6 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 176 



has not abated, particularly in the huge Fort Randall, Garrison, and 

 Oahe Reservoir areas on the "main stem" of the Missouri River in the 

 Dakotas ; but the prospects now are that many important sites will be 

 unsurveyed, certainly unexcavated, because of the inadequacy of funds 

 (U.S. Dept. Int., 1953) .« 



The primary concern has been the excavation of prehistoric Indian 

 sites, and most of the funds have gone for this purpose because it has 

 been realized that the only primary sources of information that exist 

 in the field of prehistory lie underground. However, National Park 

 Service officials have been conscious of the need, also, to conduct 

 researches to ascertain what historic sites were threatened by the water- 

 development program, to locate such sites as precisely as possible by 

 analysis of documentary records and field surface reconnaissance, and 

 to recover valuable historical data by excavation. 



The principle of utilizing the technique of archeology as a research 

 weapon in the field of history, while long recognized in Europe, has not 

 received wide acceptance in the United States until the past two 

 decades. Beginning in the WPA project days of the 1930's, there has 

 been an increasing number of sites, significant in some phase of early 

 American history, which have been excavated with profitable, some- 

 times spectacular, results. There has also developed a small but 

 respected number of archeologists who, becoming fascinated by the 

 possibilities in this field, have made a specialty of "liistoric sites 

 archeology." The National Park Service, several of the State histori- 

 cal societies, and certain private foundations have been leaders in this 

 field (Anon., 1951 and 1953; Harrington, 1952). 



Since a historic site by its very definition presumes some preknowl- 

 edge of underground data, the need for excavating such a site must 

 be carefully assessed beforehand, for such a project may involve a 

 sizable outlay of funds (Harrington, 1953). Obviously, costly exca- 

 vation of a site concerning which practically all architectural and 

 cultural details are already known would not be justified. Archeo- 

 logical excavation of a historic site is justified primarily to fill impor- 

 tant gaps in documentary or archival research. It may yield struc- 

 tural evidence that has been partly or entirely lacking, or correct 

 the misinformation that contemporary historians and diarists some- 



» There was an even greater reduction in funds and fieldwork in thie fiscal year 1954-55. 

 Beginning in 1955-56 and continuing through 1957-58, marlfed increases in appropriations 

 made possible an expansion of the investigations. In 1955-56 there were 8 field parties 

 from the River Basin Surveys, Smithsonian Institution, and 6 parties from State institu- 

 tions working under agreements with the National Park Service. During 1956-57 the 

 Smithsonian sent out 16 parties, while cooperating institutions were represented by 9 

 parties. In 1957-58 there were 19 Smithsonian parties and 11 from cooperating instlta- 

 tions working in the Missouri Basin. The situation again took a downward trend in 

 1958-59 and it was necessary to reduce the Smithsonian parties to 10 and those of the 

 cooperating institutions to 6. Conditions continue to be as critical aa described by Mr. 

 Mattes and are further complicated by the activation of the Big Bend Reservoir project 

 between Fort Randall and Oabe. — Eoitob. 



