[Table of Contents] [Prologue] [Next Chapter] [Main Page]
Gannon, Brian (1998) 1.0 Introduction. In Historical Development of the Chena River Waterfront, Fairbanks, Alaska: An Archaeological Perspective, edited and compiled by Peter M. Bowers and Brian L. Gannon, CD-ROM. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Fairbanks.
"Well, they’re tearing up the streets again," passersby might have muttered in the fall of 1992 while weaving around traffic cones, workers in orange vests and hard-hats, backhoes, and big holes. Some gaped; others drove by resignedly. Such a scene is commonplace in Fairbanks, Alaska, and from a casual glance, this activity at the intersection of First and Barnette, along the city’s riverfront, was just another road repair or utilities job. Actually, this work was an archaeological project beginning to delve into Fairbanks’ past in response to a major highway project destined to pass through the city’s core area.
Fairbanks was born as a gold rush town not quite 100 years ago, on a high southern bank of the Chena River (Figure 1.1). Today it is a bustling city of about 32,000, which still proudly retains its small town feeling. It is an eclectic sprawl of low profile modern buildings, log cabins and subdivisions, surrounded by vast forested terrain, where plaid shirts and pac boots easily co-mingle with three-piece suits. Fairbanks remains the commercial and supply hub of Alaska’s interior, as it has been from its beginning. Gold mining still endures and is locally re-emerging as a major industry with large scale mining of lode deposits such as that at Fort Knox, located close to where gold was originally discovered in the Fairbanks region.
Figure 1.1. Location map showing Fairbanks in relation to Anchorage, Dawson, Skagway, Circle, and Nome. Inset: Fairbanks area showing Fairbanks in relation to Chena and gold mining communities.
In 1978, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) began designing the Illinois Street-Minnie Connector Project.1 Six years later, the Barnette Street Reconstruction Project was added (Figure 1.2). These proposed projects will widen and realign parts of Illinois Street, one of Fairbanks’ major arterials north of the Chena River, construct a new bridge over the river to connect with Barnette Street on the south side, and reconstruct Barnette Street. The purpose of the work is to alleviate growing traffic congestion to and from Fairbanks’ central business district, and to facilitate cross-town connections with the city’s relatively new expressway system.
Figure 1.2. Fairbanks City core map showing areas investigated by the Barnette Archaeological Project, and other locations mentioned in the text. Map modified from Fairbanks Townsite plat.
Barnette Street’s reconstruction will require excavating the upper three feet of its existing roadbed and replacing it with a higher quality gravel, and installing a 12 foot-deep storm drainage system along the west side. As part of the bridge construction, a large excavation (approximately 60 by 100 feet in area by 10 feet deep) is planned at the intersection of First Avenue and Barnette Street, near the edge of the river bank, to accommodate the bridge’s south abutment. The lower, north side abutment and approach will require fill only.
As funding for these combined projects is largely provided by the Federal Government (a "federal undertaking"2), the National Historic Preservation Act requires that any historic properties potentially impacted by the work must be taken into account. This task is accomplished through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800. This process involves three basic steps:
In historic times, Illinois Street was the main trail out of town, north to the gold fields, and several of Fairbanks’ more illustrious historic buildings still lie along this route. Most of these properties are associated with the Fairbanks Exploration Company and the period of industrialized gold mining--approximately from the late 1920s to late 1950s. Although the proposed road reconstruction would affect some of these structures to various degrees, the buildings and the potential effects on them have been well-documented in previous studies.3 The potential archaeological resources in the project area, on the other hand--the buried material remains of the past--until 1992, had never received a similar level of assessment.
Also along Illinois Street lay the historic Riverside Block, once the "urban center" for the Garden Island area. The Riverside block formerly consisted of several businesses--among them a saloon, a hotel, a cabinet shop, and a newspaper. All the buildings in this block were demolished, relocated, or burned down following construction of the permanent steel truss Cushman Street bridge over the Chena River in 1917 and prior to the construction of the Alaska Railroad depot in 1923.4 In addition, the river bank below Samson Hardware served as a boat-launching area, tent camp and supply depot in the early days. The shore locality now covered by earth fill, Samson Hardware, and the old Riverside Block will all be directly affected by the realigning of Illinois Street.
The south side of the river displayed a substantially different historic character. Primary features within or close to the proposed project area included riverboat docks, the Northern Commercial Company (NC CO.), and a series of saloons and hotels. This was the heart of Fairbanks’ commercial beginnings--the very spot where Fairbanks was founded in 1901 through E.T. Barnette’s unanticipated landing and subsequent events.
From an archaeological viewpoint, the proposed construction presented an opportunity to obtain significant historical information from Fairbanks’ formative waterfront and boom town era. From the perspective of a highway project, however, the situation was more vexing. Here, after all, was one of the busiest streets and intersections within Fairbanks’ urban environment; any attempt to do archaeology would entail significant logistical problems.
Until fairly recently, Fairbanks has had to cope with repeated fires, floods and ice jams. On-going construction, road building and maintenance, utilities installation, and repairs have also, over time, significantly altered the local landscape. With all that disturbance, was it reasonable to expect anything archaeological still existed beneath the streets? Some speculated that it could not be possible; at best, remains would be so disturbed as to render them meaningless. This notion, however, has been shown in other urban environments to be largely mythical.5 What and how much still existed was the real question.
A disastrous fire in 1906 destroyed much of Fairbanks’ First Avenue business district. Much of the resultant debris was pushed over the river bank not only for disposal but also to repair bank damage from the major flood the previous summer. In contrast with typical archaeological deposits that reflect discard, this fire debris would probably include a more complete, albeit a more damaged sample of artifacts.
Fire damage is not often complete, particularly for bottles, ceramics, and some of the items most useful for archaeological analysis. Since the materials from single businesses might well be deposited together, these remains would have even greater value. These deposits would have a further analytical advantage because they would be time bound within an early and limited chronological framework.6
If modern building and demolition techniques had been applied (e.g., bulldozing, hauling away en-masse, and subexcavating), traces of the old buildings and most subsurface features would have largely disappeared. In earlier times, however, structures were manually torn or burned down, basements filled, and other features simply buried. Fill, both natural and cultural, then shielded these remains from later construction activities. For example, parking posts from the late 1940s were found still standing in place below First Avenue during this project.
Barnette Street itself has never been re-built to modern standards. It consists simply of a one to three foot-thick bed of gravel, mixed with "soilcrete," directly on top the original ground surface, and paved with asphalt. Most utilities such as storm drains and sewers have been located on the east side of the street. For this reason, good archaeological potential was felt to still remain in the comparatively undisturbed west side--where the proposed new storm drain system would be installed. The likelihood of finding archaeological deposits in this area--especially between Third Avenue and First Avenue--was reinforced during reconstruction of First Avenue in 1981, when workers encountered a variety of artifacts and historical features.7
The first task towards addressing compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act involved a detailed archival study of the project area, especially the site of the new bridge. The outcome of this study was the 1986 publication, Rivertown: A Study of Fairbanks’ Historic Waterfront and the Archaeological Potential of the Barnette Street Bridge Site by James Ketz and Wendy Arundale. The study also identified pertinent research questions to be addressed, and proposed a phased program for conducting archaeological investigations. If homage seems to be paid to Jim and Wendy’s work in this present study, it is because Rivertown provided primary guidance throughout the project.
Following the Rivertown study, a bore hole testing program was implemented to prospect for archaeological materials within the proposed construction area. The modest first phase of this program occurred in 1986 and 1987 when Ketz and Arundale accompanied the ADOT&PF crew conducting bridge foundation studies. Two 2-inch diameter bore holes were placed on the upper river banks, one at each proposed bridge abutment site. Remarkably, artifacts comprising bits of glass, wood, metal, leather and ceramic were recovered in the 2 inch split-spoon sampler--approximately 6-8 feet below the surface on the south side of the river, and 10-12 feet deep on the north side.8 While it was not possible to discern the context of these artifacts, the confirmation of their presence and approximate depth was significant enough to justify an expanded drilling program in 1989.
Prior to continued drilling, a record of past construction and utilities work was compiled for the south side of the river, delineating areas that had been previously disturbed from those still possibly intact.9 Guided by these data, twelve 6-inch bore holes were placed at strategic locations around the intersection of First Avenue and Barnette Street. All but one bore hole produced artifacts , with the upper river bank yielding the most abundant and varied materials.10 This combined information thus revealed the zones where archaeological resources were most likely to be found.11 When applied in conjunction with historical photographs, these data proved very useful in identifying basic horizontal and vertical distributions of buried cultural deposits, which were used in turn to design excavation strategies.
After completing the bore hole testing phase, the question was no longer whether any subsurface archaeological materials remained, but rather, "what was their nature, their context, and significance?" Or, as some put it, "is it worth anything?" The more skeptical opined "it’s just old garbage--and not even that old;" or "You can find out all you need to know from the old photos, newspaper articles, and talking to the old-timers;" and "One old gold town is like any other gold town."
Significantly, the bore hole results, particularly in light of the historical record, were sufficient to warrant more intensive testing through controlled archaeological excavations. The nature, context and significance of the buried artifacts could only be assessed in this manner; the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agreed. So, after preparing a detailed scope of work, the ADOT&PF contracted with Hart Crowser, Inc. and Northern Land Use Research, Inc. in 1992 to begin these excavations.
Archaeological testing and mitigation took place in the late summer and fall of 1992 and the following late summer and fall. What was ultimately found staggered even the more optimistic investigators: one of Fairbanks’ earliest cabins, wagon wheel ruts, buried cellars with "wonderful things," full bottles of whiskey and ale, a dump incorporating dice, poker chips, shot glasses, eye glasses, a human tooth (a barroom brawl?), light bulbs from the first electric lights in town, linotype from the Alaska Daily Citizen newspaper, the Chena Bar sidewalk slab with inset marbles, dock remains from the NC Dock, and over 100,000 other artifacts. In short, this was an intact and amazingly well-preserved piece of original Fairbanks!
Early photographs alone cannot tell the whole story--even though Fairbanks has a wealth of them. Neither can archival records, newspaper accounts, oral histories, or archaeology. Each data source has its own peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Used in an isolated manner, each can contribute something to assembling the skeleton of the past. Only by using these resources together, however, can researchers put some flesh on the bones. Historical sources also reflect to some degree the biases of the recorder; i.e., what was and was not perceived to be important. The people, things and events not recorded can be equally as important12 and it is here that archaeology can supplement the documentary record and help resolve some of the biases found in other data types.
One would think that Fairbanks, because of its relative youth, would possess an abundance of historic records. As can happen to communities along rivers, however, flooding can extract an enormous toll. This is what happened to Fairbanks in 1967, when much of the city was literally submerged, and some of the early records were lost. As for "old-timers" who might still remember the early days, very few or none are living today who can remember what life was like in the first few years of Fairbanks. Fortunately, however, several written and oral accounts exist from some of these former pioneers.
The term "garbage" is often used in a depreciative way to connote something unclean or unwanted. On a more mundane level, it also constitutes the discarded by-products of people’s lives. Whatever it is called and whatever its nature, this refuse reflects a sort of "fossilized" behavior. Sooner or later, everything a person makes, uses, or modifies becomes worn out, used up, broken, obsolete or unfashionable, and is discarded or lost--everything from a cup to a city. The accumulated discards make up a group’s material culture. We do not get a complete picture of a person’s life, a peoples’ history, or a society from just these material remains alone--the "garbage"--any more than we see a complete dinosaur from just its permineralized bones. But the hints that we get are cumulative. Singly, an artifact tells us little. In quantity and in context, however, much more is revealed, particularly in concert with historic sources and comparison to other artifact assemblages. Each archaeological site adds to the record and provides the building blocks for broader interpretations. In the end, it "is the evidence from many sites and the cultural analyses of this evidence that allows us to glimpse how past generations worked and played, ate and drank, and lived and died."13
Nor should one be premature in dismissing Fairbanks’ history because of its relative youth. Indeed, Fairbanks is not very "old" in the context of U.S. history. History is like a bottle of "Quaker Maid" Whiskey--it just gets better with time. "Old" can be a value judgment and, like age, is relative. Within the context of Alaska’s history, Fairbanks is old; the historical remains in the study area do not come any older. Furthermore, no settlement, no matter its size, is "just like" any other. Every community is unique. Each has, or had, its own cast of characters with their own stories to tell--its own soul.
This study, then, is a tribute to our predecessors--those pioneers who committed themselves to a new life and participated in making Fairbanks what it is today. This opportunity allows us to gain a little insight into their lives, and encourages us to ponder how those early adventurers coped in a challenging environment, and succeeded. They may not have had it quite as easy as we do now, but as suggested by this study, maybe they did. Were these pioneers truly isolated or deprived? Most of them, after all, were where they chose to be. What roles did social and material amenities play in these people’s adaptation to the harshness and remoteness of the new land? Was Fairbanks ever a "frontier?" If so, for how long? Indeed, no one in Fairbanks today would be going about their daily lives had it not been for E.T. Barnette’s unanticipated landing in 1901 from the Lavelle Young, and those who followed.
The following sections document the efforts of the Barnette Archaeological Project. It completes the commitments under a Memorandum of Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other consulting parties to address probable impacts to significant archaeological remains prior to construction.
Chapter 2 outlines the project research questions and discusses their purpose and relationship to designated historic themes. It also provides an overview of the city’s history that helps place the findings in the context of urban development.
The public aspect of the project is described in Chapter 3. Although projects such as this have an obligation to allow the public to experience the fruits of the effort, the adopted "open-tour" policy was one of the project’s more effective and rewarding achievements.
Chapter 4 reports on each area excavated during the two field seasons in 1992 and 1993. Discussion includes the results of focused historical research as well as interpretation of the findings.
In Chapter 5, the interpretation expands to address some of the objectives of the research questions. Here we examine the origin of commodities represented in the excavations, observed differences among activity areas, statistical analysis of artifact types and functional attributes of the two saloons we excavated, responses to the threat of fire and flood as recorded in the archaeological record, and finally, thoughts on Fairbanks’ relationship to the frontier concept.
Chapter 6 concludes with observations on future directions and priorities. These address both the existing body of information as well as opportunities and areas that could substantially add to our knowledge.
The eleven appendices provide additional details and supportive data on various elements of the research. They include expanded descriptive sections for all the excavated areas, as well as details on features, artifact classes, and specific artifacts. One appendix documents trademarks and manufacture marks from artifacts that could readily be expanded on, and promises to be useful with comparative collections. Two appendices provide analyses on faunal remains and dendrochronology of wood specimens from the NC Dock. The basic methods employed in this project are presented, particularly in those instances where adaptation to specific conditions occurred. The appendix on Logistical Considerations offers some potentially valuable guidance for others working in similar urban situations. Another appendix elaborates on the statistical analysis used to group assemblages and discusses the underlying process for creating a database of the classified materials. The impressively large database itself is included as an adjunct to the report for use by those interested in Fairbanks’ history through archaeology, as well as for comparative research. The last appendix acknowledges all of the many people and organizations who have contributed to this study. Without them, this would not have happened.
Endnotes
1Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities 1983.
2The Preservation Act implementing regulations under 36 CFR
Part 800 define undertaking as any project, activity, or program under the direct or
indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency or licensed or assisted by a Federal agency that
can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties in the area of
potential effects. U.S. Department of the Interior 1990.
3Cole 1989 and 1990; Alaska Department of Transportation 1984
and 1994; Matheson 1978; Lazenby 1990. As the design of Illinois Street is not yet
finalized, mitigation of project impacts on these projects has likewise not been
finalized.
4This bridge presently spans the Kuzitrin River at Mile 68 of
the Nome-Taylor Road on the Seward Peninsula. It was dismantled in 1958-59 in preparation
for the bridge currently crossing the Chena River, and reassembled over the Kuzitrin River
in 1961 (Buzzell and Gibson 1986).
5Salwen 1973.
6Ketz and Arundale 1986:97.
7Gannon 1992.
8Ketz 1986; Ketz and Arundale 1987.
9Gannon 1992. As far as can be determined, no significant
subsurface ground disturbance has occurred in the Riverside Block since the 1923 work
associated with the Alaska Railroad.
10Jordan and Gerlach 1989.
11Gannon 1992.
12House 1977.
13Cotter 1992.
[Table of Contents] [Prologue] [Next Chapter] [Main Page] [Top of Page]
