Today In Wyoming's History: December 20: 1812 One of the dates claimed for the death of Sacajawea. If correct, she would have died of an unknown illness at age 24 at Fort Manuel Lisa, where it is claimed that she and her husband Toussaint Charbonneau were living. If correct, she left an infant girl, Lizette, there, and her son Jean-Baptiste was living in a boarding school while in the care of William Clark. Subsequent records support that Charbonneau consented to Clark's adoption of Lizette the following year, although almost nothing is known about her subsequent fate. Jean-Baptiste lived until age 61, having traveled widely and having figured in many interesting localities of the American West.
The 1812 death claim, however, is rejected by the Shoshone's, to which tribe she belonged, who maintain that she lived to be nearly 100 years old and died in 1884 at Ft. Washakie, Wyoming. A grave site exists for her, based on the competing claim, in Ft. Washakie, the seat of government for the Wind River Reservation. This claim holds that she left Charbonneau and ultimately married into the Comanche tribe, which is very closely related to the Shoshone tribe, ultimately returning to her native tribe This view was championed by Grace Hebard who was discussed here several days ago, and it even presents an alternative history for her son, Jean Baptiste, and a second son Bazil. It was later supported by the conclusions reached by Dr. Charles Eastman, a Sioux physician who was hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to research her fate.
While the Wyoming claim is not without supporting evidence, the better evidence would support her death outside of Wyoming at an early age. The alternative thesis is highly romantic, which has provided the basis for criticism of Hebard's work. The 1812 date, on the other hand, is undeniably sad, as much of Sacajawea's actual life was. Based upon what is now known of her story, as well as the verifiable story of Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau, who had traveled in the US and Europe, and who had held public office in the United States, the Wyoming claim is seriously questionable. That in turn leaves the question of the identify of the person buried at Ft. Washakie, who appears to have genuinely been married into the Comanche tribe, to have lived to an extremely old age, and to have lived a very interesting life, but that identity is unlikely to ever be known, or even looked into.
Now, quite frankly, I do not hold to the view that the "victors write the history", or that all history is written with the view of justifying the views of the writer. Quite the opposite is generally true, and for the most part, most good histories get things right more often than wrong. That, however, may be part of the problem here. The early history on the Wyoming claim was promoted by Grace Hebard, and as remarkable as she was, she not only was not a trained historian, but it would appear not a perfectly unbiased one. And it would also appear that her research did not benefit from delving into the existing sources much. So she concluded that a woman who likely was a very interesting long lived Comanche-Shoshone woman was Sacajawea, when in fact she almost certainly was not. Beyond that, Hebard went on to make Sacajawea sort of a feminist icon, which perhaps does not really do justice to a person who was an unfortunate girl at the time she was ripped away from her home in a raid, and who was later married as the second bride in the polygamist household being then maintained by Toussaint Charbonneau (what happened to Otter Woman, the first Shoshone bride of Charbonneau, I do not know). Dying from illness at 24 years old was a bad fate, but one that was pretty common at that time, so the truth appears to also have a pretty unfortunate ending to a pretty hard short life.
So what does this whole story tell us now? Well, perhaps it says something about the very early written histories of places like Wyoming, where a lot of the very early writers were very dedicated and energetic, but not always unbiased, and sometimes over enthusiastic. Perhaps this also points out why new histories are sometimes needed, and sometimes more objective than earlier ones. The first on the scene sometimes have an agenda or a viewpoint that can't help but dictate the outcome of their work, and they may not even be able to recognize that their work is so influenced. And it may also say something about holding on to a myth against all odds, as Wyoming still claims the 1884 death, in spite of the best evidence all being to the contrary. I suppose it also says something about drafting works of history without adequate research as well.
4 comments:
I find this quite interesting. In one of my classes for my master's degree, we discussed the idea of historians being unbiased. Ultimately, our class discussion came to the conclusion that historians can not being 100% unbiased, but should absolutely use the sources available as evidence to support the claim they are making. So, if the one historian did not use sources, as you explained, it would seem that this history could not be trusted as an account of what happened to this woman, whoever it was. The closer you are to the event, the more biased you will be. So, I agree that some later historian may have a more unbiased interpretation of the events and may have better access to additional sources.
LeAnn, thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.
The element of time in histories has really been apparent to me in regards to recent World War Two histories. World War Two is not all that long ago, at least as we who are historically minded are concerned, but enough has changed between then and now so that some of the earlier histories are inaccurate simply because of what they omit, probably because the authors were so familiar with background details, and material culture details, that they wouldn't even think to include them. And then, too, some things were omitted as they were just a bit too painful for the authors or the culture the authors came from.
In contrast, some recent histories, such as those by Rick Atkinson, include a lot of details that may surprise current readers, even those very familiar with the topics, as the prior histories haven't included these omitted details. It makes for a much more interesting, and enlightening read, and it points out how current study even on well covered events remains very worthwhile.
The same could be said of the histories of the Civil War, both immediately following the event and even now. It is still such a divisive period in the United States even though it happened 150 years ago, that many of the histories still written about it, are skewed in one direction or another. Of course, other things could also be said of Civil War histories, but that's for another post/comment. :-)
On Civil War histories, and even more than that, Indian War histories, one thing that is often wholly missed is the reality of the nature of transportation at the time. It's simply never addressed. Of course, that's even true of World War Two histories to a large extent, if we consider such facts as the German Army depending heavily upon horse transportation. It's very much not addressed in histories of early wars, or even earlier events of all kind on any topic.
Of course, if written near to the event, the realities of transportation were known to the author and reader alike. If written many years after, the authors and the readers often don't know that it's a topic that should be addressed. It's interesting how this, in turn, impacts what we read. "The Army went here, there, etc.", but what that really meant, is another matter.
Post a Comment