This is the second installment in a series of posts about my research involving historic artifacts from the River Basin Surveys (RBS) curated by the National Museum of Natural History. In my first post, I reviewed historical archaeology in general. In this post I will discuss historical archaeology in the context of the RBS. My discussion focuses on the Upper Missouri River basin in North and South Dakota, where most of the archaeology of the RBS took place. Please see the blog's RBS resource page for other posts on the history of the River Basin Surveys and research done in the collections. Click here for an overview of RBS publications on historical archaeology.
By: Lotte Govaerts, Pre-doctoral Researcher and Volunteer with Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist and Research Scientist Contractor.
When you think about the archaeology of Native North America, I bet you don't think about archaeologists finding glass bottles, fine china, gunflints and forks! And yet there they are. Many of the sites we catalog out at the Smithsonian's Museum Support Center have both prehistoric and contact-era layers, which we call a multi-component site. So not only do we learn about traditional Middle Missouri Native lifestyles, we also gain insight into the contact period, when Native Americans were dealing regularly with Europeans and trading goods across the cultures. The RBS collections are really an amazing resource for archaeologists, and the depth and breadth of these collections is unparalled. So how did we end up with all of these items? It's a pretty amazing story. Let's go back to the 1940's to see how economic forces shaped the drive to salvage these prehistoric and historic-era Native North American sites, and in so doing, shaped the way archaeology developed as as profession to this day!
Figure 1. Some of the 19th century artifacts collected by RBS crews and stored at the NMNH's Museum Support Center. A: Part of a drawer with artifacts from Fort George (39ST202): Mended and unmended stoneware and some glass beads. B: “Dr. Hoofland’s German Bitters” patent medicine bottle from site 39HU301. C: Various glass beads from Fort Berthold II (32ML2), sorted by size and color. D: Three-tined forks from Fort Berthold II (32ML2). Image Credit: Lotte Govaerts.
The River Basin Surveys (RBS) were part of a large-scale program of archaeological investigations that took place in the United States after the flood control act of 1944. The Act implemented numerous projects for flood control, irrigation, hydroelectric power, and navigation improvements in river basins across the country. Because these projects would destroy many archaeological (and paleontological) sites, there was concern among archaeologists (and paleontologists). As a result, several institutions and organizations banded together to salvage as much as they could. And thus, the Inter-Agency Salvage Project (IASP) came into being—a collaboration between the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, and various State and local universities, historical societies, and museums (Jennings 1985, Lehmer 1971, Snyder et al 2000, Thiessen 1999, Thiessen and Roberts 2009, Wedel 1967).
The Smithsonian Institution created the River Basin Surveys unit as part of its Bureau of American Ethnology, and under that banner conducted archaeological research as part of the IASP. The IASP was the largest and most long-lasting salvage program ever implemented in the United States. The Smithsonian’s RBS operated from 1946 to 1969 in various areas across the country, but mainly in the Upper Missouri River Basin. In this area, the “Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program” called for construction of the Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavin’s Point dams (Figure 2). This construction would create large reservoirs, inundating significant parts of the river valley.
Figure 2. Reservoirs on the Upper Missouri (The Fort Peck dam in Montana is part of the Missouri River Main Stem System, but predates the Pick Sloan Plan). Image source: “Builders and Fighters: U.S. Army Engineers in World War II”, sec. IV (18 December 1992), p. 233. Publication #EP 870-1-42.
As a survey project of this never-before-seen magnitude, the RBS laid the basis for many of the current practices in salvage archaeology. The survey crews made efforts to standardize their field methods and modes of documentation across the project. One example of this standardization is the development of the so-called “trinomial system” for assigning a unique site number to each archaeological site in the country. This system is still used across the United States, although some states have made minor modifications. For the first number in each site identifier, each of the 48 states then in the Union was assigned a numeric code (1 for Alabama, through 48 for Wyoming. When Alaska and Hawaii became states, they were assigned the numbers 49 and 50). Each site number further consists of a two-letter county code, and finally a unique site number within that county. For example, Fort Pierre II (a site I will discuss in more detail in a future blog post) was assigned the unique number 39ST217. The number 39 is the code for South Dakota, “ST” stands for Stanley County, and 217 means that this site was the 217th site to be recorded in Stanley County, SD. When I talk about specific sites in future posts, I will use their unique site number as well as the site’s common name, to avoid confusion. Using site numbers is important as different sites in the Great Plains sometimes share common names (For example, “Fort Union” was used more than once to name a fur trade establishment or military post in the 19th century).
The Smithsonian turned the River Basin Surveys unit over to the National Park Service in 1969. The operation was then renamed the “Midwest Archeological Center” (MWAC), and it continued the salvage mission along the Missouri Basin. However, as the dams and reservoirs on the Upper Missouri were completed at this time, this salvage work was of a much smaller scale. The MWAC mostly focused on shoreline sites that were being threatened by wave action and erosion. The organization of archaeological responsibilities across the US changed again after the Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and in 1975 the MWAC changed its focus to National Park archaeology only.
During the salvage efforts, RBS archaeologists mostly investigated prehistoric sites, but they did not ignore historic sites. The RBS ushered in a transitional period for historical archaeology in the Great Plains. It was during the RBS that archaeologists first investigated non-Native sites in this area. (Lees 2001, Scott 1998).
The historical archaeology of the Great Plains prior to the RBS used the so-called “direct historic approach” to study Native American sites. This approach works backwards from documented periods (historic Native American sites) to find out things about the proto- or prehistoric Native American sites. This method was employed in order to answer specific questions, and this type of archaeology was decidedly anthropological in nature. The historical archaeology of the RBS, on the other hand, was based on history rather than anthropology.
With the pressure of time and budget concerns, RBS archaeologists had to prioritize their efforts. They could not excavate every site in the construction area. Even before budgets were allocated for the excavation of historical sites, historians conducted detailed document searches, and made lists of “historic places” within the reservoir areas behind each dam that was planned along the Upper Missouri (Figure 3, Mattes 1947, 1949; Mattison 1954, 1955, 1962).
Figure 3. Locations of Historic Sites in Big Bend Reservoir - South Dakota. Source: Mattes, Merrill J., 1962. Historic Aspects of the Big Bend Reservoir Area. South Dakota Historical Collections and Report, Vol. 31, p. 243-286.
Historic sites from the list were prioritized for excavation, based on three criteria: The degree of historical significance, the extent of available documentation, and whether or not the documented site could be located in the field. These decisions were made approximately half a century ago, at a time when historical archaeology was still developing as a field, and when some of the sites under investigation had been abandoned for less time than has passed since then (meaning that some of the artifacts in the collection have been in storage longer than they ever were in the ground!). It is to be expected that the RBS staff made different decisions than a historical archaeologist in the 21st century would make. The result of this prioritization was that almost all historic sites investigated during the RBS fall into three categories: Fur trade posts, military forts, and Indian Agencies. I will talk more about all three types of sites in future blog posts.
Figure 4. Photo taken during RBS excavations at Fort Stevenson (32ML1) - Excavated area of the hospital’s east wing. Image source: Smith 1960 Pl. 36
In studying the RBS artifact collection, I use various historical sources. Some of the most useful documents are those produced by the RBS staff. RBS archaeologists published their work in a number of places. For the researcher, I created an overview of RBS publications that focus on historical archaeology here, which will be updated over time. In addition to published works, I also attempt to review primary materials produced by the RBS. Because of the large scale of the project and the eventual transfer to the NPS, records and artifact collections have become somewhat dispersed across and within agencies (see Thiessen and Roberts 2009). As a result, the full cohort of RBS materials related to a given site is not always available in the NMNH collections.
The end of the RBS came at a time when historical archaeology was establishing itself as an independent discipline with its own theoretical framework. The Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) was formed in the late 1960s. In some of their early publications (available online) members discuss the nature of the discipline, its theory, and the direction they felt the organization should take. While the framework of Historical Archaeology in the United States evolved predominantly around the archaeology of early Euro-American sites on the east coast, certainly the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys had its own influence. Several of the RBS’ researchers were among the founding members of the Society for Historical Archaeology: Merrill J. Mattes, Carlyle S. Smith, G. Hubert Smith, and Alan R. Woolworth (Scott 1998, p. 484). This early and evolving framework of historical archaeology is reflected in the nature and design of the RBS and the resulting collections.
Figure 5. Photo taken during RBS excavations at Fort Stevenson (32ML1) - Remnants of the porch attached to Commanding Officer's Quarters - Image source: Smith 1960 Pl. 47
The NMNH’s collection of RBS artifacts from historic sites is a unique and invaluable resource created from salvage archaeology efforts decades ago. The sites are now long gone; I can’t go back and excavate more in order to answer questions of interest to a 21st historical archaeologist. What I can do is re-examine the documentation produced by the archaeologists who did the work all those years ago, and analyze the collected artifacts. How can artifacts collected by researchers of a different era answer questions I have today? Stay tuned as I explore this subject in future postings on this blog.
References cited:
Ferguson, Leland (ed), 1977. Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things. Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publications Series No. 2. (put the link here)
Jennings, Jesse D. 1985. River Basin Surveys: Origins, Operations, and Results, 1945-1969. American Antiquity 50(2): 281-296.
Lees, William B., The Impact of the River Basins Surveys Program in Historical Archaeology. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology New Orleans, Louisiana, April 18-22, 2001 [retrieved from link].
Lehmer, Donald J. 1971. Introduction to Middle Missouri Archeology. Anthropological Papers I. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington.
Mattes, Merrill J. 1947. Historic Sites in Missouri Valley Reservoir Areas. Nebraska History, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Mattes, Merrill J. 1949. Historic Sites in the Fort Randall Reservoir Area. South Dakota History Collections, vol. 24
Mattison, Ray H. 1954. Report on Historical Aspects of the Oahe Reservoir Area, Missouri River, South and North Dakota. South Dakota History Collections, vol. 27. Pierre
Mattison, Ray H. 1955. Report on Historic Sites in the Garrison Reservoir Area, Missouri River [North Dakota]. North Dakota History, vol. 22, nos. 1-2, pp 5-73. Bismarck.
Mattison, Ray H. 1962. Historic Aspects of the Big Bend Reservoir Area. South Dakota History Collections vol. 31, pp. 243-286, Pierre.
Roberts, Frank H. H. Jr. (ed.) 1960. River Basin Surveys Papers, numbers 15-20. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, United States Printing Office, Washington D.C..
Scott, Douglas D. 1998. Euro-American Archaeology. In W. Raymond Wood (ed) Archaeology on the Great Plains (481-519), University Press of Kansas.
Smith, G. Hubert 1968. Big Bend Historic Sites. Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys Publications in Salvage Archaeology No. 9, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Smith, G. Hubert 1972. Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold, Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota. National Park Service, Anthropological Papers 2, Washington D.C.
Snyder, Lynn M., Deborah Hull-Walski, Thomas D. Thiessen, and Myra J. Giesen 2000. Postwar Partners in Archeology: The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the River Basin Surveys in the Missouri River Basin (1945-1969). CRM 23(l):17-20.
Thiessen, Thomas D. 1999. Emergency Archeology in the Missouri River Basin: The Role of the Missouri Basin Project and the Midwest Archeological Center in the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program, 1946 – 1975, Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 2.
Thiessen, Thomas D. and Karin M. Roberts 2009. The River Basin Survey Collections: A Legacy for American Archeology. Plains Anthropologist Vol. 54, No. 210: 121-136.
Wedel, Waldo R. 1967. Salvage Archaeology in the Missouri River Basin. Science 156(3775): 589–597.