Bulletin1991967smit.Pdf

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 199 THE ETHWOARCHEOLOGY OF CROW VILLAGE, ALASKA By WENDELL H. OSWALT and JAMES W. VANSTONE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1967 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75 (cloth) The Bulletins of the Bureau of American Ethnology began with the publication in 1887 of "Bibliography of the Eskimo Language," by James C. Pilling. The content of the Bulletins has been as broad as the contemporary interests of the field of anthropology, although mainly restricted in scope to the Americas. With the publication of Bulletin 200, this series will end, its place being taken by a new series, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, which was initiated in 1965 following the merging of the Bureau of American Ethnology and the Department of Anthropology of the U.S. National Museum into the Smithsonian Office of Anthropology. The new series provides not only for publication of scholarly studies of the American Indian but is worldwide in scope, reflecting the broadening activities of the Smithsonian Institution's anthropologists over the past few decades. Richard B. Woodbury Chairman Smithsonian Office of Anthropology n PREFACE In Arctic and subarctic America, where the aboriginal lifeways of Indians and Eskimos frequently have endured into the present century, historical archeology rarely has been of primary interest to either the ethnographer or the archeologist. In an area such as western Green- land, where there was sustained contact between Europeans and Eskimos, an exception is to be found. Northern Canadian historical archeology has been unsystematic, while in Alaska only along Prince William Sound (de Laguna, 1956; 1964), the Gulf of Alaska (Acker- man, 1965), and the lower Copper River (VanStone, 1955) have excavations been made at historic sites. In the Arctic and subarctic of America archeologists have yet to fathom the ramifications of many cultural continuities within the Christian Era, while the path of early man into the New World is stiU largely unknown. With fascinating problems such as these confronting them, it is not surprising that the archeologists have avoided sites containing tin cans, bottle glass, and crockery. Yet it is precisely these and other forms of trade goods in the context of a rapidly changing sociocultural setting that directed our attention to historical archeology in Alaska. The geographical area of concern is the Kuskokwim River system of southwestern Alaska, where we had sampled sites in the 1950's. However, our interest was drawn to historical archeology in a round- about manner. In 1953, Oswalt drifted down the Kuskokwim River in a small boat to collect tree-ring samples and to search for sites. One of the recently abandoned villages sampled was Crow Village, nearly 10 km. downstream from Aniak. While digging there, Oswalt was visited by Eskimos who recounted fragmentary ethnographic facts about the settlement and its occupants. When shown the artifacts recovered, the Eskimos were able to recall specific artifact uses and meanings. Thus, the collection served as an excellent prod to their memories. In 1954, Oswalt returned to Aniak to reconstruct riverine Eskimo ethnography, and mth VanStone further excavations were made into the Crow Village midden. Although the digging period totaled only 3 weeks and frozen ground limited the depth of excavation, the artifacts recovered were numerous and diverse in form. In 1961 Oswalt analyzed a major som'ce of ethnographic and historical data from the lower river in the unpublished \vritings of the Moravian Chm'ch missionary William Henry Weinland (Oswalt, 1963 b). Addi- tionally, over the span of 10 years all of the published and many m IV BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 199 unpublished ethnographic and historical source materials for the region have been studied. After the accumulated Kuskokwim data were assessed, a number of factors became apparent to guide future research along the river system. First, the sector from the river mouth to the upstream community of Kalskag had been studied in broad outhne (Oswalt, 1963 a, 1963 b) and the overall shifts of ethnic groups through historic time plotted for the river system (Oswalt, 1962). Second, the two seasons of anthropological studies of Edward Hosley (1961) on the upper river were beginning to yield positive results for this, the least known locality. A third consideration was that the middle sector of the river had been investigated only in a superficial manner and was an area suitable for developing a number of interests. The emergent aim became to gather additional information about the population of the middle river from the time of historic contact until around 1900. The ideal would have been to reconstruct completely the aboriginal ethnographic scene through informants, but there was no potential for doing so because of the rapidly fading memories of the people. It therefore was decided to combine historical archeology witli ethnographic reconstruction and the use of historical sources. The excavation of the Crow Village site seemed a logical first step toward a more complete culture history of middle Kuskokwim River Eskimo and Indian life. The reasons for choosing to dig at Crow Village are diverse and worthy of mention. First, it was occupied in 1843 when L. A. Zagoskin visited there and was still inhabited after 1900. Thus, Crow Village could be expected to represent a segment of a period of rapid change, one which was increasingly difficult for informants to bring to mind. Second, from the test excavations of previous years the site was known to be productive. Third, the area was small enough to be excavated in a single summer. Finally, there was the availability of informants who either were born at Crow Village or had had intimate contact with the village and its inhabitants. The Crow Village excavation was begun in early June of 1963 and completed 5 weeks later. In retrospect, there were both advantages and disadvantages in selecting this site for the purpose conceived. It proved to contain less material than the midden tests had suggested, and no clearly separate levels representative of Russian and then American influences were established. Furthermore, individuals who had been capable informants 9 years earlier were either dead or ap- proaching senility in 1963, a fact which made it difficult to obtain further information about the site and the recovered artifacts. Historical archeology makes possible a realistic conjunction between written history, oral history, and traditional ethnography for more certain sociocultui'al reconstructions. Hopefully, the lines which v!;n''sto1u.i PKEFACE V divide scientific archeology from ethnography and history are largely those of methodology and not pm-pose. The combined approach is well established in the sphere of Near Eastern classical studies and is an increasingly important method of studying New World ethnic developments through time. In the study of primitive people it seems sound to begin by first excavating historic archeological sites. The comparative information available for the recent past is virtually always more complete than for the more distant past. Thus, it is logical to develop an archeological program in any particular geographical area by digging the recent sites and then working back in time to older sites. However, the overwhelming majority of archeologists compound their already staggering interpretive problems by being obsessed with antiquity. Thus many potentially useful se- quences hang in uncertain limbo or are linked to history by frail suppositions and inferences. We hoped to avoid this pitfall through the kind of archeology we undertook. A specific contribution of the Crow Village data is that through them we may learn about the imme- diate effects of material change when the agents of change are from Western societies. This seems significant since it is innovations from the Western world that most often have led modern primitives in new directions. We hope that the Crow Village study will provide tangible results in this direction. After having excavated Crow Village and analyzed the collection, we see additional sites that now have greater meaning. For example, some 50 km. upstream is a site, Kwigiumpainukamiut, which is contemporary with Crow Village and was occupied both by Eskimos and Indians (map 1). One end of the village was settled by Indians and the other by Eskimos, thereby providing an opportunity to study a situation of cultiu"al contact in an archeological and quasi-historical framework. Furthermore, some 16 km. still farther up the river is a historic site of Indian occupancy. Finally, there is the old Russian trading center of Kolmakov Redoubt, whose excavation could provide a valuable baseline for the kinds of objects introduced into the area. The excavation of these archeological sites, together with historical and ethnogi-aphic supplements, would make possible a well-rounded study of the mutual impact of three peoples upon each other. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Excavations at the Crow Village site were supported by funds from the University of Alaska, the University of California (Los Angeles), the University of Toronto, and the Royal Ontario Museum. In the field, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Harrop of the Northern Commercial Com- pany at Aniak were particularly hel})ful in making local arrangements for suppfies and transportation. Mrs. Earl V. Clay, U.S. Commis- VI BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 199 sioner in the same community, kindly made available vital statistics records that have been useful in determining the local movements of people in the middle Kuskokwim area. Mr. Anaiiia Theodore of Aniak and Mr. Sam Phillips of Little Russian Mission provided valuable assistance in making the ethnographic reconstructions. Mr. WilUam M. Oswalt provided general assistance while in the field, and we are pleased to acknowledge this aid. We \\dsh also to express our appreciation to Mr.

Load more