Many collections associated with the River Basin Surveys (RBS) are curated by the Smithsonian\u2019s National Museum of Natural History, and stored at the Museum Support Center. All objects in the RBS collections were fully cataloged by RBS crews during the original project (1946\u20131969), but when they were transferred to Smithsonian storage, they needed to be introduced into the Smithsonian\u2019s own cataloging system. Each object (or lot of objects, like a group of potsherds that belongs together) gets a unique number in a sequential series that goes back all the way to the beginnings of the Smithsonian\u2019s collections. During cataloging, collections are also updated into housing that meets present-day curation standards. Because so many large RBS collections were transferred to Smithsonian storage over the years, the process of cataloging them has been a long-term project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As you can see in some of our previous blog updates<\/a>, in the past few years contractors, interns, and volunteers from the Rogers Archaeology Lab have been working to catalog and update the housing of the few remaining RBS collections that had not yet been entered into the Smithsonian\u2019s cataloging system. Much of the material was still housed in the paper bags it was originally stored in. Some items had already received housing updates due to specific curation needs or researchers working with these collections. However, most of the material in these collections needed new housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because these collections were originally processed in the mid-twentieth century, some of the containers in which they were stored are now old enough to be considered artifacts in their own right. In cultural resource management, we often use 50 years as the cutoff time that determines whether or not an object is considered an \u201cartifact\u201d. This is more of a general guideline than a hard and fast rule, as there are myriad exceptions. Moreover, as I\u2019ve mentioned elsewhere<\/a>, archaeological methods can be and are used to study the very recent past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We found this shoebox housing reconstructed pots in the Sommers collection (39ST59)<\/a>. These pots were in a specific grouping within that collection, consisting of materials collected during a Works Project Administration project that predated the River Basin Surveys work at this site. This tells us that the box most likely dates to the late 1940s. Without that context\/knowledge, we\u2019d have to look elsewhere for a date. Even when we do have that context, it is good practice to confirm such hypotheses with additional information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is an ad for these shoes from the Eugene Register, dated July 29, 1948, which fits with our original date estimate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examination of the box and label can provide information on mid-twentieth century manufacturing techniques, materials, ink, etc. It can also tell us something about color and style preferences. As I said, there\u2019s only so much one can deduce from a single artifact, but if the researcher had multiple shoeboxes from this and\/or other periods to compare to, or maybe photographs or other materials, they might get a pretty good idea about how any and all of those aspects change over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These observations can be combined with any other information the researcher has gathered on the United States in the 1940s. If they studied many objects like the ones in the image above, they might have concluded that a major event with many societal impacts during this period was the United States\u2019 involvement in an overseas war. During this time many young men went off to war, while women at home took jobs that were traditionally filled by men. In this context, shoe boxes like the one pictured above might be used as data in a study investigating how (or if) World War II changed ideas of masculinity in the United States, and how this influenced product advertising. This is but one example of a way in which such an artifact could illustrate a larger story. There are many other possibilities. Someone could study stylistic changes in footwear, or use of color in packaging, or many other topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another example is this paper bag that housed potsherds from Larson site (39WW2)<\/a>, the site of an 18th century Arikara village (see also this post<\/a>, and this post<\/a>). This bag, conveniently, has a date on it. It reads \u201cThe best for you in 1963.\u201d As English-speaking early 21st century observers familiar with the culture, we understand this to be well wishes for the new calendar year (such conclusions might be trickier for an observer who is farther removed from the culture under examination). Thus, we can determine that the bag must date to either very late 1962, or very early 1963. We don\u2019t often get artifact dates THAT precise, but as demonstrated here, it does happen!<\/p>\n\n\n\n As you can see, the images above look remarkably similar: all the shoppers pictured in them are well-dressed white women. Following such an observation, one could use the shopping bag and comparison images as data points in a study of class, race, and\/or gender in late 1950s-early 1960s America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are not formally studying the original housing materials that we find with the RBS collections. These examples are used here to illustrate how everyday objects can tell us about the past. As we have seen, interpretation in archaeology is highly dependent on context. One artifact without any context can tell us very little. However, identifying and defining context can extract a lot of information from any artifact. While we will not be further reviewing any of these materials, it is interesting to think about what they can tell us about the context of the RBS effort, and how that might have influenced the surveys themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Images used in Figure 5:<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/1988sherds-1021x1024.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
In this blog post I examine some of the containers we encountered in RBS collections as artifacts. This exercise demonstrates how archaeology can be used to extract information from the most mundane of objects. All human-made objects can tell us something about the culture that produced them. Exactly how much one can learn depends on what other information is available to the researcher. An artifact without any context often tells us very little, but an artifact from a known context, combined with other artifactual, historical, or other information, can potentially tell us a great deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I write this post from the perspective of an early 21st century observer, using the sources available to me. Things that are obvious to an early 21st century observer (plenty of whom can still remember the 1960s) would not be so obvious to a human observer from the very distant future, who knew little about 20th century human cultures. What they could learn would depend entirely on what other information they had access to. Most of the time in archaeology we study artifacts from periods much more distant to us than the 1960s, and the more distant, the fewer other sources are available to us. However, the general principle is still the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, let\u2019s examine some examples of what these artifacts can tell us about the United States in the mid-twentieth century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Two](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/PotsInBox-1-846x1024.jpg\")
Accessing trademark databases<\/a>, we learn that the trademark on the shoebox was first filed for June 4, 1947, and first registered in October of 1948. First use of the trademark is listed as 1924. The trademark was extended for 20 years, twice, but is currently expired. Based on just the trademark, the box must date to somewhere between 1924 and 1988. The trademark listing also describes the product as \u201cleather men\u2019s work shoes with leather or rubber soles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/image.gif\")
![\"Cropped](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/shoead.jpg\")
Reading the text on the box, we observe that in late 1940s America, fashion was gendered, as was advertising: There was such a thing as \u201cmen\u2019s shoes\u201d, rather than just \u201cshoes\u201d and the wording on the advertising communicates certain ideas about masculinity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/collage-605x1024.jpg\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/SuperValu-768x1024.jpg\")
As with the shoebox above, we again can observe materials, manufacturing techniques, colors, and style. But let\u2019s look at what else is there: If we understand the image on the bag to be an advertisement for a store, we can begin to detangle different layers of meaning. The image tells us something about the culture that produced it, but this is not necessarily straightforward. An ad is meant to convey certain ideas. Those ideas can tell us about norms and values in a society, but not necessarily about what everyday reality looked like. Depicted here is an idealized representation of a shopping experience. Presumably it is meant to make shopping at this particular store look like a pleasant experience, so shoppers will want to patronize the store.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We see people, clothes, grocery items, and packaging pictured. This allows us to make certain assumptions about what sort of items could be shopped for at grocery stores, and how they were packaged. We can also venture a guess as to what kinds of clothes were fashionable. Encoded in any such images there might be all kinds of information about things like class, race, and gender. Can the woman\u2019s outfit tell us about class? Is this store catering to a certain class of people? We see a woman shopping and a man as the shopkeeper. What does this tell us about gender roles? By itself, this artifact cannot tell us much. Perhaps we can conclude no more than it was apparently not abnormal for women to go grocery shopping. However, if we compare this bag to other images from the same time period and the same place, telling trends begins to emerge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Scans](\"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/ads2.jpg\")
In this particular example I relied heavily on documentary evidence to build context. Archaeologists can and do use written sources when they are available. This is common practice in historical archaeology . That does not mean that we accept any text as a straightforward description of the past. Both documents and artifacts must be critically evaluated in order to extract meaning. As we can clearly see in this example of a paper bag with printed advertising, sometimes the line between document and artifact isn\u2019t entirely clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For more object-centered stories about the US in the 1960s, see these two blog posts by our colleagues at the National Museum for American History: “So you want to curate an exhibit about the 1960s”<\/a> and “Suzy Homemaker: A slice of life from the 1960s”<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n