The excavation of historical sites is far from new, but it has become a major specialty with a broadening theoretical base
Its emphasis is on sites that have a heavy Euroamerican component
--not just carried out as Fontana has said on "sites which contain material evidence
of non-Indian culture or concerning which there is contemporary non-Indian documentary
evidence."
This approach tends to segregate Indians. It might be seen as archaeology of the dominant society by some.
Other like Ivor Noel-Hume have considered it to be "a handmaiden" of history, where its job is ancillary to writing history.
But since the 1930s it has been strengthened, attributable to the preservation movement and legislation geared toward protection, with major importance coming when CRM and National Register of Historic Places came into being
The Archaeology of Capitalism?
Recent work to try to find a theoretical base for historical archaeology led to examination of the processes of the mass production, distribution and consumption of goods and services
One aim was to be more inclusive, and that has led to looking at capitalism in a world systems perspective
How is it more inclusive?
For example, one can look at Euroamerican conquest of North America as an expansion of capitalism -new territories, colonialism, resource bases, and markets
All these are linked in another way, and by an element crucial to setting historical archaeology apart-documentary evidence
Documentary Evidence
Sometimes prehistorians have denigrated historical archaeology - not "sexy" enough - but that view is changing, as is the idea that it relates only to the dominant society
The key element in historical archaeology is the availability of some kind of documentary evidence
The documents amplify what is available to the archeologist by providing:
But historical archaeology can be deceptive
It is easy to be seduced into believing that documentation can provide more accurate information about the past
--take for example, the problem of eyewitness accounts of events
Most are aware that people rarely see the same things about the same events due to
different place in relation to the events at hand, but also different "agendas"
Let's take one example as a case in point:
The Northern Cheyenne and The Dull Knife Outbreak of January 9, 1879
The tragic story has been, it seems, well documented by books such as Sandoz's Cheyenne Autumn and the military hearings about the "outbreak;" yet, Northern Cheyenne oral tradition tells a somewhat different version of the episode.
The tribe recently acquired land immediately adjacent Fort Robinson, land they say was the actual escape route of the majority of Dull Knife's people.
They contend that the military accounts of escape over the ridges near the fort are wrong. To help document the correct routes, they contracted for an archaeological survey which lent considerable credence to their oral history.
During the summer of 1987, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of southeastern Montana collaborated on a project with archaeologists from the University of South Dakota Archaeology Laboratory in an effort to substantiate Northern Cheyenne oral history concerning the Cheyenne Outbreak. Dull Knife Memorial College, a community college on the Northern Cheyenne reservation was in the process of acquiring a 365 acre plot of land near Fort Robinson.
The plot was of particular interest to the college in that it contained the escape route taken by Dull Knife's band during the outbreak. The escape route had been a point of contention for years with White accounts establishing one route and Cheyenne accounts supporting alternate routes.
The college hoped that the use of archaeology might shed some light on the controversy. Ultimately, the college and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe wish to construct a commemorative path along the escape route and perhaps build a visitors' center to tell their story.
They recognize that their past overlaps and partly conflicts with the White past of the same incidents. In building the center their wish is not to share their past but to provide a correct version of oral tradition for their own people and those Whites who might be interested.
That the versions of the escape story vary is not surprising. The flight of the Cheyenne from Indian Territory is an account of courage and daring, one that caused great confusion for the Euroamericans of the period.
Summary of story
After Custer's defeat in 1876, the Cheyenne, under Dull Knife, eventually surrendered to General Mackenzie at Fort Robinson in western Nebraska in April, 1877.
The Government's intention was to consolidate the Northern and Southern Cheyenne Tribes in Indian Territory of Oklahoma. The journey was a difficult one, taking seventy days.
Immediately upon their arrival at Darlington Agency (Fort Reno) near present-day Oklahoma City in August, 1877, the Cheyenne were racked with sickness. Exposure to the unfamiliar southern Indians, combined with exhaustion, insufficient food and clothing, and unfamiliar climate caused the Cheyenne to die off.
For the more than five thousand Indians living at the Darlington Agency at that time, only one doctor was stationed. He was given almost no medical supplies, and none arrived for almost a year. Over two-thirds of the northerners were soon sick with fever and plague. That winter, 41 Northern Cheyenne died.
In spring, Dull Knife led his people away, in spite of military efforts to keep them.
The 353 Cheyenne staged a remarkable running battle, with the military never able to overtake them. Even though the Indians were still in extremely poor physical health, and had few horses, scant provisions, and relatively few firearms, they managed to elude the soldiers for many miles and had only four major encounters.
He was persuaded to give up in early October and taken to Ft. Robinson.
His people were incarcerated in an effort to convince them to go back to Indian Territory.
Eventually put into an unheated barracks in winter, with food and water withdrawn for 5 days
On the bright, moonlit evening of January 9, 1879, Dull Knife's people broke from the barracks.
Although they had only five rifles and an assortment of old pistols, they staged a running battle that saw nearly half of them killed and scattered along the way. They fought their way across the old parade grounds, down to the bridge over the White River, and headed upstream.
This much is agreed upon, but here stories differ.
Military account talks of Dull Knife and his people going up a bare, moonlit ridge where the military pursued them.
Cheyenne resent this account because suggest that Dull Knife was tactically foolish. How could he have eluded the military so successfully only to send his people into an exposed area?
Their oral history differs. He only sent decoys onto the parade ground and ridge to draw the military away. Main party escaped out the back, into a creek valley, and up another ridge
Surveyed area of the Cheyenne reported escape route.
Why is this important?
Another case is the Custer battle which we will see on video The Myth of Custer's Last Stand.
The point of both is to show that documentary evidence has weaknesses and should not receive primacy in our consideration of historical events
Another study worth mentioning , that deals with both historical archaeology, Indians and gender issues is Janet Spector's What this awl means? looking at a fur trade period Wahpeton Sioux village. Destined to be a small classic!
Material evidence is powerful, providing information often not available in documentary accounts
Indeed, the "written and the wrought" should be seen as complementary.
| Main | Outline| Announcements | Lecture Notes | Video Guides | Additional Materials | Links |
larry-zimmerman@uiowa.edu
University of Iowa Anthropology
08.20.98