6.0 POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
[Table of Contents] [Previous Chapter] [Bibliography] [Main Page]
Weaver, Robert M. (1998) 6.0 Potential for Future Research. 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.
Archaeological excavations along the Fairbanks Waterfront yielded a wealth of information that provides an opportunity to chronicle aspects of the town’s bustling early days. What recently lay beneath one busy section of the modern city, however, now survives purely as a study collection. The artifacts, stratigraphic records, and feature descriptions make up the lasting archive for the early buildings and refuse. The University of Alaska Museum will house that record, including a type collection of artifacts. This collection will allow future investigators to expand on the knowledge gleaned from this initial study as well as serve as a resource for public display and interpretation.
These efforts also demonstrated that more remnants of the historic town must certainly remain. Nearby river banks and alleys hold more clues to the challenges and choices faced by the pioneers. Additional materials lie hidden beneath backyards and bushes; all have the potential to contribute a fuller understanding of life in early 20th century gold rush Alaska.
The analyses presented in Chapter 5 and throughout other sections of this report only scratch the surface of possible topics for interpretation. The research topics developed in Chapter 2 form a broad framework for cultural and historical study; the collected materials can yield insights for answering questions already asked and others yet to be conceived. The following discussion provides some thoughts towards future research studies based on our familiarity with the site information and the extensive background research for the project.
Fairbanks holds a unique place in terms of the gold rush development of Alaska. By the time E.T. Barnette found himself abandoned along the Chena River in 1901, many of the mining opportunists had already entered the Alaska and Yukon territories. They followed the well-publicized strikes on the Klondike, at Forty-Mile, and at Nome. Other less popular regions such as the Koyukuk River also had drawn adventurers from afar in pursuit of riches. These men—and census data from 1900 shows that the newcomers were disproportionately men1—came with a variety of backgrounds and professions. Some came to mine the gold, while others realized that the real "gold" came from selling supplies to miners.
Although gold seekers had been arriving in Alaska before the 1890s, the Klondike rush between 1897 and 1899 provided a new population infusion. Many men abandoned their former occupations, or at least deferred their professions, in hopes of a quick means to a secure life. Few ever realized this dream and many endured the hardships of a remote and harsh frontier. Many travelers came unprepared especially during the Klondike gold rush. By the time of Fairbanks’ founding, however, those that remained were well seasoned, if nothing else.
Two questions arise from these historical observations. One relates directly to the definition of the "frontier." The other relates to the dynamics associated with the rate of growth and level of sophistication in Fairbanks as compared to earlier mining centers. When Felix Pedro reported his strike, many important elements of commerce and "civilization" were already in place in the North. The Alaska Commercial Company and its subsidiaries, the Northern Commercial Company (NC Co.) and Northern Navigation Company, formed an efficient supply and transportation network throughout much of the territory. Other companies vied for a share of the wealth, and a railroad from Skagway carried supplies into the interior. Fairbanks was situated close to one of the main river transportation corridors, and links to supply centers along the West Coast were well established. The earliest arrivals to the settlement were individuals with the experience of other gold rush communities, particularly Dawson and the upper Yukon. If one thinks of a frontier in stereotypic terms of remoteness, rough-and-tumble lifestyles, extreme hardship, and even lawlessness, early Fairbanks as a supply center hardly qualifies. If it did, it was only for a brief time.
Between 1901 and 1903 the new town resembled an outpost, containing Barnette’s Cache and a small number of peripheral log cabins. The residents worked and waited to see if the discoveries would prove out. By 1903-04, however, the character changed: the NC Co. moved in; temporary structures came down; local industry such as sawmills developed; streets and blocks were platted; and the frame buildings of a new town hurriedly rose along the waterfront. These new developments brought electricity, water supplies, a stronger system of law and government, and a variety of then-modern amenities.
Unfortunately, few remnants came to light archaeologically from the very earliest years of the town. The cabin feature in Area C2 provides the only hint of the original settlers through its fragmentary remains. Construction of the California Saloon and modern road construction obliterated a substantial portion of the original cabin footprint. The recovered artifacts and historical photographs of the Area C cabin feature point to a fairly typical mining community residence, which also apparently served as a business office for packers. Recovered coffee and tobacco containers, clothing-related items, drinking glasses, and food tins correspond to inventories one might find in a miner’s or trapper’s cabin even today. Conversely, the absence of ceramic plates, cups, or saucers may signal more "primitive" conditions. We need, however, to develop a broader base of comparative information before drawing such conclusions.
Other locations in Fairbanks eventually may provide additional data from the early years. Recent demolition of the former NC Co. complex destroyed any opportunity to test for the Barnette Cache features. The original settlement plot, however, extended to Cushman Street, and we now know that unmodernized roads can protect pieces of the city’s early past. The cabin site lay beneath Barnette Street and the adjacent sidewalk with enough preservation to retain the tracks of wagon wheels. The Turner Street corridor, located just east of Barnette’s original store building, may yield important pieces of Barnette’s establishment, and perhaps even structural elements of the early Turner Street bridge.2 Other clues to the founding days likely lie buried throughout the city; indeed, numerous observations by engineers, city officials, and construction workers attest to this archaeological potential. Many recent construction projects (e.g., buildings, utilidors, parks, and roads) in and around Fairbanks’ core have exposed varied and abundant historic materials- only to be lost. Some specimens wind up in the hands of collectors, but the vast bulk is relegated to landfills. As time and development proceed, the potential for recovering these resources intact, or at all, diminishes. Vigilance is therefore necessary to identify those areas that still may retain their archaeological integrity before they, too, are lost. These are the resources that will shed more light on Fairbanks’ early years, particularly its transition from a remote frontier settlement to the beginnings of urban development.
Those early years also represent an important potential baseline for interpreting the subsequent cultural, social, and economic growth of the town. Outlying sites with archaeological potential (such as the Chena town site, isolated prospect cabins, and mining camps) may provide a clearer perspective. Their investigation could allow us to define the similarities and differences between the city’s core (a supply and service center) and the more remote service region. Recent surveys and documentation projects outside the city have already begun to assemble the necessary information.
Testing of the "frontier" concept arises also in the interpretation of the city’s major placer boom period. Our analysis has only touched on the nature of goods demanded by the citizens, and has barely mentioned the availability and variety of commodities entering the market. Recovered artifacts hint at an economy that could afford relatively expensive commodities. Imported liquors and ceramics came from England, Ireland, and Spain. Other countries are also represented among the artifacts. The commodity flow analysis presented in this report shows similarities to other "low access" areas, primarily West Coast sites, which should surprise no one due to their proximity. Yet the analysis could be further refined to assess the specific nature of commodity demand and the range of supplies entering the region. If Fairbanks was truly a remote outpost at the end of a supply line, we might expect a relatively limited selection of goods. "Essential" goods should dominate the cluster of artifacts brought into the region, and even within these categories only a few brands should be represented.
The Barnette assemblage and database, in concert with historical studies, could readily support a detailed commodity analysis. Even though the data represent only a portion of the early city’s total cultural profile (two saloons, a steamboat dock, and "trash" deposits) the sheer quantity of materials provides a sound basis for detailed statistical studies. Our background research was not successful in finding the NC Co. inventories for deliveries to Fairbanks. We did locate Alaska Commercial Company records that detailed shipments to Alaska, including the names of shippers, manufacturers, and costs of goods.3 Additional records show typical store inventories around 1900. These records could provide a possible surrogate for the missing Fairbanks records. Analysis would compare and contrast the known historical record with the archaeological record.
Differences between the two excavated saloon assemblages point to another area of possible future study. Initial analysis suggests each establishment had its own unique character, deriving perhaps from differences in clientele and location. One comparison looked at alcoholic beverage selection, which seems an appropriate subject for these businesses. Yet we also know that a waterfront bar or trailhead saloon provided more than just beverages. The historical records recount serving turkey dinners at the California Saloon, and the Miners’ Home advertised itself as a restaurant. We have taken the first step by defining effective clusters of the data, yet much work remains-- for example, examining the relative economic relationships between the two assemblages. More fine-grained artifact class analyses will help to define unique qualities of each establishment. Furthermore, these analyses need to be meshed with additional historical record analysis, such as a review of the 1910 and 1920 censuses for Fairbanks.
Many of the artifacts we excavated can be found in catalogs and inventories of the day. Relative costs may be assigned that reflect trends in the economies of the different areas of the city. At this stage of investigation, we hesitate to propose any sort of class distinction connected with such an analysis. Given the nature of the sites, their locations, and the comparable services, such an analysis, however, would likely suggest differences in taste and preference made by what appear now as two distinct social groupings. Were the clerks of the NC Co. and the steamboat stevedores the principal patrons of the California Saloon? Did miners, just off the narrow-gauge railway from the creeks, make their first stop the Miners’ Home?
The outlier elements identified in the non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis, also call for more focused study. What factors account for the unique qualities of these divergent functional groupings? In most cases, the results should represent differing site formation origins, and differences in artifact use and discard. Area A has a solid cluster attributed in part to activities generated by the California Saloon operation. Yet the lowest levels of Area A (Levels 4c and 4d), do not fit the pattern and were not grouped with the others. If they do not represent the saloon or the general pattern of waterfront disposal, then what actions created the deposits? Only a careful parsing of the data sets may provide the answers.
The analysis in Section 5.1 and Appendix 10 evaluated the grosser relationships observed, rather than examining in detail the complexities of urban site formation. Again, within the Area A assemblage we see a dominance of the saloon refuse. We suggest, however, that another element lies masked within the larger signal of the saloon. Comparison between areas A and B1 implies that an image of the pre-Railroad B1 pattern of pedestrian discard lies embedded in the California Saloon sweepings. The Area A Early Saloon deposits reflect not only the routine cleanup of the establishment and debris from a 1920s remodeling event, but also the activities of individual discards (for example, a presumed wagon load of horseshoes and other blacksmith-related artifacts).
Finally, we need to consider both the strengths and the limitations of the existing data. In no way do they fully represent Fairbanks in its early years. While we believe much more interpretation can come from future research on this collection alone, the nature of the findings limit extrapolation to a level that was implied by the original research design. We have pieces of two saloons and a focused glimpse of activities along the waterfront. We do not have the rest of the city represented in a similar fashion. Front Street contained the main commercial establishments, several saloons, and several hotels. The north side of the Chena River held similar, yet different, elements such as Samson Hardware, commercial storage buildings, the International Hotel, the Miners’ Home and the Tanana Valley Railroad. Other areas of Fairbanks contained different types of buildings, including of course the residential neighborhoods, all of which contribute to the character of the town.
The Barnette Project data does not include information from the wider range of urban activities, yet the other components of urban life are needed to fully understand aspects of the early town cultural history. We can not ignore the other commercial enterprises, the government sector, the pioneer homes, the fledgling industries, or the community institutions like the Catholic Church. Without these pieces, an archaeological view of Fairbanks’ history is incomplete.
Fortunately, at least some of this history still remains. Additional artifacts and structures lie buried along the river bank outside the recovery zone specified for the Barnette Project. Newspaper accounts document that debris from the disastrous 1906 fire helped rebuild the river banks severely eroded by a 1905 flood. Fire debris undoubtedly still helps to form the river bank and underlies First Avenue from Turner to Lacey Streets, even though more recent redevelopment has disturbed portions of this record. Unlike trash dumps, which are a product of end-use discard, the fire zone could provide a more complete sample of pre-1906 goods from the community. If, in the future, systematic collections can be made of representative samples from different localities throughout the city, archaeologists and historians will be able to assemble an even fuller picture of life in the early years of Fairbanks.
1Ducker 1994.
2Gannon 1992:13.
3Alaska Commercial Company Records, Stanford University
Archives.
[Table of Contents] [Previous Chapter] [Bibliography] [Main Page] [Top of Page]