture or site.  

Figure 1. The objects catalogued as “quill flattener” in the Cattle Oiler collection. Photo: Nicole Coscolluela

  Like Meghan mentioned in the previous post, I am studying the gendered use of “quill flatteners” from the Cattle Oiler site (39ST224). I use the quotation marks because scholars are still in disagreement as to what they are. Their simplicity in construction and similarities to other tool types have produced a number of hypotheses in this regard. The lack of ethnographic data on Hidatsa and Mandan people makes it all the more challenging to ascertain what role these objects played in their lives. Furthermore, modern ethnographic literature on the tribes also lacks references to quill flatteners, thus adding to the mystery behind their presence at Cattle Oiler.

Examples of Quillwork in Native American Objects. Left: Quillwork bag from the National Museum of the American Indian, catalog number 5/3105. Right: Quillwork cradle from the National Museum of Natural History, collected by George Catlin, catalog number E73311-0.

  My first research task was to determine their true function. A tall and sometimes frustrating order, I must admit, since even seasoned archaeologists have not been able to determine this (Lehmer 1971: 88). However, I like a good challenge so I pressed on. As mentioned above, the Hidatsa and the Mandan are not known to have utilized quill flatteners. Instead, their use has been attributed to the Arikara, Sioux, Arapaho, Blackfeet, and Menominee, of which there are both archaeological specimens and ethnographic data (Orchard 1916: 101-102, Skinner 1921: 275). Archaeologists have labeled these prehistoric objects quill flatteners due to their close resemblances to these historical specimens (Lehmer 1971: 88). As the name suggests, quill flatteners did just that – flatten quills, specifically porcupine quills – during the process of quillwork crafting. In the Menominee tradition, the quills were flattened after they were sewn into the leather (Skinner 1921: 275). In other North American tribes, the artist would take the tool, manufactured from either bone or antler, and glide it along the length of a softened quill in preparation for embroidery (Orchard 1916: 9). In my search to ascertain their true identity, I initially aimed to read through Hidatsa and Mandan ethnographies and modern quillwork practices in the hope that I would find something the other archaeologists missed. However, I was going nowhere. There really was nothing that could help me. Fortunately, I began to take more seriously the descriptions and images of other bone tools from the Middle Missouri because I noticed the stylistic affinities those tools had to my quill flatteners. Thereafter, I explored the possibility that they were one and the same, the only difference being their perceived functions.

  There was brief mention of quill flatteners as multifunctional tools (Lehmer 1971: 88). It bears noting that archaeologists have an unfortunate tendency to ascribe singular functions to the artifacts they excavate; it is a practice that stems from the cultural-historical approach to archaeology and that method’s desire to classify and categorize. I try to avoid making analogies between the modern day and the past, but it is highly conceivable that bygone peoples may have employed tools for various purposes. Upon comparing the shape, wear, and composition of “bone markers,” “bone spatulas/spatulates,” “bone pottery tools,” and “bone flaking tools,” quill flatteners, then, could have been used for either flattening quills, marking leather, incising pottery rims, or flaking stone. The objects attributed with these functions appear stylistically similar. See for yourself and compare Figures 1, 2, and 3.

Figure 2. From left to right: Middle Missouri bone spatulas (Lehmer 1971: 88), Sioux quillwork tool kit with bone marker in the center (Orchard 1916: plate IV), Breeden Site bone tools (Wheeler 1956: 19)

Figure 3. Scattered Village (32MO31) pressure flakers (Ahler and Falk 2002: 13-18)

   In addition to their physical parallels, a trip to the Smithsonian’s collections storage and conservation facility in Suitland, Maryland substantiated Wheeler’s argument that quill flatteners were used for pottery rim decorating (Wheeler 1956:18). Based on the material culture from the Breeden site (39ST16), he opined that the ends of the flattener-like objects fit the incisions on rims with diagonal punctuations. I did the same with the quill flatteners and flattener-like bone tools from the Cattle Oiler collection. And low-and-behold, they fit! See my examination in action in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Seeing if the tool fits the groove. Photo: Nicole Coscolluela

  Soon after I made the decision to investigate quill flatteners, I became worried that my choice would not yield enough information, however, I was so wrong. And this is where the gender comes in. I am, after all, studying the GENDERED use of quill flatteners.

"Using Smoother on Quills", from the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian. Catalog Number N13627, glass plate negative, date created: 1902.

  At Mobridge (39WW1), there was a distinct difference between the burial goods in male and female internments (Wedel 1955). A number of the females were buried with bone spatulas, often by the head. Meanwhile, the men lacked this implement for the most part. Despite the clear sexual demarcation of this tool, two males were interred with bone spatulate tools, one in cemetery 1 (out of 30 burials) and the other in cemetery 3 (out of 6). Although it could be argued that the bone implements could have accidentally found their way into the burial, the bone spatulate with the male in cemetery 3 appears to have been intentionally placed there. It was located behind the head, the same place where the bone spatulate was laid in the female burial in the same cemetery. This apparent intentionality had me thinking as to why a seemingly feminine object was with this male and what that could possibly tell us about his life.

  During my research, I encountered an intriguing North American Indian practice. I learned of the existence of berdaches, or two-spirit people. These were men and women who adopted the occupations, roles, and occasionally dress of the opposite sex. Unlike many outlier genders in modern societies, they were not outcasts, but rather recognized as third or fourth genders and participated in the economics and rituals of the 150 tribes known to have practiced this (Gilchrist 1999: 60). This is what makes them unique and fascinating. They were considered gender transformers and gender mixers (Arnold 2002: 245); there was no stigma associated with them, enhancing their status not diminishing it (Roscoe 1988: 144). As some individuals became berdaches after having visions or after Holy Women had visions of them (Callender et al. 1983: 447-451), they had a spiritual association and thus were respected since Plains tribes were vision-complex cultures where instructions had to be followed (Roscoe 1996: 351).

Figure 5. A Navajo berdache on the right (Roscoe 1994: 333)

  The Mobridge males buried with the spatulates could have possibly been berdaches. Mobridge is an Arikara site and the Arikara were one of the 150 tribes to recognize the berdache status, as were the Hidatsa and Mandan (Callender et al 1983: 445). The males, if they were berdaches, would have actively participated in craftwork and the domestic realm, the sphere in which quill flatteners are associated (Roscoe 1996: 333). It is possible that berdaches could have lived at Cattle Oiler though there is no firm evidence of this. Nevertheless, the existence of berdaches presents the issue when genderizing any object. Instead of looking at material culture and society through a binary lens, archaeologists should acknowledge the potential for a greater complexity in social composition as was the case with North American Indian tribes. Not only should they allow for multifunctionality in objects, but also for the use of those objects by multiple genders or social groups. Doing so would open new avenues of research for that site or culture and lead to a well-rounded perspective on the many ways society can be constructed.

~Nicole Coscolluela, Summer 2013 Intern. Editor/ Title Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

Bibliography

Ahler, Stanley. and Falk, Carl. 2002. Unmodified Bone and Antler Remains at Scattered Village. Research Report. The Prehistory on First Street NE: The Archaeology of Scattered Village in Mandan, North Dakota. PaleoCultural Research Group.

Arnold, Bettina. 2002  Sein und Werden. In In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches, edited by Sarah M Nelson and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, 1:pp. 239–256. Gender 1. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Callender, Charles, Lee M. Kochems, Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, Harald Beyer Broch, Judith K. Brown, Nancy Datan, Gary Granzberg, David Holmberg, Åke Hultkrantz, Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Alice B. Kehoe, Johann Knobloch, Margot Liberty, William K. Powers, Alice Schlegel, Italo Signorini, and Andrew Strathern. 1983. The North American Berdache [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 24(4): 443–470.

Gilchrist, Roberta. 1999.  Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. Routledge, London.

Lehmer, Donald J. 1971. Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropological Papers 1. National Park Service, Washington, D. C.

Orchard, William C. 1916. The Technique of Porcupine Quill-Decoration Among the North American Indians. Vol. 4. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.

Roscoe, Will. 1988  We’wha and Klah the American Indian Berdache as Artist and Priest. American Indian Quarterly 12(2): 127–150.

Roscoe, Will. 1996. How to Become a Berdache: Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender Diversity. In Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, edited by Gilbert Herdt, pp. 329–371. Zone Books, New York.

Skinner, Alanson. 1921.  Material Culture of the Menomini. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Wedel, Waldo R. 1955. Archaeological Materials From the Vicinity of Mobridge, South Dakota. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 157. Washington, D.C.

Wheeler, Richard P. 1956.  “Quill Flatteners” or Pottery Modeling Tools? Plains Anthropologist(6): 17–20.