344 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
Of which we too may but a portion be
In that sum-total solidarity
Of human beings spread across the earth
In generations, birth succeeding birth-
The living who raise the citadels we
know,
The dead whose bones earth bosomed long
ago.
And this good company that meets today
Proves the large truth of what I've
sought to say;
For why should we, whose daily
tasks alone
So press upon us that we scarcely own
The present hour, still take on us to gaze
Back on the parted, the forgotten days;
Why should we leave the quest for daily
bread,
To quest for relics of the savage dead;
Why should we leave our figuring for
gold
To figure out a vanished world of old?-
Except that thus in human nature lurks,
Except that thus in human nature works
Some sense of common comradry and kin
With human life, wherever it has been,
And in the use of such a sense we find
Enlargement for our human heart and
mind.
Dr. Carl Russell Fish, professor of
American history in the
University of Wisconsin, furnished the
final number on the pro-
gram. His very instructive address
entitled, "The Relation of
Archaeology to History, is here
presented.
ADDRESS OF PROFESSOR FISH.
The derivation of the word archaeology
gives little idea of its
present use. "The study of
antiquity" is at once too broad in scope
and too limited in time, for the
followers of a dozen other "ologies" are
studying antiquity, while the
archaeologist does not confine himself to
that period. The definition of the word
in the new English dictionary
corrects the first of these errors, but
emphasizes the second, for it
describes it as: "The scientific
study of remains and monuments of the
prehistoric period." This obviously
will not bear examination, as the
bulk of archeological endeavor falls
within the period which is considered
historical, and I cannot conceive any
period prehistoric, about which
archeology, or any other science, can
give us information. Actually, time
has nothing whatever to do with the
limitations of archaeology, and to
think of it as leaving off where history
begins, is to misconceive them
The Wisconsin Archaeological
Society. 345
both. The only proper limitation upon
archaeology lies in its subject
matter, and I conceive that it cannot be
further defined than as: "The
scientific study of human remains and
monuments."
In considering the relations of the
science to history, I do not
wish to enter into any war of words as
to claims of "sociology", and
"anthropology" and
"history" to be the inclusive word, covering the
totality of man's past, but simply to
use history as it is generally
understood at present and as its
professors act upon it. Certainly we
are no longer at the stage where history
could be defined as "Past
Politics," and it is equally
certain that there are fields of human activity
which are not actually treated in any
adequate way by the historian.
The relations of the two do not depend
on the definition of history,
but the more broadly it is interpreted,
the more intimate their relationship
becomes. The sources of history are
three-fold, written, spoken, and
that which is neither written nor
spoken.
To preserve and prepare the first, is
the business of the philologist,
the archivist, the paleographer, the
editor, and experts in a dozen sub-
sidiary sciences. The historian devotes
so much the larger part of
his time to this class of material, that
the period for which written
materials exists is sometimes spoken of
as the historical period, and
the erroneous ideas of archaeology which
I have quoted, become common.
Least important of the three, is the
spoken or traditional, though if
we include all the material that was
passed down for centuries by word
of mouth before being reduced to
writing, such as the Homeric poems or
the Norse sagas, it includes some of the
most interesting things we
know of the past. In American history,
such material deals chiefly
with the Indian civilizations, and its
collection is carried on chiefly
by the anthropologists. In addition,
nearly every family preserves a mass
of oral traditions running back for
about a hundred years; and there
is a small body of general information,
bounded by about the same
limit, which has never yet been put into
permanent form. The win-
nowing of this material to secure
occasional kernels of historic truth
that it yields is as yet a neglected
function.
The material that is neither written nor
oral falls to the geologist and
the archaeologist. Between these two
sciences there is striking simi-
larity, but their boundaries are clear;
the geologist deals with natural
phenomena, the archaeologist with that
which is human, and which may,
for convenience, be called monumental.
The first duty of the archaeolo-
gist is to discover such material and to
verify it, the next is to secure
its preservation, preferably its actual
tangible preservation, but if that
is not possible, by description. Then
comes the task of studying it,
classifying and arranging it, and making
it ready for use. At this point
the function of the archaeologist
ceases, and the duty of the historian
begins; to interpret it, and to bring it
into harmony with the recognized
body of information regarding the past.
It is not necessary that different
346 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
individuals in every case do these
different things. We must not press
specialization too far. Nearly every
historian should be something of an
archaeologist, and every archeologist
should be something of an his-
torian. When the archaeologist ceases
from the preparation of his
material, and begins the reconstruction
of the past, he commences to
act as an historian; he has to call up a
new range of equipment, a new
set of qualifications.
The fields in which the services of
archaeology are most appreciated
are those to which written and oral
records do not reach. Its con-
tributions in pressing back the
frontiers of knowledge are incalculable,
and are growing increasingly so with
every passing year. To say nothing
of what it has told us of the
civilizations of Egypt and Assyria, it has
given to history within the last few
years the whole great empire of the
Hittites. We have learned more of
Mycenaean civilization from archae-
ology than from Homer. Practically all
we know of the Romanization
of Britain is from such sources, and
that process, not long ago regarded
almost as a myth, is now a well
articulated bit of history. In America,
within the last thirty-five years, by
the joint work of the archaeologist and
the anthropologist, many of the points
long disputed concerning the
Indians have been set at rest, more
knowledge of them has been recovered
than was ever before supposed possible,
and new questions have been
raised which invite renewed activity.
From all over the world, moreover,
remains of the past, amount-
ing to many times those now known, call
for investigation. It is safe to
say that within the next fifty years
more sensational discoveries will
be made by following material, than
written, records.
It is not, however, only in the periods
void of written sources
that archaeology can perform its
services. It is in the period of classical
antiquity that we find the combination
happiest. There, indeed, it is
difficult to find an historian who does
not lay archaeology under tribute,
or an archaeologist who is not lively to
the historical bearing of his work.
When we come to the medieval period the
situation is less ideal, the his-
torian tends to pay less attention to
monuments, and the archaeologist to
become an antiquarian, intent upon
minutia, and losing sight of his
ultimate duty. In the modern period, the
historian, self-satisfied with the
richness of his written sources, ignores
all others, and the archaeologist,
always with a little love for the
unusual and for the rust of time,
considers himself absolved from further
work.
As one working in this last period, I
wish to call the attention
of American archaeologists to some
possibilities that it offers. Abundant
as are our resources they do not tell
the whole story of the last couple of
centuries even in America, and we have
monuments which are worthy
of preservation and which can add to our
knowledge of our American
ancestors, as well as of our Indian
predecessors. Even in Wisconsin
something may be obtained from such
sources.
The Wisconsin Archaeological
Society. 347
The most interesting of our monumental
remains are, of course,
the architectural. Everybody is familiar
with the log cabin, though
something might yet be gathered as to
the sites selected for them, and
minor differences in construction. Less
familiar is the cropping out of
the porch in front, the spreading of the
ell behind, and the two lean-to
wings, then the sheathing with
clap-boards, the evolution of the porch
posts into Greek columns, and the clothing
of the whole with white paint,
all representing stages in the
prosperity of the occupants. In nearly every
older Wisconsin township may be found
buildings representing every
one of these stages, the older ones
indicating poor land or unthrifty
occupants and being generally remote
from the township center, or
else serving as minor farm buildings
behind more pretentious frame or
brick structures. In the same way the
stump fence, the snake fence and
the wire fence, denote advance or the
retardation of progress. Other
studies of economic value may be made
from the use of different kinds
of building materials. The early use of
local stone is one of the features
of Madison, its subsequent disuse was
due not so much to the diffi-
culty of quarrying as to the decreased
cost of transportation making other
materials cheaper, and was coincident
with the arrival of the railroads.
Very interesting material could be
obtained from the abandoned river
towns, still preserving the appearance
of fifty years ago, and furnishing
us with genuine American ruins.
On the whole the primitive log cabins
were necessarily much alike,
but when the log came to be superseded
by more flexible material,
the settler's first idea was to
reproduce the home or the ideal of his
childhood, and the house tends to reveal
the nationality of its builder.
Just about Madison there are farm houses
as unmistakably of New Eng-
land as if found in the "Old
Colony," and others as distinctly of Penn-
sylvania or the South. I am told of a
settlement of Cornishmen,
which they have made absolutely
characteristic, and even the automobilist
can often distinguish the first
Wisconsin home of the German, the
Englishman or the Dutchman. Where have
our carpenters, our masons
and finishers come from, and what tricks
of the trade have each
contributed ?
Such studies reveal something also of
the soul of the people. Not
so much in America, to be sure, as in
Europe, where national and
individual aspirations find as legitimate
expression in architecture, as
in poetry; and less here in the West,
which copied its fashions, than
in the East, which imported them. Still
we have a few of the Greek
porticoed buildings which were in part a
reflection of the influence of the
first French Republic and in part
represented the admiration of the
Jeffersonian democracy for the republics
of Greece; but that style
almost passed away before Wisconsin was
settled. We have a number of
the composite porticoed and domed
buildings which succeeded and
represented perhaps the kinship between
the cruder democracy of Jackson
348 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
and that of Rome. We have many buildings both public and private,
some extremely beautiful, which reflect
the days in the middle of the
nineteenth century when the best minds
in America drew inspiration
from the Italy of the Renaissance, when
Story and Crawford, and
Hawthorne and Margaret Fuller lived and
worked in Rome. The
succeeding period when the French
mansard stands for the dominating
influence on things artistic, or rather
inartistic, of the Second Empire,
is everywhere illustrated; while the
revival of English influence, in
the Queen Anne; the beginning of general
interest in American history,
in the colonial; the influence of the war
with Spain; in the square
cement; and many other waves of thought
and interest, can be pointed out
in almost any town. A careful study of
its architecture will nearly
always reveal the approximate date of
foundation, the periods of pros-
perity and depression, the origin of the
inhabitants, and many other
facts of real importance.
I have spoken so far of the contribution
of archaeology to the
science of history. Fully as great are
its possibilities along the lines of
popularization and illustration. The
work of neither archaeology nor
history can go on without popular
support, and the local appeal is one of
the strongest that can be made. Not
every town has an interesting
history, but almost every one, however
ugly, can be made historically
interesting to its inhabitants, if its
streets can be made to tell its history,
and by reflection something of the
history of the country, which may
be done merely by opening their eyes to
their chirography. It should be
part of the hope of the local archaeologist
to make his neighbors and his
neighbor's children see history in
everything about them, and if this is
accomplished we may hope gradually to
arouse a deeper and more
scientific interest, and a willingness
to encourage that research into the
whole past, in which historian and
archaeologist are jointly interested.
On a recent visit to Lake Koshkonong I
found my interest very
much stimulated by the admirable map and
plates illustrating the Indian
life about its shores, and it has
occurred to me that one extremely
valuable way of arousing general
interest and of arranging our archae-
ological data, would be in a series of
such minute maps. For instance the
first in the series would give purely
the physical features, the next, on
the same scale, would add our Indian
data-mounds, village sites, culti-
vated fields, arrow factories and
battle-fields, trails and any other indi-
cations that might appear--then one on
the entrance of the white men,
with trading posts, garrisons, first
settlements and roads, the next
would begin with the school house and
end with the railroad, and one
or two more would complete the set. Such
studies of the material
changes of a locality, would not form an
embellishment, but the basis
of its history.
Another work might be undertaken through
the local high school.
The pupils might be encouraged to take
photographs of houses, fences,
The Wisconsin Archaeological
Society. 349
bridges and other objects, interesting
for the reasons I have pointed out,
as well as all objects of aboriginal
interest. These should always be dated
and the place where they were taken
noted. In fact, a map should be
used, and by numbers or some such device
the pictures localized. These
photographs properly classified and
arranged would give such a picture
of the whole life of the community in
terms of tangible remains as
could not fail to interest its
inhabitants as well as serve the student.
In the newer portions of the state,
particularly in the north it would be
possible to take pictures of the first
clearing, and then file them away
and a few years later take another
picture of the farmstead with its
improvements and so on until it reached
a condition of stability. Thus
to project into the future the work of a
science whose name suggests
antiquity, may seem fantastic, but even
the future will ultimately become
antiquity. We have still in Wisconsin
some remnants of a frontier stage
of civilization which is passing and
cannot be reproduced, and to provide
materials to express it to the future
cannot be held superfluous. If we
imagine the joy that it would give to us
to find a photograph of the
site of Rome before that city was built,
of one of the great Indian villages
of Wisconsin before the coming of the
white man, we can form a con-
ception of the value of such an ordered
and scientific collection as I have
suggested to the future student of the
civilization of our own day.
At the conclusion of the program an
informal reception was
tendered the guests by the Madison
members of the Wisconsin
Archaeological Society, light
refreshments being served by the
ladies of the historical library staff.
The entire museum was
thrown open to the visitors, who spent
the remainder of the
evening in inspecting its historical and
anthropological collections.
The historical museum had its beginning
in 1854, and has main-
tained a persistent and progressive
growth since that date. It
occupies the entire upper floor of the
State Historical Library
building, and has eight exhibition
halls. Its chief aim is popular
education along the lines of Wisconsin
history. It takes promin-
ent rank as an educational institution,
and entertains from 60,000
to 80,000 visitors each year.
In addition to its regular collections
the museum had pre-
pared for the occasion of the Assembly a
series of special ex-
hibits. These included the original
surveys and maps, and corre-
spondence relating to Wisconsin
antiquities of Dr. Increase A.
Lapham, the state's distinguished
pioneer antiquarian, and of his
344 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
Of which we too may but a portion be
In that sum-total solidarity
Of human beings spread across the earth
In generations, birth succeeding birth-
The living who raise the citadels we
know,
The dead whose bones earth bosomed long
ago.
And this good company that meets today
Proves the large truth of what I've
sought to say;
For why should we, whose daily
tasks alone
So press upon us that we scarcely own
The present hour, still take on us to gaze
Back on the parted, the forgotten days;
Why should we leave the quest for daily
bread,
To quest for relics of the savage dead;
Why should we leave our figuring for
gold
To figure out a vanished world of old?-
Except that thus in human nature lurks,
Except that thus in human nature works
Some sense of common comradry and kin
With human life, wherever it has been,
And in the use of such a sense we find
Enlargement for our human heart and
mind.
Dr. Carl Russell Fish, professor of
American history in the
University of Wisconsin, furnished the
final number on the pro-
gram. His very instructive address
entitled, "The Relation of
Archaeology to History, is here
presented.
ADDRESS OF PROFESSOR FISH.
The derivation of the word archaeology
gives little idea of its
present use. "The study of
antiquity" is at once too broad in scope
and too limited in time, for the
followers of a dozen other "ologies" are
studying antiquity, while the
archaeologist does not confine himself to
that period. The definition of the word
in the new English dictionary
corrects the first of these errors, but
emphasizes the second, for it
describes it as: "The scientific
study of remains and monuments of the
prehistoric period." This obviously
will not bear examination, as the
bulk of archeological endeavor falls
within the period which is considered
historical, and I cannot conceive any
period prehistoric, about which
archeology, or any other science, can
give us information. Actually, time
has nothing whatever to do with the
limitations of archaeology, and to
think of it as leaving off where history
begins, is to misconceive them