Virginia City: Secrets of a Western Past

Epilogue: Breathing Meaning into the Past

124 Epilogue Breathing Meaning into the Past If we as archaeologists are to continue our work, it must be in the context of public understanding and support. James Deetz Far below Virginia City’s hectic main street, St. Mary Louise Hospital stands in the midst of a tree-lined oasis. The Daughters of Charity opened the imposing brick structure in 1875, offering a higher success rate in caring for the sick and injured than elsewhere in town. Apartments for the sisters occupied the top floor, with one room unlike the others. The narrow, secluded place has an iron grill on the inside of the window, evidence of when it housed the mentally disturbed. There is not much to be learned here, but the quiet space evokes the past with an unexpected, tormented turn. Virginia City can be imagined in many different ways, but the window with its bars presents a unique opportunity to envision the nineteenth century: the insane residents of the mining community are not likely to come to mind when considering remarkable wealth and technological achievement.1 Material culture does not always lend new information, but it can be—indeed it usually is—a potent means to gain insight. The metal grill on the fourth floor of a historic structure is far removed from the ground, where archaeologists are most at home. It would be a stretch to arrive at a scientific research design that could analyze the iron or the room to deal with this resource in archaeological fashion. And yet it is a powerful place to consider a former time. Anders Andrén describes several strategies intended to give historical archaeology value when dealing with a literate society. Among his recommendations is to consider ways archaeology can shed light on people who rarely appear in records. These include ethnic groups, women, children, and the poor. The example of the Virginia City hos- 125 Epilogue pital serves as a reminder to include the mentally ill in the list of the underrepresented. Andrén also underscores the fact that archaeology offers a counterbalance to documents, not merely by confirming an understanding based on the written record but also by providing a new approach to the past that can stand as an equal to the discipline of history. Although this is sound advice, it can lead to further isolation of historical archaeology if taken in the wrong direction.2 Many disciplines besides archaeology deal with material culture, and each represents a chance to consider former times in a new light. Architectural historians, textile and furniture experts, and scholars who consider cemeteries also draw insight from various types of objects, but obstacles divide rather than unite. For the past century the university system has promoted divisions between the disciplines that study humanity . The proliferation of publications makes the task of mastering the bibliography of just one discipline a lifelong journey. It is a daunting suggestion that those who study the past should be Renaissance scholars , traversing seldom-used bridges to master other methods. But such an approach is not impossible, and it is always rewarding.3 Perhaps the greatest benefits and challenges exist in the collaboration between archaeologists and historians. Proponents of both disciplines are known to refer to those of the other camp as antiquarians, dismissing rival efforts as lacking meaningful conclusions. This sort of judgment is grounded in the two different methods used to present insights. Traditionally, historians tackle the past without the scientific method . They immerse themselves in the sources and in what others have already written on the subject, until an image of the past emerges. All historians approach their subjects with preconceptions and many have axes to grind, but in general they reserve interpretation until they have surveyed the written record with as much objectivity as possible. Without an initial set of questions, research can lack efficiency, but there is a difference between spending the time of one historian and that of an excavation team followed by a cadre of lab workers. Making the process cost effective is less of an issue when a single person deals with the written record. Also, historians are trained to blend interpretation into the telling of the story, and they are often slow to reveal their arguments in so many words. Historians build their cases much like journalists do. Most dis- 126 Epilogue guise the fact that they are advancing a position...