Rogers Archaeology Lab

SIMA Intern Guest Post: Explorations in Classical Plaster Casts at NMNH

This entry was written by guest blogger, Lauren K. DiSalvo. Lauren is a Ph.D. student in Roman Art History and Archaeology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and her research examines the world of Classical reception in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or the ways in which these cultures viewed, used, and were inspired by antiquity. She was a participant in the 2010 Summer Institute in Museum Anthropology (SIMA) offered through the National Museum of Natural History’s Anthropology Department. If you are interested in more information about SIMA, please visit http://www.anthropology.si.edu/summerinstitute/. Dates for the 2015 program are June 22 – July 17. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis, deadline March 1, 2015. 

By: Lauren K. DiSalvo, SIMA Intern 

Lauren DiSalvo excavating an inscription block in Sardis, Turkey.

  Attending the Smithsonian Institution Summer Institute in Museum Anthropology (SIMA) as a second-year Master’s student has been one of the best decisions I could have ever made. As a student studying Roman art and archaeology I was not expecting to find much of anything relating to my discipline as I initially explored applying to the program. However, as I looked through the National Museum of Natural History’s (NMNH) object database, I was surprised to see that they had a large collection of plaster casts taken from Greek, Roman, Assyrian, and Egyptian sculptures. This immediately caught my attention since my institution, the University of Missouri-Columbia, also has a large plaster cast collection. I was also curious as to why a museum of natural history would have this kind of collection, as plaster casts of these subjects are normally found only in university or museum settings associated with European art and archaeology.

  While familiar with the subjects of the plaster casts I was studying, their context at the world fair in the Department of Anthropology’s exhibit was uncharted territory for me. Puzzling through why these plaster casts, largely reflective of the European canon of fine arts, were displayed alongside “the entire range of arts and manufactures of the Native American peoples” (NAA. Letter: Holmes to F. W. True, December 16, 1902. Outgoing correspondence, BAE, 1902) was my new goal for my time spent researching at SIMA. 

  After I arrived in DC and began my research, I found out that the answer to my question was fairly straighforward. The collection of plaster casts I studied were acquired to exhibit at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago and the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis. Given my connection to Missouri, I decided to focus on the casts that were displayed at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

  Fig. 1: View of casts on exhibit at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Image source: SIA Image Negative #2002-10619. 

  I spent many hours in the Smithsonian Institution Archives poring over files from the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.  This was my first real exposure to archival research and I was struck by its similarity to archaeology.  Archival work was something that required meticulous attention to detail and patience but the pay off was big when the right document surfaced, much like excavation work. Personally, what I found most fascinating was reading through letters of correspondence regarding the exhibit.  One of my favorite discoveries was coming across a document about a plan to acquire a cast of the Column of Trajan that never was realized. A letter written by Samuel Langley, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, stated that he “want[ed] to have it in evidence that the Museum exists for art as well as for science, and such a thing as this column is a most suggestive reminder” (MSC. Accession record No. 42866). To find written documentation that the museum wanted to be recognized as an art institution was particularly exciting for me as I learned one of the reasons why the classical plaster casts were displayed in conjunction with North and Central American objects. The classical casts served to augment the status of the anthropological collections and place them within the realm of acceptable art. Adding to this idea of the promotion of art, was a letter I came across by the organizer of the exhibit explaining the purchase of an encaustic portrait from Egypt, the only non-plaster item displayed with the Greek, Roman, Assyrian, and Egyptian plaster casts, was because he “was very anxious to have a specimen of this lost art in the exhibition, as being something rare and unique and illustrating one important phase in the history of the arts” (SIA. RU 70, Box 61. Adler to Ravenel, Aug. 4, 1904).

Fig. 2: Encaustic portrait NMNH Catalogue no. 230149.

  I also had fun conducting detective work looking through the finances of the exhibit.  I had a set of small plaster casts of Arrentine ware (Roman bowls decorated with relief scenes) which seemed anomalous to me, in comparison with the much larger sculptures. While looking through receipts, I found one that recorded objects being sent back from St. Louis to D.C., that proved unsuitable for exhibit.  Based on the number of objects sent back, I was able to deduce that they were likely the Arrentine ware casts. It is little discoveries like this that make archival work so exciting and rewarding.

Fig. 3: Plaster cast of Arrentine ware.

  I was lucky enough to also be able to examine the plaster casts in person.  Thanks to Museum Support Center staff, the cumbersome statues were taken off their storage shelves for me to examine.  One of the great advantages of looking at plaster casts that are not currently on display is that I got to see them while they were taken apart. This allowed for me to understand their interior construction and how the casts were pieced together. I was able to examine the interior construction of the plaster cast of the statue of two goddesses from the east pediment of the Parthenon.

Fig 4. Plaster cast of two goddesses NMNH Catalogue no. 229764. 

  Recently, I got to see the interior of a different cast of the same subject of the goddesses from the University of Missouri’s collection while their cast collection was being moved to a new location. Unlike the metal interior supports of the Missouri goddesses, the goddesses from the NMNH were constructed using wooden interior supports. Despite that these two casts were roughly contemporary, their interiors reflect different practices in production. 

Fig 5. Wooden supports in the interior of one of the two plaster casts of goddesses seen above. NMNH Catalogue no. 229764. 

  One of my favorite anecdotes about my time working with in the Museum Support Center actually doesn’t involve the casts at all.  Walking through one of the pods on my way to the casts I passed by a shelf full of large animal skulls. I happened to catch a glimpse of a tag and upon closer examination discovered that it was a specimen collected by Teddy Roosevelt from his time hunting big game in Africa! In this moment I was reminded about what a great privilege it was to be working in such an institution where one could simply happen upon an artifact collected by a president of the United States. 

Figures 6 and 7: A specimen collected by Teddy Roosevelt from his time hunting big game in Africa, with label (click to enlarge).

  After the time I spent at SIMA, I returned to Missouri to write my Master’s thesis.  However, I simply could not get the plaster casts out of my mind.  I ended up changing my thesis topic so I could continue my investigation of plaster casts.  I expanded the topic to include the collection from the University of Missouri and a collection from Southeast Missouri State University that were both also associated with the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.  Not only did SIMA give me the foundational start from which to begin this thesis, but it also had exposed me to the methods of archival research making further archival research for my thesis a much smoother process.  Over the past several years, I presented the work I began at SIMA at several conferences, including one specifically on plaster casts at Cornell University and a graduate student seminar at the Art Institute of Chicago.  Most recently I reworked part of the material from my thesis into an article for the journal Material Culture Review.  All of these projects stemmed from my time at SIMA where I was given the opportunity to research the plaster casts in the National Museum of Natural History. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the program, I had many opportunities to interact with the field of anthropology.  I was introduced to many different research methodologies and subjects of study by Dr. Greene, Dr. Parezo, and the many guest speakers.

  My time at SIMA had an instrumental impact on my course of study. After writing my master’s thesis on the plaster casts, I continued research on plaster casts into my doctoral program, working on eighteenth-and nineteenth-century plaster casts of gems that were connected with the Grand Tour. This interest in plaster casts exposed me to the larger world of the ways in which classical antiquity was received in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They spurred not only an interest in the medium of plaster, but also the nature of antiquity-related collecting during this period.  It was my initial exposure to plaster casts through SIMA that introduced me to classical reception, which will become the subject of my dissertation as I investigate the collecting of antiquities by Greeks in early modern Greece.  If it were not for SIMA I would never have become acquainted with this topic of classical reception in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that I have come to be feel so passionately about. 

Resource Guide to River Basin Surveys (RBS) Publications on Historical Archaeology

The following is a resource guide for researchers about the River Basin Surveys. For stories about the River Basin Surveys, please read our other blog posts intended for the general public (see below). For additional resources, please visit our RBS page. 

Archaeologists are in your trash, digging up your stories 

History of Cattle Oiler and the River Basin Surveys

 Objects with Many Voices; People with Two Spirits

What is Historical Archaeology?

In the Kitchen with…Middle Missouri Indians

Sherds and Spreadsheets

 Introducing the Arikara and Mandan Ceramic Type Collection

By: Lotte Govaerts

Results from excavations conducted during the RBS were published by various mechanisms that changed over time. The first RBS archaeology reports were published in the Bureau of American Ethnology’s Bulletin in a series called “River Basin Surveys Papers”.  Bulletin number 176 (containing River Basin Surveys Papers 15 through 20) was devoted entirely to historic sites (Roberts 1960).  Paper number 15 is an overview of historic site archaeology in the Upper Missouri Basin (Mattes 1960), while paper 16 discusses the historical archaeology of the Fort Randall Reservoir. This last paper includes information about Fort Randall (39GR15), Whetstone Indian Agency and Army Post (39GR4), Lower Brule Indian Agency (39LM54), Fort Lower Brule (39LM53), Fort Lookout Military and Trading Post (39LM57)[there is some debate on whether 39LM57 actually is Fort Lookout, a topic I will discuss in a future blog post], Fort Hale (39LM52), and a single paragraph on the crew’s  search for the elusive Fort Recovery (Mills 1960). Papers 17 through 20 each deal with a single site: 39LM57, which Miller (1960) identified as Fort Lookout II, Fort Pierre II (39ST217) (Smith 1960a), Fort Stevenson (32ML1) (Smith 1960b), and Kipp’s Post (32MN1) (Woolworth and Wood 1960).

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. 

Some years later, additional work from the RBS was published in a separate series entitled “Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys Publications in Salvage Archaeology”. Volume 9 (Smith 1968) in that series was devoted to the historic sites in the Big Bend Reservoir area (see map pictured above). This volume describes the work at Fort George (39ST202),  Red Cloud Agency III (39LM247), a site called “Medicine Creek” (32ML241) which investigators had believed might be Fort Bouis until they excavated and found it was not; and site 39HU301, which they had erroneously believed to be a fur trade establishment known as Loisel’s Post.

In addition to work published in those two series, some of the investigating archaeologists published articles about their research in scholarly journals. G. Hubert Smith (1954a) published preliminary results from his work at Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold (the two incarnations of the fort – Fort Berthold I and II – were  adjacent to the village and all three share site number 32ML2) in an article in Plains Anthropologist. Carlyle Smith (1955) later published an article in that same journal about Firearms and related artifacts from the same site. Similarly, preliminary results from work at Fort Stevenson (39ML1) were published by G. Hubert Smith in North Dakota History (1954b). Carlyle Smith (1954) published an article on the cartridges and bullets from 39ML1 in Plains Anthropologist.

The delay between the completion of field work and the publication of results – a period during which artifacts are processed and research is conducted – varies in duration, depending on the size of the project, and the researchers’ other engagements. Considering the scope of the RBS, it isn’t surprising that not all excavations carried out by RBS crews had been reported on in one of the RBS publication series when the RBS transferred to the NPS in 1969. Some of the historic sites excavated during the RBS remained largely or even wholly unpublished.  With the exception of the publication of work done at 39ST217/Fort Pierre II (detailed above), the historic sites of the Oahe Reservoir were discussed only in a 1963 pamphlet about the history and archaeology of the region, which includes a brief chapter on historic sites (Caldwell and Smith 1963).  The whole pamphlet can be read online.

However, after the transfer to the NPS, RBS archaeologists continued publishing their earlier work via other mechanisms. Smith (1972) followed up his Plains Anthropologist article about 32ML2 (Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold) with a single volume published via the National Park Service.  His work at Fort Manuel in the Oahe Reservoir was published posthumously in South Dakota Archaeology (Smith and Ludwickson 1981).

Some of the sites investigated or briefly visited by River Basin Surveys crews were not inundated by reservoir waters, and were later revisited and reported on by other archaeologists. These later publications fall outside the scope of this dedicated bibliography as they are not River Basin Survey publications. They will be included in the bibliographies of specific sites, as I discuss them in future blog posts.

If I missed a relevant publication in this list, please let me know!

 

References Cited

Caldwell, Warren W. and G. Hubert Smith 1963. Oahe Reservoir: Archeology, Geology, History. Omaha, Corps of Engineers.

Mattes, Merrill J. 1960. Historic Sites Archeology on the Upper Missouri, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 15, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, United States Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Mills John E. 1960. Historic Sites Archeology in the Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota, River Basin Survey Papers, No. 16, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, United States Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Miller, Carl F. 1960. The Excavation and Investigation of Fort Lookout Trading Post II (Site 39LM57) in the Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota,  River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 17, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, United States Printing Office, Washington D.C.

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.

Smith Carlyle S. 1954. Cartridges and Bullets from Fort Stevenson, North Dakota, Plains Anthropologist 1, 25-29.

Smith, Carlyle S. 1955.  An Analysis of the Firearms and Related Specimens from Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold I, Plains Anthropologist, No. 4:3-12.

Smith G. Hubert 1954a. Archaeological Work at 32ML2 (Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold), Garrison Reservoir Area, North Dakota 1950-1954. Plains Anthropologist No. 2, 27-32. 1954

Smith, Hubert G. 1954b. Excavations at Fort Stevenson, 1951, North Dakota History vol. 21, no. 3, 127-135.

Smith G. Hubert 1960a. Fort Pierre II (39ST217), a Historic Trading Post in the Oahe Dam Area, South Dakota, River Basin Surveys Papers No. 18, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176.

Smith G. Hubert 1960b Archeological Investigations at the Site of Fort Stevenson (32ML1), Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota, River Basin Survey Papers, No. 19, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, 1960.   

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 No. 2.

Smith G. Hubert and Jon Ludwickson 1981. Fort Manuel: The Archeology of an Upper Missouri Trading Post of 1812-1813. South Dakota Archaeological Society, Special Publication No. 7. University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD.

Woolworth Alan R. and W. Raymond Wood 1960, The Archaeology of a Small Trading Post (Kipp's Post, 31MN1) in the Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota. River Basin Survey Papers, No. 20, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176, 1960.

 

 

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology

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 217^th 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 19^th 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 21^st 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 21^st 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.

Seal Skin Baby Pants and Ancient Diapers

    These “seal skin baby pants” were brought to my attention by Jenya Anichenko, who is a postdoctoral Fellow from the Anchorage Museum of Art in Dr. Fitzhugh’s office in the Arctic Studies Center at the National Museum of Natural History. She was working out at the Museum Support Center (MSC) near our usual spot in the collection storage pod, where we do all of our cataloguing on the River Basin Survey collections. Jenya was actually at MSC to study indigenous skin boats, and came across these baby pants instead, which were collected with other materials that were of interest to her research.

Jenya Anichenko examines the seal skin baby pants. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

    The seal skin baby pants were found in an archaeological context in Point Barrow, Alaska, by James A. Ford ca. 1936, according to the handwritten tag on the artifact. The culture is identified as Eskimo, and the locality information says it was found under the entrance to an underground house. The Eskimos identified here would be the ancestral group to the modern Inupiat people of Barrow. Within the National Museum of Natural History, the accession number of the baby pants is 242284, and the catalog number is A401629.

Rear view of the seal skin baby pants, Catalog number A401629, National Museum of Natural History. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

 

Left: Seal skin baby pants, front view. Right: Seal skin baby pants draw-string detail (click on photos to enlarge). Seal skin baby pants, A401629, National Museum of Natural History. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

A publication by Ford about his archaeological work in Alaska can be downloaded here. The baby pants are featured on page 219 in that book, figure 106b, b1. An excerpt reads: 

“Birnirk: … In this same locality a pair of child's pants was found (Fig. 106b, b'). These are for a waist about 64 cm. in circumference and are well made of sealskin, with the fur turned inside. The doubled, triangular portion of the garment which passes between the legs is made of brown sealskin; the leg openings are tastefully edged with light-colored skin strips. A de-haired and bleached sealskin strip sewed around the waist carries a braided sinew drawstring that ties in front.” (Ford 1959:220)

    These baby pants are unique, in that it is very rare to have the evidence in hand of infant care in ancient times (Bill Fitzhugh, Curator of Archaeology and Director, Arctic Studies Center identifies the Birnirk site as dating to ca. 800-1000 AD). The pants clearly demonstrate a large degree of care and love for the infant for whom they were made. It is made of several different kinds of fur, carefully stitched in multiple pieces, and held on with a draw-string cord.

Interior view of the multiple types of fur that were used in making this article of clothing. Seal skin baby pants, A401629, National Museum of Natural History. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin.

It is evident that they were made to fit well. However, these pants are not a diaper! I was disabused of this idea by our ethnology curator, Igor Krupnik. I went to his office to inquire about it, and he was able to pull a reference off of his shelf in under a minute and flip straight to the page on diapering practices among the Chukchee, who are a tribe in the same cultural area, on the Russian (Siberian) side of the Chukchi Sea. Ask a curator! What he showed me was that diapers would generally have been made from reindeer moss, hair and possibly wood shavings. The arrangement was so effective that “this diaper with moss has been adopted by all the tribes of north-eastern Siberia, including the Russians, because of its practical convenience” (Bogoras 1909:252).

Figure 184: Infant's Dress, in Bogoras 1909:252. "The sleeves and breeches have no openings at all, so that the child's feet and hands are kept warm inside. A square diaper (ma'ki) is sewed on at the back. It can be tucked between the child's legs, and its ends fastened in front by strings. With small infants this diaper is filled with reindeer-moss and hair, which absorbs the excreta and is changed several times a day" (Bogoras 1909:252). Dr. Krupnik clarifies that the area where the diaper is attached is open to the air so the baby basically remains dressed while the diaper is changed. 

    However, Bill Fitzhugh confirmed my suspicion that around the house, where very little clothing is worn due to the warmth, these pants might function somewhat similarly to the rubber pants we put over babies’ diapers, with the moss being packed inside, and changed. It’s easy to imagine an active baby or toddler quickly shedding the contraption seen in the image above when left to its own devices in the house. Not so if these little pants were on over it! “Small boys up to about three years of age, walking around with the strings of this diaper untied and dragging in the snow, is a familiar sight in Chukchee or Koryak camps.” (Bogoras 1909:252) Loin-breeches very similar to these so called baby pants, were worn by men and women within their homes.

Loin-breeches, Fig. 185 in Bogoras 1909:253. 

    For more information on James A. Ford, you can read the finding guide to his papers in the National Anthropological Archives of the Smithsonian, which is also located at the Museum Support Center. JSTOR also has an article on his life, published in American Antiquity.

    We hope this gives you an interesting glimpse into the kinds of things our collections can reveal! Let us know if you have questions.

By: Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist and Research Contractor 

References Cited

Bogoras, W. 1909 The Chukchee. American Museum of Natural History Volume XI. E.J. Brill Ltd., Leiden.

Ford, James A. 1959 Eskimo Prehistory in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. Anthropological Papers American Museum of Natural History Vol. 47, Part 1. New York.  

 

Archaeologists are in your trash, digging up your stories

In this post we will delve into the stories behind the objects found at the Cattle Oiler site (39ST224). Click on the embedded links for more blogs from us on the history of the site, as well as for research done by our interns, on gendered objects and ceramic-use analysis. For more on ceramics, see our post on the type collection of Arikara and Mandan pottery sherds from nearby River Basin Survey sites. Finally if you're interested in how we catalog these RBS sites here at the National Museum of Natural History, read more about it in Sherds and Spreadsheets. 

        Figuring out who people were or how they behaved in the distant past is a complicated undertaking, especially when there are no written historical accounts. This lack of information is one of the reasons archaeologists have continually refined their excavation processes so that not even one leaf or seed in the unwritten story will be overlooked. Archaeologists are archivers of dirt, trees, charcoal, seeds, trash, and broken treasures. Depending on the site and time period, their finds are often underwhelming to the untrained eye-- broken bits of pottery, plant resin, discarded pieces of flint that never quite became arrow points. However, even these mundane objects can take us deeper in the story of a prehistoric site. That plant resin might yield clues on trade connections, or give a date in time using scientific dating methods (See also: 1, 2,). Those broken bits of pottery might have residues that you can analyze to find out what the people who made them ate. Those badly worked, throw-away flint pieces might tell you about how children learned to practice the fine and necessary art of making tools (this study had the best title ever by the way-- "Early Child Caught Knapping: A novice early Mesolithic flintknapper in southwestern Norway"-- so punny).

Examples of unassuming, but information rich objects in the Cattle Oiler Site. From top left, clockwise: yellow paint label; view of yellow paint sample; burned pottery sherds; scapula hoes; chert nodule; and that's right, more sherds! (We have a lot of them...) Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin.

            The site that I am working to catalogue now is called Cattle Oiler (39ST224), and it is typical of many prehistoric sites, in that much of what you find does not appear to be very exciting at first glance. However, in addition to those helpful common items mentioned above, there are often a few special objects in the mix if you look closely. In their paper, “Select Exotic Artifacts from Cattle Oiler (39ST224): A Middle Missouri Tradition Site in Central South Dakota”, Ludwickson et al. demonstrate how you can use rare objects to trace trade and culture contact within a given area by tracking those items back to their source (1993). For example, if you find a marine shell in South Dakota, it is clear that it came there from far away.

Large Busycon columella pendant, Cat. No. 582875. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

The columella shells and other marine shell beads found at the site may indicate a long-range trade route with other groups closer to the ocean (Ludwickson 1993). In addition, several of the larger columella shell pendants have been reworked, which Ludwickson et al. contend shows evidence of “down-the-line trading… [with] multiple drill holes and grooves at both ends… suggest[ing] attempts to rejuvenate the pieces” (1993:160).

Busycon columella pendant with drill hole, Cat. No. 582875. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

In order to trade for these desirable items, people living at Cattle Oiler would have been able to offer back gypsum, as well as buffalo meat and hides (Ludwickson et al. 1993).

        Tracing the prevalence of exotic artifacts (items not available naturally in the local area), can provide valuable information about corridors of exchange, or the pathways that various groups took to trade, and how far that trading extended. The absence or scarcity of an item might hint at how near or far the site was from a major trade route (Ludwickson et al. 1993).

Examples of exotic artifacts at Cattle Oiler site (39ST224). From top, left to right: Catlinite cuboidal bead; perforated and incised shell (material is possibly local mussel, and therefore not exotic; but may be marine in origin), Cat. No. 583076; tubular shell beads, Cat. No. 582304; disk-shaped shell beads, Cat. No. 582969; a Catlinite tablet, Cat. No.582599.  Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

       One of the major problems with the Cattle Oiler site, as Ludwickson et al. (1993) acknowledge, is the poor nature of its documentation coupled with haphazard sampling, and the natural chance of what ended up buried in the first place. It is hard to draw conclusions about an unknown group of people purely based on the scattered remains of their material culture. One sample does not a trade relationship make! You can have oddball items at a site, and not necessarily conclude that the whole village traded significantly with another group. This is similar to you having a souvenir from a faraway place in your house—you may have only been to that place once in your life, or maybe someone you know brought it back for you. It does not prove you had much to do with that place or people throughout your life.

        However among the exotic artifacts at Cattle Oiler, there are several small stories that we can extract through the literature on the site (Ludwickson et al. 1993; Jones 1969), and consultation with experts here at the museum, notably Eric Hollinger and Bill Billeck, both of the Repatriation Office in the Department of Anthropology. Among the brown, black and white color palette of the rest of the artifacts from Cattle Oiler, the bright red of the Catlinite stone artifacts stands out. Catlinite, or red pipestone, only occurs in nature at its type provenience in Pipestone, Minnesota (Ludwickson et al. 1993). All Catlinite artifacts found at Cattle Oiler have been tested and verified to be true Catlinite (Ludwickson et al. 1993:161). This type of stone was only found in the Extended Middle Missouri (EMM) [For more on what EMM is, read this post] context at Cattle Oiler and one other site (Ludwickson et al. 1993:161). When examining the broken pipe fragment and the seemingly haphazard scratches on the Catlinite tablet/plaque, any evidence of a decorative motif is not readily apparent. It takes an expert eye with a good knowledge of the cosmology of the Middle Missouri Native American groups to be able to see what there is to find there. Eric Hollinger spent time looking at these two artifacts under magnification to examine them for designs. Read on to find out what he discovered!

Field Number, 2467, Catalog Number, 583506: Catlinite Tube Pipe

Catlinite Tube Pipe, Catalog No. 383506. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

        This pipe is a cloud-blower type pipe or tube pipe ["the rising smoke was intended to call rainclouds" (Source: NPS)].  At first glance it looks like it had been made from a larger broken pipe, but the piece has been drilled from both ends indicating it was originally a tube pipe form.  Catlinite tube pipes have also been found on the Oneota Wever Site in southeastern Iowa and on Mill Creek tradition sites in northwestern Iowa. 

        Not mentioned in the Plains Anthropologist article on the exotic artifacts from the Cattle Oiler site (Ludwickson et al. 1993) is the fact that the pipe is incised with designs that encircle the diameter of the pipe.  Near the lip of the pipe is an image of what appear to be two eyes from which lightning bolt motifs are emanating.  The bolt from one of the eyes continues to completely encircle the shaft of the pipe and ends when it joins with unidentified circular motif lower on the shaft.  The eyes with lightning bolts are commonly associated with thunderbird/thunderer iconography in the Plains and Great Lakes and thunderers are associated with war.

Detail view of  lightning bolts emanating from eye motif on Catlinite Tube Pipe, Catalog No. 383506. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

Detail view of obverse side motif on Catlinite Tube Pipe, Catalog No. 383506. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

Field Number: 865, Catalog Number: 582599, Catlinite Tablet

        This tablet is incised with a number of lines on both faces and they have been heavily chalked in the past, a practice which both damages and obscures incised lines. Chalking used to be a common practice of archaeologists to try to highlight lines on objects and on petroglyphs.  They literally rubbed chalk sticks across the object to imbed chalk into the incisions.  It actually scratched soft stone like catlinite and rolled down the edges, rubbing it smooth.  It is no longer considered good practice.

Catlinite Tablet, Catalog No. 582599. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

    Both faces are covered with straight line scratches.  Most of them appear to be the result of scraping or abrading the surfaces, but there are also a number of more uniformly placed straight lines which run the length of the faces.  One face has a series of concentric circles incised on it with no other recognizable motifs.  The other face has a series of oval concentric curved lines, one end of which is covered with a series of straight lines scratched over it.  A series of regularly spaced parallel lines cross cut the entire surface of the tablet.

Obverse view, Catlinite Tablet, Catalog No. 582599. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

        Although no clear motifs are recognized on this tablet, catlinite tablets found elsewhere typically depict images of bison, thunderbirds and other figures. See below for some images, and for more great examples, visit these sites: 1, 2, 3.

New Albin Tablet, from the collection of Effigy Mounds National Monument in Marquette, IA. Photo Source. See also this great article about the New Albin Tablet from the National Park Service: NPS.

A Catlinite Tablet, the Stiles Tablet. Source: Office of the State Archaeologist at the University of Iowa

Most such tablets have been found on Oneota sites dating from A.D. 1400-1700.  Dale Henning and Eric Hollinger believe these tablets may have served in medicine bundles as a medium on which images for sympathetic magic, hunting magic and war magic, where drawn.  Such tablets were likely used and reused over and over; the older images obliterated or drawn over and newer images incised for each ritual use.

--------

We hope that this post gives you a better look into the past at the Cattle Oiler site. Interpreting prehistoric sites is always difficult, but the objects that people have left behind do have stories to tell. Let us know if you have any questions, and we'll see you next time! 

 By: Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist Contractor; with object narratives by Eric Hollinger, Archaeologist and Repatriation Case Officer in the Department of Anthropology at NMNH.

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.

Internology: What Do Interns Do at NMNH?

    It’s been a busy year so far here at Rogers Archaeology Lab. We’ve welcomed several new interns since January, including Samantha Linford, whose blog post on Mongolian Pastoralists you may have read. While she was here she also co-wrote an article with Dr. Rogers titled Modeling the Sustainability of Wealth Among Pastoralists, which has been submitted for publication.  Samantha has recently graduated from University of California Santa Cruz, and is currently doing archaeological survey work in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. Samantha was a great help to have around the museum and we wish her well in her future endeavors!

Samantha Linford examining pottery sherds from the Island of Nevis that we were preparing for return after being on loan to the museum for research. Photo Credit: Meghan  Mulkerin

    Currently with us for Summer 2013, we have Nicole Coscolluela and Julia Grasso. Nicole recently graduated from Johns Hopkins University with a dual Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics and Archaeology. She is moving to Scotland in August to start her program towards a Master’s of Science degree in Human Osteoarchaeology at the University of Edinburgh. Julia is a current graduate student in Anthropology with a Museum Training concentration at The George Washington University.

From left: Julia Grasso, Madeline Shaffer, and Nicole Coscolluela. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin.

    Nicole and Julia have been busy working on the interpretation of the River Basin Survey site, Cattle Oiler (39ST224), that we have been cataloguing for the past several months. Nicole is deciphering the gendered use of quill flatteners at Cattle Oiler, while Julia has been focusing on foodways by collecting data on ceramic types found at the site. In order to do this, she had to learn how to predict the measurements of a pot’s rim diameter from a small piece of its broken rim, which is usually what we find in archaeological sites. By taking these measurements, we can discover all the different sizes of vessels in use at the site—a kind of prehistoric Native American Julia Child’s kitchen, if you will! 

Dan teaching Julia and Maddy how to measure rim sherd diameters. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin.

    Both interns have been assisting Dr. Rogers and I with the interpretation of the context of the objects found at the site using the original site reports made by the excavators; archival resources, such as photographs of the dig in process; and other literature on the River Basin Survey. We have also reached out to our colleagues Eric Hollinger and Bill Billeck, who have expertise in Plains archaeology, to find out more about the uses of certain objects, such as the Catlinite tablet found at Cattle Oiler (39ST224) and the bone ice gliders from H.P. Thomas (39ST12). We look forward to sharing more about this research with you soon.

    Our former Federal Work Study student, Madeline Shaffer has also recently joined our team to assist with background research on the NSF Mason-Smithsonian Joint Project on Climate and Societal Modeling. She has been researching relationships between social systems and climate change, focusing on global-scale social trends. These trends include population growth, human migration responses, mortality rates, risk of conflict, and economic response in relation to current and future climate change. Madeline has also been studying the cultural geography of Sub-Saharan Africa, in order to develop a summary of multiple aspects of social systems within the region that may be applied to currently developing CDI models.

    It hasn’t been all work here, though! We had a lot of fun at the Annual Staff Picnic at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival a couple weeks ago. We enjoyed the wide variety of food choices and music, and made sure to browse through all the great items for sale in the marketplace. Our favorite part of the festival may have been this awesome Puli Dog Sculpture, by Hungarian artist, Gábor Miklós Szőke.  

  Puli Dog Sculpture with (from left) Julia Grasso, Meghan Mulkerin, Nicole Coscolluela, Madeline Shaffer. 

    We also attended the Department of Mineral Sciences Laboratories Open House in late June. The interns and museum staff were invited to come and learn how diamonds are used in their High Pressure Lab; how microbes eat and transform rocks and minerals in their Geomicrobiology lab; and more! We cringed with Elizabeth Cottrell and Brent Grocholski, as they described what it sounds like when a diamond shatters, as sometimes happens during their experiments to understand how minerals behave at deep pressures in the earth. For the curious, it sounds like popping bubble wrap! Using the culets (or points) of diamonds, they crush tiny amounts of a mineral between the two diamonds, capitalizing on the diamond’s amazing strength, and measure the resulting changes in the mineral’s state. They can even look through the flawless top facet of the diamonds to watch what is happening! 

Left: Elizabeth Cottrell shows us the hand crank that is used to add pressure to the contents of the small device pictured, which contains the diamonds, while Brent Grocholski watches. Right: Diagram of how the diamonds come together inside the device.

We especially enjoyed the inter-relatedness of the Geomicrobiology lab’s research to our research on climate and environmental change. Dominique Chaput explained to us how she is working to develop techniques to strip manganese out of ground water that has been polluted through coal mining (one of the many sources of anthropogenic climate change). We also enjoyed their taste in décor…

“We put the fun in Fungi” sign in the Department of Mineral Sciences Geomicrobiology lab. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

  Algae and fungi growing in the Geomicrobiology lab. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin

    This tour acquainted staff outside of the Mineral Sciences Department with the types of analytical tools that are available to them through cross-departmental collaboration. Some of these tools include an electron probe microanalyzer (pinpoint analysis of materials); an analytical NanoSEM with EDS and CL (high resolution imaging and analysis of just about anything!); a Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer (solar wind samples and blood in an ancient mosquito in the same lab!); an X-ray Diffractometer (mineral “fingerprinting”); a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (measure water and carbon dioxide in rocks!); and a Luminoscope (spectacular imaging of minerals like you have never seen before). We learned a lot, and thank our colleagues for their great open house! This is just another example of the kinds of fascinating things interns are exposed to at the National Museum of Natural History. To learn more about internships at Natural History, please visit the Intern and Fellows website of NMNH, or the listing of all internships at the Smithsonian. 

Until next time! 

-Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist Contractor

Sherds and Spreadsheets

We have all been hard at work inventorying the H.P. Thomas site at the Museum Support Center (MSC) this month. MSC is where most of our collections are stored off-site. The main museum on the mall outgrew our collections many years ago, and now the millions of objects out at MSC in Suitland, Maryland, are stored in modern, climate controlled storage spaces.

Museum Support Center, Photo Credit Chip Clark, Smithsonian Institution

One of the problems with the H.P. Thomas site is figuring out which objects we have, and which objects are no longer in the collection. Some of the items that are no longer present in the collection were transferred to other institutions or colleges associated with the River Basin Survey for analysis, well before the collection arrived at the Smithsonian in the 1980’s. The HP Thomas Site (39ST12) is a Native American site that was excavated by Richard P. Wheeler as a part of the River Basin Survey during the late 1950’s. The site is located in Stanley County, South Dakota, near the Lake Oahe region, and its artifacts date from ca. 950 to 1850 A.D., which includes the Initial Middle Missouri, Extended Coalescent, and Post-Contact Coalescent time periods. For more on the River Basin Survey, see the NAA Finding Guide, and this article. 

RBS Archaeologists working at a similar site in Stanley County, South Dakota, Fort George 39ST202. Photo Courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives.

The items in the collection were all originally cataloged on paper during the excavation, but have not yet been input into an electronic database, like our database KE EMu. While the collections are easily accessible physically, and well-stored in mostly number order in the cabinets, going from paper to digital records is an important part of accessibility. Once all of these items are cataloged in EMu, people all around the world will be able to see the records on our website, without having to request copies of archival documents or make the trip here to see the collection to find out what it contains.

To start this project, we entered all of the items from the original specimen catalogs into an excel spreadsheet that is specially formatted to allow direct uploading into the database. Once that was completed, the spreadsheet was error checked several times, and discrepancies and questionable entries were flagged for further investigation at MSC. 

A photocopy of the original Specimen Catalog (left), to compare with the Excel checklist (right). Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

  Once we got to MSC, Jim Krakker, Museum Specialist for the archaeology portions of the collection, led us to the pod where the collections from South Dakota were stored. The HP Thomas collection takes up a total of four ½ units there, with some 10-20 drawers per ½ unit. The largest part of the collection is made up of pottery sherds (yes, you read that correctly: sherds, not shards. Sherd refers to broken ceramics in archaeology, while shard is more often applied to broken glass). There are also many stone and bone tools, such as mauls, metates, arrow points, scrapers, and scapular hoes, as well as bone awls and weaving tools, shell, and horn objects. Post-contact objects (artifacts of European origin from 1650 A.D. onward) are also represented, such as steel knives, glass trader beads, glass bottles, gun flints, and metal buttons. The archaeologists also took several samples of wood from around the side, to use for dendrochronology or radiocarbon dating. 

Objects from HP Thomas out for inventory. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

 Together with Jennifer, Maddy, and Kathryn, I went through the drawers, matching object names and field numbers from the specimen catalog, with the objects in each drawer. Sometimes we found things we were not expecting, and had to alter the spreadsheet; other times an item seemed to be missing, and it took several pairs of eyes to locate it; while other times certain objects were just not there. Making notes along the way, we went over each drawer several times to make sure that each item present will be assigned a catalog number in the database. Sometimes we found missing sherds that were not missing at all, but simply in another cabinet, as a rebuilt pot combining several pieces!

Madeline Shaffer examining HP Thomas objects for field numbers. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin
 

Having several people available to help while doing this is great, and is just a good motivator for this kind of work, which can be tedious and time-consuming. The HP Thomas site alone consisted of over 2,000 individual artifacts. One person can call off numbers from the objects in the drawers (we traded off on this fun task), while another person finds that item on the worksheet and checks it off. When you get a bit farther along, you can pass part of those notes on to someone, like Kathryn, who can make the changes to the excel file in the computer. Alternatively, people can work from either end of the collection and meet in the middle. We used all of these tactics to get the job done, and it worked very well. It is a great feeling that these items will be fully catalogued and more accessible in the future, and we look forward to imaging portions of the collection so that more photos will also become available online.

From Left: Kathryn Leonard and Jennifer Pietarila. Photo Credit: Meghan Mulkerin 

 

We still have a ways to go on this project, but we will keep you updated with images of interesting objects in the meantime. Follow us on twitter @archaeologylab and check out our “Objects of the Day (OOTD)” posts for great pictures!

~Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist Contractor