Rogers Archaeology Lab

Cataloging the Medicine Crow Site (39BF2)

By Lotte Govaerts

 

I recently returned to the lab, after having spent most of my summer in Belgium. I have settled back in, and picked up where I left off back in June. Among other things, I have resumed work on the cataloging project I begun in late 2017.

You might recall we very excitedly announced completion of the Larson cataloging project (39WW2), last summer. By finishing work on Larson, we completed a multi-year cataloging project that also included collections from three other sites. At the time we believed that these were the last uncataloged River Basin Surveys collections from the northern Great Plains. We soon discovered that that wasn’t entirely true when collections staff alerted us to the presence of the partially cataloged Medicine Crow (39BF2) collection. Molly Coxson, a museum specialist, worked on this project some years ago, near the end of her time here at the National Museum of Natural History. She made great progress, but after her departure the project remained in stasis until we picked it up again late last year.

Based on reader comments, we have removed this image. The removed image included an outline of the state of South Dakota, the Missouri River and some of its larger tributaries (prior to the construction of several large dams), as well as a dot showing the approximate location of the site under discussion.

 

Medicine Crow (39BF2) is a complex, multi-component site in Buffalo County, South Dakota. It includes Plains Village as well as Archaic components. The Plains Village components have been assigned to the Talking Crow Phase of the Post-Contact Coalescent Variant of the Coalescent Tradition (Lehmer 1971, p. 201-202). Lehmer dates the Talking Crow Phase to A.D. 1700-1750. In a later analysis of Arikara ceramics, James Deetz identified three Plains Village Tradition components at Medicine Crow, dating 1690-1720, 1720-1750, and 1750-1780 (1965, p. 39). Archaic occupations at Medicine Crow date to the Early Archaic (7000-8000 BP), Middle Archaic (5000-7000 BP), and Late Archaic (3000-5000 BP) (Ahler and Toom 1989). The site was investigated by River Basin Survey crews over the course of three field seasons between 1956 and 1958. Harold Huscher, William Irving, and James Deetz each directed the project for a season.

A photo of field work being conducted at Medicine Crow in 1958. The picture shows the west end of XU3 with some artifacts left in place. Northwest view. SIRBS photo no. 39BF2-234.

 

The Medicine Crow collection contains the same types of artifacts as Larson and the other sites we previously reported on here on the blog (here, here, here, and here). The cataloging process is also much the same as previously described. One major difference is that the objects in this collection had already been assigned SI numbers when the previous crew worked on this project, and that some objects had already been given labels, and had their data entered into the Smithsonian cataloging system. Additionally, all of the material had already been transferred to updated housing. My first steps were to match the rest of the objects with the correct numbers, create a large spreadsheet with all data pertaining to each artifact number, and print artifact labels. After matching each object or lot of objects with its artifact label, I moved on to the process of physically numbering objects. Numbering is always a slow process, and I’m currently working on this project by myself on one, or at most two days a week as I combine cataloging with my other duties. This means that this stage of work will be ongoing for some time, but I will post relevant updates to our blog as the work progresses.

 

A lot of as-of-yet unnumbered debitage from 39BF2, containing flakes of various sizes and materials. Some of the materials bears old field numbers, or numbers applied during analysis, but not SI catalog numbers. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

Another lot of unnumbered flakes from 39BF2. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

 

I have been moving through drawers in numerical order, and I’m currently working on a set of drawers that contain lithic material from an Archaic site component. What is interesting about these drawers is that they contain a large amount of lithic debitage (debris generated during the making of stone tools), which we did not see in the other collections we cataloged. There were some lots of “stone samples” in the Larson collection, but for the most part the previously cataloged collections contained fully or partially finished tools, not the debitage generated in the making of the tools. Soil was screened during the excavation of these areas of 39BF2, which means that there are some rather small flakes in these lot numbers. This calls for some very small handwriting, and is making the numbering process take a bit more time than it does for drawers with larger objects. On the plus side, the smooth writing surface on most of these flakes makes the numbering pens last much longer than they do when there’s large lots of potsherds to be numbered!

Some examples of newly-numbered lithic material. Flakes are from larger lots, shown separately to illustrate size differences and allow for close up. Photos Lotte Govaerts.

Some flakes remain in their box during numbering, because they are too small to write on. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

 

I look forward to sharing more updates about the Medicine Crow cataloging project in the future, so stay tuned!

 

---

References Cited:

Ahler, Stanley A., and Dennis L. Toom (eds.). 1989. “Archeology of the Medicine Crow Site Complex (39BF2), Buffalo County, South Dakota.” A report prepared in partial fulfillment of Contract No. CX 1200-6-3547 (originally Contract No. CX 1595-6-0010) by Illinois State Museum Society for the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. National Park Service. Denver, CO: Branch of Interagency Archeological Services, U.S. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office.

Deetz, James. 1965. The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Press.

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

 

 

 

The Great Plains

(Part of a continuing series of travel commentaries)

By J. Daniel Rogers

 

The Great Plains brings all landscapes down to their essence—earth and sky. No hills, no trees. It is not boring, or blank or incomplete, the prairie is the foundation, the prototype. For me, it is the place to start.

The essence of the Plains. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

 

All simple and true things are oversimplifications. The Great Plains is not only flat land and ever-changing sky. There are rivers--sometimes very large rivers--and hills and valleys. Stands of trees and forest follow along the river and stream courses. The land is never really flat and sometimes mountains crop up (the Black Hills) while bare mesas define some regions. Today, wherever it is feasible agriculture defines the landscape of the Plains. In some areas new oilfields have popped up.

To the east grasslands give way to ever thicker forest. The Rocky Mountains rise up at the western edge of the plains. The landscape transition to the mountains is something of a shock. Almost no foothills, prairie becomes mountain with little warning. On a recent trip to the Great Plains I marveled at the first sight of the mountains. My traveling partner, Garry Rogers, a landscape ecologist specializing in arid lands, said, “look at the snow!” I couldn’t believe it. “Snow?” As we drove west across the sweltering plains on June 6 I just didn’t think it could be snow. Viewed from 50 miles away, I thought it must be haze or fog on the mountains. Garry was right and I was wrong, it was snow and lots of it. I have lived on the Southern Plains and traversed the Northern Plains, I have hiked prairies and mountains around the world, but mountains still surprise me.

A couple hundred years ago Lewis and Clark led their expedition up the Missouri River. On May 26, 1805 they saw the mountains for the first time. This is what Lewis wrote:

 

In the after part of the day I also walked out and ascended the river hills which I found sufficiently fortiegueing. on arriving to the summit one of the highest points in the neighbourhood I thought myself well repaid for any labour; as from this point I beheld the Rocky Mountains for the first time these points of the Rocky Mountains were covered with snow and the sun shone on it in such manner as to give me the most plain and satisfactory view. while I viewed these mountains I felt a secret plaesure in finding myself so near the head of the heretofore conceived boundless Missouri; but when I reflected on the difficulties which this snowy barrier would most probably throw in my way to the Pacific, and the sufferings and hardships of myself and party in them, it in some measure counterbalanced the joy I felt in the 1st moments in which I gazed on them; but as I have always held it a crime to anticipate evils I will believe it a good comfortable road untill I am compelled to believe differently. [Moulton 1983, Volume 4]

 

 A first glimpse of the Rocky Mountains. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

I suspect that Lewis knew at that moment the dream of a water route to the Pacific was not even a remote possibility.  He must have known it before then.  He and Jefferson were aware of the Rocky Mountains and that the expedition would need to travel from the Missouri River across the mountains and to the Columbia River.  After all, how can you travel up a river and expect it to connect to an ocean (the Pacific)?  Rivers begin in a series of smaller and smaller streams, or sometimes emerge from a lake.  Perhaps there will be a westward flowing river system nearby, but access would certainly require portages and the eventual construction of a canal.  Two hundred years later it is easy to wonder what President Jefferson, Captain Lewis, and many others were thinking.

Of course, the contrast of prairie and mountain was nothing new to the Native tribes of the region.  The Blackfeet, the Assiniboine, the Crow, the Sioux, and others and many generations of their ancestors often traveled from grassland to forest, from plains to mountains.  And, indeed Native guides led the Lewis and Clark expedition from the Missouri River drainage to the Columbia River drainage and eventually to the Pacific.  The first view of the mountains that shocked Lewis was routine to others, including even a few European trappers who had traveled up the Missouri over the previous 30 years.  I have only twice seen that view, traveling from the east to the west.

On June 1st Garry and I met in St. Louis and began our drive along the Missouri River towards those mountains.  Everywhere we went we were reminded of the Lewis and Clark expedition, such as the L & C Ford/Lincoln dealership in Yankton, South Dakota or the L & C Cafe in Washburn, North Dakota, plus lots of monuments and points of interest.  In Nebraska City, Nebraska we stopped at the Lewis and Clark Visitor Center, a fine museum and activity center dedicated to the Corps of Discovery.  An exhibit about the flora and fauna along the river was especially interesting.  We both enjoyed the replica of the Lewis and Clark keel boat in front of the visitor’s center.  The original was designed by President Jefferson and Captain Lewis.  Presidents these days don’t set down and help design expedition equipment.  Mr. Jefferson was a scholar and intensely interested in the history, geology, flora, and fauna of unknown regions—not to mention making the U.S. a global power.  He did a lot more for the expedition than design equipment, he also intensely instructed Lewis on making scientific field observations.

Garry Rogers and the keel boat. This replica of the Lewis and Clark keel boat was made for an early 2000s documentary. The original has not survived. The expedition keel boat has its own commemorative history, having been featured on the US nickel during the early 2000s. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

At the Lewis and Clark Visitor Center I picked out a couple postcards in the gift shop to send home.  I asked about stamps at the counter.  The staff person said, “Oh, I’m going by the post office later.  I’ll get stamps for you and mail the cards.  No charge.”  Welcome to the Great Plains!  Everywhere we went we met helpful and kind people curious about why we were visiting their town.

Paying attention to the Lewis and Clark expedition is a good way to reflect on what has changed and what has remained the same over the last 200 years.  For me the point of the trip was to visit some key places on the Great Plains and develop a sense of place.  Mountains are interesting, but prairie comes first for me.  After driving for a couple weeks about all I learned for sure is that I must come back.

____________

[A few months ago Lotte Govaerts wrote in this column about her travels in North Dakota to Fort Union and other important places.   In subsequent posts I will follow-up with my perspective on some of the same places.]

 

References/Further reading

Lewis and Clark Visitor Center

Gary E. Moulton, ed. 1983.  The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition., Volume 1, Atlas, and Volume 4, April 8 - July 27, 1805.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Christian, Shirley.  2009.   Before Lewis and Clark: The Story of the Chouteaus, the French Dynasty That Ruled America’s Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ronda, James P.  1984.  Lewis and Clark Among the Indians.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Travels in North Dakota, Part V: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This is the fifth and last post about my recent trip to North Dakota. Previous posts in this series are here, here, here, and here. In this post, I describe our last stop in North Dakota: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site (NPS). The park is located ca. 25 miles southwest of Williston, ND, near the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, on the North Dakota/Montana state line.

 

History of the fort:

Fort Union was the longest-lived of the Upper Missouri trade posts. Established in 1828 by the American Fur Company’s new “Upper Missouri Outfit” (UMO), it operated continuously through 1867. As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, John Jacob Astor sold the American Fur Company in 1834. The UMO was purchased by Pratte, Chouteau, and Company (later Pierre Chouteau Jr. and Company). Fort Union was built mainly for trade with the Assinboine, but many other Northern Plains tribes (Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) were also frequent trading partners at Fort Union over the years. The bison robe trade waned in the 1860s, and the company’s business turned mostly to hauling freight on their steamships and distributing annuities to the tribes. Military troops were stationed at the fort in its last few years. In 1865 the Chouteau company sold to the Northwest Fur Company, who in turn sold to the military in 1867. The military then dismantled the fort and used its materials at nearby Fort Buford.

Karl Bodmer: Fort Union on the Missouri. Aquatint from the book "Maximilian, Prince of Wied’s Travels in the Interior of North America, during the years 1832–1834" by Prince Maximilian of Wied (Publisher: Ackermann & Co., 1839). This image shows Fort Union during its earlier years. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons.

 

Because of its size, long life, and importance as UMO flagship post, Fort Union is the best documented of the Upper Missouri fur trade posts. Many records survive alongside writings and depictions by fort employees and famous visitors.

 

Painting of Fort Union by J.B. Moncravie [also spelled “Moncrevie” and “Moncrévier”]. J.B. Moncravie was an employee of the UMO who also had some artistic talent (see Hanson 1972 for more detail on what is known about J.B. Moncravie). He painted a treaty scene over one of the gates to the fort in the 1840s.That painting can be seen (with some effort) in the center of this image. Image Source: Original from the IX De Smetiana Collection, Midwest Jesuit Archives, St. Louis, Missouri. Reproduced here as a photo of the cover of Barbour 2001.

"Fort Union & distribution of Goods to the Assiniboins" watercolor with graphite underdrawing by John Mix Stanley, 1854. 

 

Historic Site Designation and Fort Reconstruction:

After the military dismantled the fort, the site lay abandoned for quite some time. Local interest in the history of the fort, however, led to its recognition as a landmark and the eventual reconstruction of the replica post. In 1961, Fort Union became North Dakota’s first National Historical Landmark. Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site was created in 1966. Archaeological field work took place at the site in 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1972. In 1985 a bill was passed in Congress funding a reconstruction of Fort Union. Prior to construction, more archaeological excavations took place, led by William Hunt between 1986 and 1988. Results of these excavations were used in the planning of the reconstruction. In the various 19^th century depictions of Fort Union included on this page, it can be clearly seen that many changes were made to the fort during its several decades of existence. As you can see in my photos below, the reconstructed Fort Union was built to look like the original fort did in its later years. Much more detail on the efforts preceding the establishment of Fort Union National Historic Site and the fort’s reconstruction can be found on the NPS’ page “Fort Union at Fifty, 1966-2016: An Online Exhibit.”

 

An 1865 drawing of Fort Union by Benjamin Franklin Griffin, a soldier stationed at Fort Union. Image Source: National Park Service, FOUS 568.

 

Our visit to the site:

Mat and I visited Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site after the blizzard we’d been traveling through had finally ended, though some fresh snow had fallen overnight which was still being cleared as we arrived. We visited the exhibit in the visitor center (located inside the Bourgeois House), and toured the grounds. We also chatted with the ranger on duty, Loren Yellow Bird. He provided us with much information about the site and the area. Below are some photos from our visit.

 

One of the bastions at reconstructed Fort Union. Note the bison weathervane. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

The front entrance to the reconstructed Fort Union. Above the gate is a painting that can be seen in some depictions of the original Fort Union. The original was by J.B. Moncravie, who also did one of the paintings included above. On the right side of the photo is a wooden fur press. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

Mat takes pictures of the reconstructed Bourgeois House, which houses the visitor center. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

One of the exhibit cases inside the visitor center at Fort Union. Many of these cases include artifacts recovered during the archaeological excavations at the site, alongside snippets of text from journals of employees and visitors to the fort. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

Mat was thrilled to find this hands-on part of the exhibit, including examples of different furs/hides that were traded at Fort Union. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

One of several sample bead sheets included in the exhibit inside Fort Union's visitor center (non-archaeological). These were distributed to traders by bead manufacturers. Many such beads were recovered during excavations at Fort Union. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

We hope you enjoyed traveling through North Dakota with us! Stay tuned for new posts on different topics, or check out our blog index to see all our older posts.

 

 

References/Further reading:

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

Midwest Archaeological Center Featured Projects: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

Barbour, Barton H. 2001. Fort Union and the Upper Missouri Fur Trade. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hanson, Charles E. Jr. 1972. “J.B. Moncravie.” In Fur Traders, Trappers, and Mountain Men of the Upper Missouri, edited by LeRoy R. Hafen, 73–82. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Kurz, Rudolf Friedrich, and J. N. B Hewitt. 2005. On the Upper Missouri the Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852. Edited by Carla Kelly. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Larpenteur, Charles. 1933. Forty Years a Fur Trader on the Upper Missouri: The Personal Narrative of Charles Larpenteur, 1833-1872. Chicago: Lakeside Press.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. 1906. “Travels in the Interior of North America, 1832-1834 by Alexander Philip Maximilian, Prince of Wied-Neuwied.” In Early Western Travels, 1748-1846. Vol. 22, 23, 24. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark.

 

Travels in North Dakota, Part IV: Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is part of a series on a recent trip to North Dakota. You can find previous installments here, here, and here.

 

Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site includes 1758 acres of National Park, just north of Stanton, North Dakota. Inside the park boundaries are over 50 archaeological sites, estimated to span a period of about 8000 years. The main points of interest are the remains of the large villages that gave the park its name.

 

A Map of Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. Source: National Park Service.

 

Here is a Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site introductory video by the National Park Service:

 

Awatixa X’ie or “Lower Hidatsa” village was established by the Awatixa Hidatsa subgroup around 1525 , and was occupied until 1780-85. The village covered 10 acres and there were at least 50 earth lodges. Approximately 500 to 600 people lived here until the village was abandoned after the smallpox epidemic that struck the area in the early 1780s. The survivors temporarily moved away before returning to the area to establish Awatixa Village, which was occupied ca. 1790-1834. This village included approximately 60 lodges, though the population fluctuated over time. It was burned in a raid in 1834. Awatixa Village is also sometimes referred to as Sakakawea Village, because this is the village where Sakakawea lived before she joined the Lewis and Clark expedition. The site has partly eroded into the river. Hidatsa Village, or Big Hidatsa was founded by the Hidatsa-proper Hidatsa subgroup around 1600. This village covered approximately 15.5 acres, and included some 100 earth lodges. Population estimates for this village range between 830 and 1200. It was abandoned in 1845.

 

The entrance to the visitor center at Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, in summertime. Mat and I were far too cold to take a picture of the exterior of the building when we visited during a blizzard. Photo: National Park Service.

 

When Mat and I visited Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, it was still extremely cold and windy, so we did not walk any of the trails or see any of the village sites. Fortunately, there is a lot to see indoors at the visitor center, as well. The exhibits inside include artifacts recovered from the village sites, alongside decorative arts made by Northern Plains Indians and replicas of tools and other objects. Below are just a few examples.

 

 

An exhibit case showing tools made out of animal bone. Our archaeological collections here at NMNH include many of these bones without the wooden handles, as you may have seen in previous blog posts. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

 

An exhibit case showing some local artifacts, including Knife River flint, glass beads, and metal tinklers. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

An exhibit case showing porcupine quill decorations alongside glass bead decorations. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

Another exhibit case showing quill- and bead work. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

A "bull boat" replica. These were made out of willow frames, covered with bison skin. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

The ranger on duty also took us inside the earth lodge replica just outside the visitor center. The earth lodge is furnished, though wintertime displays are a bit more sparse than those you can see there during summer.

 

 

A photo of the outside of the earth lodge at Knife River Indian Villages, during nicer weather. Photo: National Park Service.

 

Inside the earth lodge. Mat listens to the ranger telling us many things about the park, the region, and their history. As you can see, there was no fire going, but we were sheltered from the wind inside, so we were able to stay out there for quite a while without freezing. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

A diagram of the inside of an earthlodge. Source: National Park Service.

 

 

That concludes this post about our visit to Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. Stay tuned for the next (and last) installment in this series, in which I will discuss my visit to Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site.

 

Further Reading:

Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site

Ahler, Stanley A., and Marvin Kay, eds. 2007. Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Ahler, Stanley A., Thomas D Thiessen, and Michael K Trimble. 1991. People of the Willows: The Prehistory and Early History of the Hidatsa Indians. Grand Forks, North Dakota: University of North Dakota Press.

 

 

 

How Everyday Objects Can Tell Us about the Past: Twentieth Century Examples From Our Collections Work

By Lotte Govaerts

 

Many collections associated with the River Basin Surveys (RBS) are curated by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and stored at the Museum Support Center. All objects in the RBS collections were fully cataloged by RBS crews during the original project (1946-1969), but when they were transferred to Smithsonian storage, they needed to be introduced into the Smithsonian’s own cataloging system. Each object (or lot of objects, like a group of potsherds that belongs together) gets a unique number in a sequential series that goes back all the way to the beginnings of the Smithsonian’s collections. During cataloging, collections are also updated into housing that meets present-day curation standards. Because so many large RBS collections were transferred to Smithsonian storage over the years, the process of cataloging them has been a long-term project.

As you can see in some of our previous blog updates, in the past few years contractors, interns, and volunteers from the Rogers Archaeology Lab have been working to catalog and update the housing of the few remaining RBS collections that had not yet been entered into the Smithsonian’s cataloging system. Much of the material was still housed in the paper bags it was originally stored in. Some items had already received housing updates due to specific curation needs or researchers working with these collections. However, most of the material in these collections needed new housing.

Figure 1: Some potsherds from 39WW2 were re-housed in 1988 because their original paper bags had torn. Unfortunately, some sherds from the torn bags had become separated from their original grouping and thus from their exact provenience information.

 

Because these collections were originally processed in the mid-twentieth century, some of the containers in which they were stored are now old enough to be considered artifacts in their own right. In cultural resource management, we often use 50 years as the cutoff time that determines whether or not an object is considered an “artifact”. This is more of a general guideline than a hard and fast rule, as there are myriad exceptions. Moreover, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, archaeological methods can be and are used to study the very recent past.

In this blog post I examine some of the containers we encountered in RBS collections as artifacts. This exercise demonstrates how archaeology can be used to extract information from the most mundane of objects. All human-made objects can tell us something about the culture that produced them. Exactly how much one can learn depends on what other information is available to the researcher. An artifact without any context often tells us very little, but an artifact from a known context, combined with other artifactual, historical, or other information, can potentially tell us a great deal.

I write this post from the perspective of an early 21st century observer, using the sources available to me. Things that are obvious to an early 21st century observer (plenty of whom can still remember the 1960s) would not be so obvious to a human observer from the very distant future, who knew little about 20th century human cultures. What they could learn would depend entirely on what other information they had access to. Most of the time in archaeology we study artifacts from periods much more distant to us than the 1960s, and the more distant, the fewer other sources are available to us. However, the general principle is still the same.

So, let’s examine some examples of what these artifacts can tell us about the United States in the mid-twentieth century.

Figure 2: Late 1940s shoebox used for artifact storage.

 

We found this shoebox housing reconstructed pots in the Sommers collection (39ST59). These pots were in a specific grouping within that collection, consisting of materials collected during a Works Project Administration project that predated the River Basin Surveys work at this site. This tells us that the box most likely dates to the late 1940s. Without that context/knowledge, we’d have to look elsewhere for a date. Even when we do have that context, it is good practice to confirm such hypotheses with additional information.

Accessing trademark databases, we learn that the trademark on the shoebox was first filed for June 4, 1947, and first registered in October of 1948. First use of the trademark is listed as 1924. The trademark was extended for 20 years, twice, but is currently expired. Based on just the trademark, the box must date to somewhere between 1924 and 1988. The trademark listing also describes the product as “leather men’s work shoes with leather or rubber soles.”

Figure 3: Image from the trademark register

 

Here is an ad for these shoes from the Eugene Register, dated July 29, 1948, which fits with our original date estimate:

Figure 4: Online scan of newspaper via Google News.

 

Examination of the box and label can provide information on mid-twentieth century manufacturing techniques, materials, ink, etc. It can also tell us something about color and style preferences. As I said, there’s only so much one can deduce from a single artifact, but if the researcher had multiple shoeboxes from this and/or other periods to compare to, or maybe photographs or other materials, they might get a pretty good idea about how any and all of those aspects change over time.

Reading the text on the box, we observe that in late 1940s America, fashion was gendered, as was advertising: There was such a thing as “men’s shoes”, rather than just “shoes” and the wording on the advertising communicates certain ideas about masculinity.

Figure 5: A collection of 1940s artifacts. The artifacts pictured here are all museum objects that did not come from archaeological contexts. However, similar objects or parts of objects can be found in archaeological contexts. See the bottom of this article for detailed information on all the images included here.

 

These observations can be combined with any other information the researcher has gathered on the United States in the 1940s. If they studied many objects like the ones in the image above, they might have concluded that a major event with many societal impacts during this period was the United States’ involvement in an overseas war. During this time many young men went off to war, while women at home took jobs that were traditionally filled by men. In this context, shoe boxes like the one pictured above might be used as data in a study investigating how (or if) World War II changed ideas of masculinity in the United States, and how this influenced product advertising. This is but one example of a way in which such an artifact could illustrate a larger story. There are many other possibilities. Someone could study stylistic changes in footwear, or use of color in packaging, or many other topics.

Figure 6: This early 1960s paper grocery bag housed potsherds from 39WW2.

 

Another example is this paper bag that housed potsherds from Larson site (39WW2), the site of an 18th century Arikara village (see also this post, and this post). This bag, conveniently, has a date on it. It reads “The best for you in 1963.” As English-speaking early 21st century observers familiar with the culture, we understand this to be well wishes for the new calendar year (such conclusions might be trickier for an observer who is farther removed from the culture under examination). Thus, we can determine that the bag must date to either very late 1962, or very early 1963. We don’t often get artifact dates THAT precise, but as demonstrated here, it does happen!

As with the shoebox above, we again can observe materials, manufacturing techniques, colors, and style. But let’s look at what else is there: If we understand the image on the bag to be an advertisement for a store, we can begin to detangle different layers of meaning. The image tells us something about the culture that produced it, but this is not necessarily straightforward. An ad is meant to convey certain ideas. Those ideas can tell us about norms and values in a society, but not necessarily about what everyday reality looked like. Depicted here is an idealized representation of a shopping experience. Presumably it is meant to make shopping at this particular store look like a pleasant experience, so shoppers will want to patronize the store.

We see people, clothes, grocery items, and packaging pictured. This allows us to make certain assumptions about what sort of items could be shopped for at grocery stores, and how they were packaged. We can also venture a guess as to what kinds of clothes were fashionable. Encoded in any such images there might be all kinds of information about things like class, race, and gender. Can the woman’s outfit tell us about class? Is this store catering to a certain class of people? We see a woman shopping and a man as the shopkeeper. What does this tell us about gender roles? By itself, this artifact cannot tell us much. Perhaps we can conclude no more than it was apparently not abnormal for women to go grocery shopping. However, if we compare this bag to other images from the same time period and the same place, telling trends begins to emerge. 

Figure 7: A small sample of late 1950s/early 1960s ads featuring images of people in grocery stores. Ads are for A&P Grocery, Cellophane, and National cash registers. (Images sourced from Ebay)

 

As you can see, the images above look remarkably similar: all the shoppers pictured in them are well-dressed white women. Following such an observation, one could use the shopping bag and comparison images as data points in a study of class, race, and/or gender in late 1950s-early 1960s America.

In this particular example I relied heavily on documentary evidence to build context. Archaeologists can and do use written sources when they are available. This is common practice in historical archaeology . That does not mean that we accept any text as a straightforward description of the past. Both documents and artifacts must be critically evaluated in order to extract meaning. As we can clearly see in this example of a paper bag with printed advertising, sometimes the line between document and artifact isn’t entirely clear.

For more object-centered stories about the US in the 1960s, see these two blog posts by our colleagues at the National Museum for American History: "So you want to curate an exhibit about the 1960s" and "Suzy Homemaker: A slice of life from the 1960s".

 

We are not formally studying the original housing materials that we find with the RBS collections. These examples are used here to illustrate how everyday objects can tell us about the past. As we have seen, interpretation in archaeology is highly dependent on context. One artifact without any context can tell us very little. However, identifying and defining context can extract a lot of information from any artifact. While we will not be further reviewing any of these materials, it is interesting to think about what they can tell us about the context of the RBS effort, and how that might have influenced the surveys themselves.

 

---

 

 Images used in Figure 5:

1. An exhibit of World War II artifacts at the International Museum of World War II. Image Source: Museum of World War II website.
2. United States Model 2A1 flamethrower, curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 65355M. 
3. Women’s Auxiliary Corps uniform jacket, curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 79105M. 
4. Two World War II –era rifles. Top: United States M1 rifle. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 84450M.  Bottom: Japanese Arisaka Rifle with bayonet. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 059478M. 
5. World War II Purple Heart medal. Posthumously awarded to Edward C. Morse. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 59458. 
6. Lilly Dasche hair net in packaging, ca. 1945. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1985.0481.223. 
7. Perry Graf slide rule, made in 1941. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1979.3074.03. 
8. WW II era German submarine bridge jacket. Curated by the National Museum of Ameircan History, catalog number 1980.0806.03. 
9. American Red Cross Prisoner of War Food Package No. 10. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1992.3030.30. 
10. “Man-in-Service” Flag. These were used for display in homes, businesses, or churches to indicate that a member of that home/group was actively serving in the armed forces. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1979.0220.013. 
11. WW II-era mechanic’s coveralls. Both men and women wore these in war plants. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1985.0611.0126. 
12. Overton’s “La Petite” face powder, front and back of package. 1940s. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 1988.0037.21. 
13. Navajo Nations veteran service medal. Image source: International Museum of World War II. 
14. WW II-era Daisy Manufacturing Company toy guy. During the war, these guns were made out of wood because steel was not available for domestic use. Curated by the National Museum of American History, catalog number 84663M. 

You can search for more objects in the Smithsonian collections by using the Collections Search Center.

 

Our Summer with Sommers Site: A Site for All Seasons

    An important part of any museum’s mission is to ensure that its collections are properly and completely cataloged, both to ease the tracking of objects and to make collections permanently accessible year-round for outside researchers. Museums, especially the Smithsonian, collect objects and specimens not only to exhibit to the public, but to also assist in current and future research. In order to make sure that we meet this important requirement, we first need to know what we have and where it is in order to tell researchers what we have for them to study! For more information on how we assign catalog numbers, see our previous post here:

    Part of our work here in Dr. Rogers’ Archaeology Lab is the continuation of the cataloging of collections from the River Basin Surveys (RBS) project, a massive salvage archaeology project that examined a number of historic and prehistoric sites along the Missouri River. The project, which was conducted between the 1940s and 1960s, sought to retrieve as much information about these sites as possible before the construction of a series of dams and reservoirs that would have flooded them forever. 

 

 

RBS salvage excavations at the Sommers site in South Dakota. (from National Anthropological Archives, River Basin Surveys Collection, Box 357)

    This summer we have been been working on cataloging the collections from the Sommers site (39ST56), located in the Big Bend Reservoir in South Dakota. As we were going through the collections, attaching catalog numbers to each object, we were increasingly intrigued by the wide variety of interesting artifacts we were working with, so we decided to do a little extra research on the site and share our findings!

    First, a little background information: excavations at the site took place in 1947 under E.E. Meleen and again in 1964 under Richard Jensen. The village contains more than 100 house depressions and covers an oblong area 1350 feet long and 850 feet wide and encompassing a total of 26.3 acres, making it one of the larger sites in the area (Johnson 1977). The site had a fairly dynamic settlement history, in which its population and size grew and contracted over time (Steinacher 1990). The site began as a small, unfortified settlement in the late 10th century AD but sometime around 1100 AD fortifications and a palisade were constructed at the north end of the site (Johnson 2007). There are 17-18 structures enclosed in a fortification ditch; of the houses at the site, scholars believe these were used the most extensively across time.

Map of Plains villages within the Middle Missouri, Period 1 (AD 1000-1100). ( from Johnson 2007 )

    While we were cataloging the collection, we kept coming across large carbon and wood samples. During excavations of the site, archaeologists collected a number of wood posts and charred organic material (carbon samples) with the intent of assigning an absolute date to the site through dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating techniques. Because we came across so many out at the Museum Support Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland, we decided to take a closer look at what these samples told scholars about the site.

    As it turns out, Sommers was not an easy site to assign a date to. A variety of dating techniques were utilized to determine the site’s occupation dates, from stratigraphy and seriation to historic documentation and oral traditions. In preparation for these dating methods, excavators collected as many samples as possible; not only would a larger data sample provide a higher probability of successfully dating the site, it would also help researchers calculate as accurate of a time frame as possible. With regards to dendrochronology, more wood samples would provide a more complete tree ring analysis, while more radiocarbon samples would allow archaeologists to determine a more concise date with a smaller error margin.

Selected drawer of dendrochronology samples from Sommers site. Note how some were wrapped in cotton or placed in paper bags and labeled from the field. Photo by Kelly Lindberg.

Carbon sample wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in plastic bag. Photo by Kelly Lindberg.

    However, when used independently, these different kinds of samples were producing some very different dates. For example, the dendrochronology dates claimed Sommers was 500 years younger than the radiocarbon dates suggested (Johnson 2007)! In addition, the radiocarbon dates themselves covered a fairly wide time frame, from 600-1300 AD, making it difficult to pinpoint a more specific and accurate occupation period (Caldwell and Snyder 1983; Johnson 1977). How on earth were archaeologists going to figure out the site’s true age?!

    Researchers then turned to seriation in another attempt to date the site. Looking at pottery characteristics such as rim shape and outer decoration in comparison to the ceramics’ location within the stratigraphy of the site, archaeologists developed a relative dating system for the Initial Middle Missouri period. One of the more common ceramic types found at Sommers that helped relatively date the site is an S-shaped rim with cord impressions on the outer edge (see image below).

 

 

S-shaped, cord-impressed ceramics recovered from the Sommers site excavations. Photos by Kelly Lindberg.

    While this dating method provided scholars with a general idea of the site’s age, they also wanted to know a more definitive, or absolute, date. To achieve this, they decided to compile the information provided by the different dating methods and use them as a system of checks and balances against one another. As a result, the team was able to establish that the Sommers site was generally used between 982 and 1157 AD, placing it squarely in the established Initial Middle Missouri (Johnson 2007).

    Having done this extra research on the site, we can really appreciate the diversity of the objects we’re cataloging, both as objects themselves and as tools to further explore the history of the site. Using a variety of dating techniques and collecting numerous samples can come in handy, even when one least expects it. This diversity is what makes the Sommers site an important collection for studying Middle Missouri archaeology -- making it a site for not just for research in summertime but for all seasons!

What other interesting facts will we uncover as we continue cataloging the River Basin Survey sites? Stay tuned to find out!

 

Authors: Kelly Lindberg and Kendra Young

 

Works Cited:

Caldwell, W. W., and L. M. Snyder. 1983. Dendrochronology in Plains Prehistory. Plains Anthropologist, 28:33–40.

Johnson, Ann M. 1977. “Testing the Modified Initial Middle Missouri Variant.” Plains Anthropologist 22 (78): 14-20.

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

Steinacher, T.L. 1990. Settlement and Ceramic Variability at the Sommers Site (39ST56) Stanley County, South Dakota. Ph.D. diss. (unpublished), Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

 

What Everyone Asked Our Curators on #AskACurator Day

By: Meghan Mulkerin, Collections Specialist and Research Scientist Contractor

We participated in #AskACurator Day on Twitter on September 17, 2014. Did you miss the conversation? I created a Storify of each Curator's hour on Twitter, which you can read by clicking on the links at the end of this post. Enjoy! 

    Hey everyone! Thanks for participating with us in Ask A Curator Day on Twitter last week! Over 700 museums all around the world participated; wow! We had a great time answering your questions. All five curators who participated with us @ArchaeologyLab were new to Twitter, and enjoyed seeing how it worked. In order to facilitate the conversation without each one having to become an expert at Twitter, I sat with each curator during their hour and helped them craft their answers down to a "twitter-able" size. At the beginning a few expressed doubt that they would be able to get their answers into the right format, but by the end of the hour all of the curators were growing more confident and enjoying sharing their answers with you!

    It was especially fun for me to have an hour to chat with them in person, even if I was busy transcribing the stories they were telling me! For example, while we were waiting for a question, I asked Sabrina Sholts how she had gotten tapped for such an interesting project as CT scanning a wet-specimen gorilla her first week here! It all happened because she came in during one snowy day when almost no one else was in (she moved here from Sweden and is from Minnesota; DC snow does not scare her!) only to find a fellow Scandinavian, Bruno Frohlich, also in the office. After I had written down her story while she talked, I showed her how we can break up stories like this into separate tweets, and tell a longer story live on Twitter. 

    Later in the afternoon with Dennis Stanford, I was laughing with delight as he detailed the complex partnerships that enabled him to pursue his research goals in an amazing experimental archaeology project. It involved butchering an elephant (Ginsberg died of natural causes at the Boston Zoo, and his body was donated to the Smithsonian) with only bone and stone tools, like our ancestors in the paleolithic would have done, to better understand wear patterns on ancient tools. It read like a joke: so an archaeologist, a NASA engineer, and an FBI ballistics analyst walk into a bar... Seriously amazing.

    From Ives Goddard, I learned about his amazing work on the Meskwaki Dictionary (you can listen to him read a translation of a Meskwaki story here). During Igor Krupnik's hour, we all got to hear about his "wow" moment during fieldwork in the Arctic. Bill Billeck shared some interesting stories about the repatriation process and Sitting Bull. I could go on, but I will let you read for yourself; don't forget to click on the storify links for each Curator's hour below!

    By the end of the day, I was exhausted. I had barely left my desk all day, and my fingers were getting clumsy on the keyboard, but it didn't matter. I had such a great time working to share these amazing people and their stories with you on Twitter. It is one of the reasons that I love working here, we have great people with fascinating passions that they love to share. We hope you enjoyed talking with us. Remember, here at the Smithsonian, every day is Ask a Curator Day. You can follow many of the scientists and departments here at NMNH on Twitter. 

 

Read the Storifys of all the questions our Curators answered! 

Dr. Ives Goddard- Senior Emeritus Linguist

Dr. Sabrina Sholts- Physical Anthropologist

Dr. Igor Krupnik- Arctic Ethnologist 

Dr. Dennis Stanford- Paleo-Indian Archaeologist 

Dr. William Billeck- Anthropologist in NMNH's Repatriation Office

#AskACurator

Hey everyone! We're participating in Ask a Curator Day tomorrow, and I've gathered together five of our anthropolgists who are ready to be questioned! They will each be available for about an hour, see times below. They are each specialists in various areas of Anthropology; we've got all four fields represented, including linguistics, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and archaeology. We also have anthropologist, Bill Billeck, who will be available to answer questions about museum anthropology and the process of Native North American repatriation. 

To ask a question, tag us "@archaeologylab" and include the hashtag #AskACurator in your question. 

9:30-10:30 am: Ives Goddard - Senior Linguist Emeritus

Ives Goddard is a Linguist, who is a specialist in Algonquian languages. Ives has also worked on endangered languages and language revitalization. He serves as the linguistic editor and technical editor of the Handbook of North American Indians. He has researched the origins of now perjorative terms referring to Native Americans, including "red-skin" and "squaw", as well as the types of knowledge lost when a language dies out.

Don't miss his reading of his translation of a Meskwaki story by Alfred Kiyana: "The Married Couple: the Man Whose Wife Was Wooed By a Bear,"

 

10:30-11:30 am: Sabrina Sholts – Curator in Physical Anthropology

Sabrina Sholts is a Curator in the Department of Anthropology at NMNH. She is a physical anthropologist with a special interest in the potential effects of environmental pollutants on skeletal growth, development, and health. She has also worked with Dr. Dennis Stanford (see our 3pm slot below) on the manufacture of Clovis stone points.

Dr. Sholts is our newest Curator in the Department; be sure to ask her about all of the cool things she's done since arriving here (hint: it involves great apes).

 

2:00-3:00 pm: Igor Krupnik - Curator of Arctic Ethnology

Igor Krupnik is a cultural anthropologist and has studied the impacts of climate change, preservation of cultural heritage, and ecological knowledge of Arctic indigenous people, such as in the book “SIKU: Sea Ice Knowledge and Use: Documenting Inuit Knowledge of Sea Ice.” He is interested in bringing socio-cultural and humanities issues, ecological knowledge, and environmental observations of polar indigenous people to the forefront as we discuss climate change.

He has done extensive fieldwork in Alaska, the Bering Sea region, and along the Russian Arctic coast. Dr. Krupnik has published and edited several books and collections, including three volumes on indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change, and served as the lead curator for the Smithsonian exhibit “Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely” (2006).

 

3:00-4:00 pm: Dennis Stanford – Curator of Paleo-Indian Archaeology

Dennis Stanford is an archaeologist and world renowned expert on Paleo-Indian stone tools, especially Clovis and Folsom tools. He is well-known as one of the leading proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis, which suggests that Europeans may have been among the first settlers of North America.

He is interested in the origins and development of New World Paleo-Indian cultures in relation to changing climate and ecosystems during the terminal Pleistocene, interdisciplinary Quaternary studies, stone tool technology, and experimental and public archaeology. He has conducted field work in Siberia, China, Alaska, the Rocky Mountains, Plains and Southeastern States; he has also worked in Central and South America as well as Southwestern Europe.

Dennis conducts fieldwork and research on Paleoindian archaeology throughout the Americas with special attention to human-environmental interactions and material culture. He enjoys producing exhibitions and public programs, as well as preparing scholarly and popular publications, and films.

4:00-5:00 pm: William Billeck - Program Manager, Repatriation Office and Case Officer for the Plains

Bill Billeck works for the Repatriation Office at the National Museum of Natural History, which works with Native American communities to repatriate human remains and objects to the tribes. This is a very complicated process that involves deep anthropological and museum collections research, to identify remains, burial goods, and objects of cultural patrimony. You can learn more about what the Repatriation Office does here.

He is interested in the study of the technology, manufacture, variation, and temporal distribution of glass trade beads in North America

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.