Rogers Archaeology Lab

Tools of the Trade

By Lotte Govaerts

This image-heavy blog post is all about tools! Today we want to tell you not about tools found in archaeological contexts but rather about the tools archaeologists use to excavate sites. Well, about a few of those tools, anyway.

A few years ago, I tweeted a series of photos for a “31 Days of Archaeology” Twitter event, in which participants posted archaeology-themed photos in response to a series of prompts.[1] One of the prompts was “Tools of the Trade”. On that day, I posted a photo of the contents of my tool bag. My Twitter followers later expressed some interest in seeing that tweet turned into a blog post, so I have now expanded that tweet into this post. Come join my exploration of the objects in the first photo! As it may be difficult to see all the tools in that photo, I’m including some closeups below. As always, you can click each image to see a larger version.

The contents of the author's tool bag. Photo Lotte Govaerts

 

Before I get started, I should clarify that the contents of my tool bag are optimized for field work on the east coast of the United States. Archaeologists who do fieldwork in places with different soils and different climate conditions may have a completely different set of tools! In addition, the tools pictured here are hand tools that fit in my bag. We typically use larger tools as well. You will see some of those other tools in the photos below, though I will not discuss them in detail.

I should also add that I have not done regular fieldwork since I came to the Rogers Archaeology Lab; I only occasionally volunteer on other people’s projects now. Therefore, many of the photos in this post are more than a few years old, even if I talk about the work in the present tense.

 

Trowels

The author's trowels. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

Pictured here are my trowels. While not all archaeological work involves digging, digging is still a central activity in this profession, and these trowels are my main digging tools, alongside shovels. Archaeological excavations involve various conditions and situations. Some situations require the use of shovels or even big earth-moving equipment to dig. In other situations, when more precision is required, small hand tools are better suited to the job.

 

The author using a trowel to dig. In this case, I was carefully digging down a soil level without cutting into the level below. You can see a few different soil levels in the walls of these test units; they have different colors. Photo: Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science (ASULAS)/US Forest Service (USFS).

 

The three trowels in the photo all started out the same size – a bit larger than the largest of the three– but they have gotten smaller over time due to sharpening. They have been sharpened many times! Why do we need sharp trowels? The sharp edge not only makes digging easier, but it also makes the soil easier to read. When you scrape a soil surface with a sharp edge, the different soil colors and textures become much easier to see. If you continue to work on that surface, walk on it, or brush dirt over it, the soil gets all smudged and these features become invisible. That’s why we clean our working surfaces with trowels every time we take photos and start investigating something new on that surface.

 

The author and colleagues, trowel-cleaning a large surface. Photo: Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

 

A freshly cleaned surface (by the author and colleagues), showing the outlines of various features, visible as darker areas against the lighter colored subsoil. Photo: ASULAS/USFS.

 

 

The author on a large, freshly cleaned surface, preparing a sign board for a photo. The dark square area is a burned building. The partial outline of another, round building can be seen just above it, partially covered by topsoil. The area that is cut out deeper than the surrounding soil was an early test trench. The shovel in the top left functions as a north arrow. This surface was cleaned by a row of people working side by side. Photo: Warren Wilson College Archaeology Lab/Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

 

 

The author, spraying water onto the outline of a feature and the surrounding soil in preparation for a photo. Adding water makes features stand out more in photos, as even after cleaning with trowels, these outlines become invisible quickly as the soil dries out. Photo: Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants (BRAC).

 

Measuring tools

A collection of measuring tapes and folding rulers. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

Archaeological fieldwork requires a lot of measuring. That’s why my tool bag contains several tape measures and other measuring instruments. Because archaeological excavation is destructive by its very nature, it is very important that we carefully document everything we do and find as we excavate. We use these tools to establish grids for digging and to note the coordinates of in-situ finds. We also carefully map each level.

 

The author and a colleague mapping a feature profile (i.e., drawing the outlines of the different soils/deposits in the profile, see next photo). One folding ruler measures horizontal distance, the other vertical. Photo: Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

 

One half of this feature has been excavated. You can see the different deposits/soil levels in the profile. We photograph and draw these profiles before excavating the other half. Photo: ASULAS.

 

 

The author using a tape measure to measure the depth of a test pit. Photo: BRAC/USFS.

 

 

The author rolling up some string and a very long measuring tape after doing some long-distance measuring. Photo: ASULAS.

 

Spoons

The spoons pictured in the top photo are also used for digging. When we dig features with rounded edges, the rounded shapes of different-sized spoons come in handy. It’s impossible to dig out these shapes with the straight edges of trowels!

 

The author, using a spoon to dig between rocks. Photo: ASULAS.

 

The author and a colleague, excavating a feature with a few spoons, of different sizes and shapes, at the ready. Photo: ASULAS/USFS.

 

Root clippers

Different sized root clippers or gardening shears. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

I refer to these tools as “root clippers” even though they’re clearly… gardening shears. In archaeology, we use them to cut roots, though. We try not to bother the trees too much, but there’s typically a larger version on site too, as well as a saw or two, to cut larger roots we encounter in our excavation squares.

 

Brushes

Three paint brushes and a toothbrush, all with some dirt on them. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

 

These paint brushes are used to brush loose dirt off certain surfaces. Brushing dirt off a soil surface is usually pointless, because (depending on the soil) doing so will smear the surface, but brushes come in very handy when cleaning up rocks and other hard surfaces.

I don’t use toothbrushes a lot in the field, although I use them regularly when processing freshly excavated artifacts in the lab.  I keep one in my tool bag for those occasions when I want to scrub some dirt off the broken edge of a sherd to see the temper, for example.

 

The author, using one of the brushes pictured in the previous photo to brush dirt off rocks. Photo: ASULAS.

 

The author digging a test unit with root clippers and a brush handy on the side. Photo: BRAC

 

Gloves

glove with holes in the fingers. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

You’ll note that I have a lot of gloves in my bag. That’s because I use them a lot and because archaeological fieldwork is very hard on them; activities like screening (pushing dirt through a metal screen) cause holes, especially in the fingers. Screening without gloves can be dangerous, as for example chipped stone tools that are hundreds or thousands of years old are still sharp and it’s easy to cut yourself as you’re pushing the soil through the screen. There could also be glass or metal fragments in the soil. Some of the pictured gloves are for warmth rather than for protection. I wear those underneath the sturdier work gloves when it is very cold out.

 

Flagging tape

I can’t remember now why a piece of flagging tape with the word “unfinished” on it was in my bag, but we use pieces of brightly colored flagging tape like that (the roll that piece came from was not in my bag; I typically keep it in my backpack so it stays clean) to mark locations out in the woods (we remove it when we’re done!) or to label bags of soil and other items. We also use similarly bright pin flags to mark grid coordinates, the location of test pits, or surface finds.

 

The author using flagging tape to label bags of soil. Photo: ASULAS/USFS.

 

The author, digging a test pit along a line marked with flagging tape. Photo: BRAC/USFS.

 

The author, screening soil from a test unit at a site disturbed by an illegal road cut. In this image, the orange pin flags represent surface finds. Each flag marks an artifact found on the disturbed surface. Blue pin flags mark the grid and have coordinates on them. Photo: BRAC/USFS.

 

The author screening dirt from a test pit in a box screen. The orange pin flag marks a grid location. The coordinates are written on the flag. Photo: BRAC.

 

Screwdrivers

As you can see, my tool bag contains two screwdrivers. I don’t typically need two screwdrivers at the same time, but it’s good to have backups! I occasionally need a screwdriver to fix a screen or other piece of equipment but that is not an everyday kind of thing when I am doing fieldwork.

 

Pointy wooden sticks

The small wooden tools seen in the first photo (mostly in the top left) are used for excavating delicate objects, like pieces of burned wood, or for getting the dirt from between rocks or other tight spaces.

 

The author using a wooden tool to dig between rocks. Photo: ASULAS.

 

A colleague using a wooden tool to excavate a piece of burned wood. Photo: The Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

Pens and pencils

I keep a few pens and pencils in my tool bag; I have more in my backpack where they stay clean longer. We use thin sharpies to write on bag tags and thick sharpies to write on flagging tape, pin flags, and sometimes artifact bags. We use pens and pencils to take notes and fill out forms. When we excavate test units, we fill out a unit level form for each level; in it, we note details such as soil color and texture and describe the types of artifacts we encountered during excavation.

The author, filling out forms. Photo: The Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

The author, taking notes while digging a test pit. Photo: BRAC.

 

Line level

The line level (next to the pens and pencils in the bottom left of the top photo) is mostly used for mapping profiles (the exposed wall of a test unit or a feature). It provides a straight, level reference to measure everything in the profile against, as seen in the photo I posted above to illustrate folding rulers in use, which I will reproduce here for your convenience.

 

The author and a colleague mapping a feature profile. A line level is attached to pink string pulled tight across the surface of a half-excavated feature. Photo: The Exploring Joara Foundation.

 

String

The white string (center left in the first photo) is mainly used for marking grids/excavation units as well as for drawing profiles. I keep it in a plastic bag so that it doesn’t turn brown from being in contact with the dirty tools in my tool bag. White, or a bright color like the pink in the previous photo, is easier to distinguish from the soil in photos. You can see the string around many of the excavation units in the photos above and below.

The author, just starting on a small test unit marked with white string. Photo ASULAS/USFS.

 

The author (left) and a colleague, excavating adjoining test units. The units are offset by a half unit's width, due to the shape of the riverbank just outside the photo. Note the white string around the units. Photo ASULAS/USFS.

 

Files

Files are used for sharpening trowels and shovels. This needs to be done fairly regularly as the edges become dull relatively quickly. Sharp edges make digging much easier!

The author, sharpening a shovel. Photo: Isaac Brownell.

 

Bag tags

The bag tags seen in the center right of the top photo are paper cards used for labeling all artifacts. I keep a few of them in my tool bag, but most of them are kept in a cleaner place. Once the required details have been filled out, these tags are placed inside a small plastic bag that goes inside a larger artifact bag; the smaller bag keeps them from getting wet or dirty through contact with artifacts that come straight out of the soil. Each artifact bag gets a tag with information about the location where the artifacts were found (i.e., grid coordinates, level) along with the date, the name of the project and/or the site number (sometimes we collect artifacts outside of sites or on sites that do not yet have a number, so it is important to record the project name as well), and some other details.

A stack of artifact bags with tags inside. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

Other tools

As you can clearly see in the photos above, we use many other tools in the field. Shovels, screens, measuring tape and shears too big to fit in a tool bag, buckets and dust pans (for collecting the soil excavated by trowel and depositing it into a screen) We also sometimes use heavy digging equipment, homemade equipment like water screening constructions and flotation tanks, and both small and larger electronics. These tools are either too big, too delicate, or too clean to be in a tool bag and are therefore not discussed here.

The author using a water screen to screen soil. Photo: ASULAS/USFS.

 

 

The author taking a GPS reading to mark the location of a small section of wall in the woods. BRAC/USFS.

 

I hope you enjoyed this stroll through the contents of my tool bag, through some of the sites where I worked in the past, and through some of the more scenic places in western North Carolina, my main work area before I joined the Rogers Archaeology Lab and moved my research interests to the Great Plains. Stay tuned for updates on more recent research that will be posted here soon.

 

A second copy of the first photo, showing the author's tool collection again.

 

 

---

[1] The prompts were written by Kim Biddulph, who has since left Twitter and deleted the original post; therefore, that post is not linked here.

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32ML1 – Fort Stevenson

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is part of a series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys (RBS). In this installment I discuss site 32ML1, Fort Stevenson. The site was a military post from 1867 until 1883. After its abandonment by the military, the buildings were used as an Indian school until 1894. Now submerged below the waters of Lake Sakakawea in present-day McLean County, Fort Stevenson was built on a level terrace that almost formed an island, between Garrison and Douglas Creeks, on the north side of the main channel of the Missouri, which at that point flowed eastward. The site is approximately 89 miles north of Bismarck (Mattison 1951, p. 53; Smith 1960, p. 168). As we’ve discussed previously, Garrison Creek was named for the garrison stationed at Fort Stevenson (Mattison 1951, p. 54).

I did not study this site for my dissertation; therefore, I do not have detailed information to share about its artifact assemblage, as I did for the other historical sites in the Garrison Dam area I discussed here. However, the excavation report (Smith 1960) includes a list of all excavated materials. A link to a digital version is included in the reference section below.

Figure 1: Some of the buildings at Fort Stevenson in an undated photo taken by an unknown photographer between 1870 and 1890 and labeled "Fort Stevenson, Dakota territory" in the photographic print collection of the State Historical Society of North Dakota. SHSND B0357.

History of the Site

Ray H. Mattison (1951) wrote a history of Fort Stevenson early in the Missouri Basin project; it was mainly based on archived documents, including letters sent from Fort Stevenson and records from the Surgeon General’s office and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Another primary source regarding the history of Fort Stevenson consulted in the writing of this history was the journal of Philippe Regis de Trobriand, a French aristocrat who moved to the United States and later served in the US military. He oversaw the fort from 1867 until 1869 and kept a journal during his time there (and elsewhere in the American West); he also made sketches of Forts Stevenson and Berthold (de Trobriand 1951).

Figure 2: Fort Stevenson Winter Quarters, by de Trobriand. State Historical Society of North Dakota SHSND 12470

As we previously discussed, US military presence in the northern plains increased in the second half of the nineteenth century. The growing number of US settlers passing through the area led to increased conflict with Indigenous populations. Fort Stevenson was one of many forts built during this period. After a conflict between the US and the Dakota in Minnesota in 1862, some of the Dakota left Minnesota and headed west. In 1863, the US government sent Generals Sibley and Sully to pursue them. They fought several other groups of Native people, but not did not find the Dakota they were after. Sully was sent on a second expedition in 1864. During this second expedition, he visited Fort Berthold, where he left the 6^th Iowa Cavalry. Fort Berthold was a trade post, operated by a private company, not a military establishment. However, 19^th century traders on the Upper Missouri had close ties to the government and regularly interacted with Indian agents and military personnel. Troops moved into Fort Berthold on September 3rd, but due to disagreements, moved outside the fort in April 1865 (Mattison, 1951, p. 56).

A suitable location was sought for a new fort, which was originally going to be called New Fort Berthold. Several factors were considered when deciding the new fort’s location: it was to be a link in the chain of forts from Minnesota to the gold mining areas to the west, it should be approximately midway between Fort Rice and Fort Buford, and it should be close enough to Fort Berthold to provide military assistance to the Three Tribes, but not close enough to cause conflict. The fort was also meant to serve as a base of supplies for Fort Totten. The most convenient location for that purpose would have been where the Missouri bends to the south, 5.5 miles from the eventual site of Fort Stevenson, but a lack of timber prevented those plans from being realized (Mattison 1951, p. 57–58).

In July 1867, departmental commander General Terry arrived to survey the site and start construction of the fort. He changed its name to Fort Stevenson, after the late Brigadier General Thomas G. Stevenson, a Union general killed in 1864 (Mattison 1951, p. 53, 58). It took until January 3, 1868, before the troops were completely housed. On June 10, 1868, the Fort Stevenson reservation was declared, measuring 71.7 square miles, 45,585.75 acres (Mattison 1951, p. 58, 61).

Figure 3: Stereograph of Fort Stevenson, 1870–1873 (State Historical Society of North Dakota 00670-036)

Fort Stevenson was a two-company infantry post, built for a maximum of 238 men. It appears that at no time the garrison was at its maximum strength, averaging approximately 110 men over the course of its lifetime (Mattison 1951, p. 75).

In his October 16, 1882 report, General William T. Sherman wrote that Fort Stevenson had become obsolete and recommended its abandonment. By this time, the region had changed. The Great Sioux Reservation had been created after the second Fort Laramie Treaty in 1868. Several bands of Indigenous people continued to resist the reservation life the US government tried to force on them, and the two sides continued to battle in the 1870s. However, due to large-scale US settlement and overhunting of the buffalo, these bands were no longer able to feed themselves. With the tribes confined to reservations and dependent on annuities, the US government no longer felt a need for a military presence in the region. Fort Stevenson was officially abandoned on August 31, 1883. The buildings were transferred to the Fort Berthold Agency, and the troops moved to Fort Buford. The Indian Agency continued to use the buildings until 1894, when a new school was built within the reservation, at Elbowoods. On February 14, 1894, the War Department formally transferred the land and the buildings to the Interior Department for disposal. Both were sold at public auction later that year (Mattison 1951, p. 77).

Archaeology

When the Missouri Basin Project undertook archaeological surveys in the area in the 1940s and early 1950s, they were very interested in locating Fort Stevenson, because they considered it an important site (Smith 1960, p. 163–164). This is reflected in its site number, 32ML1; the site of Fort Stevenson was the first archaeological site to receive a number in McLean County according to the Smithsonian’s trinomial system for assigning site numbers.

The area surrounding the site was under cultivation in 1951 and had been plowed and cultivated likely for over 40 years at that point. Field work started in early June of 1951, under the supervision of G. Hubert Smith, and lasted through late October of that same year.  The main aim was to obtain “a more detailed record of the surviving physical evidence of the post and its use” (Smith 1954, p. 128) The archaeologists were also interested in obtaining samples of objects left behind, through the use of systematic field methods (Smith 1954, p. 129).

Figure 4: Photos taken during the excavation of the Commanding Officer's Quarters at 32ML1 (Smith 1960, PL 47)

Certain buildings were completely excavated: the post hospital, a portion of one of the barracks, a portion of the commissary storehouse, and two of the officers’ quarters, including the commander’s quarters. The archaeologists found the documentary evidence to be largely accurate, though they did note some errors. In particular, the location of the post on the ground plan drawn December 10, 1879, was incorrect (Smith 1960, p. 167–168). In addition, while the measurements of individual buildings are accurate, the distance between them is not represented accurately on this plan (Smith 1960, p. 175–177).

The archaeologists investigating Fort Stevenson cataloged 6,099 specimens under 2,134 catalog numbers (Smith 1960, p. 211). Many of these objects are described in some detail in Smith’s 1960 report (p. 211–230). The report also includes an appendix written by Carlyle Smith, detailing the cartridges and bullets recovered from the site (p. 232–236) as well as several black and white plates depicting some of the recovered artifacts (PL. 50–54; see also fig. 5 below).

Figure 5: Some of the artifacts recovered from 32ML1 (Smith 1960, PL 50)

State Park

Although the site of Fort Stevenson was inundated by the waters of Lake Sakakawea, in 1974, Fort Stevenson State Park was established on the shore of the lake, in the town of Garrison (Conrad, 2014). The park includes facilities for camping, boating, hiking, and other activities. Visitors can also learn about the history of Fort Stevenson and the region via interpretive signs and events.

Figure 6: Interpretive signs at Fort Stevenson State Park. Photo by Mark Goebel, via Wikimedia Commons

A replica of the fort’s guardhouse was built at Fort Stevenson State Park in 2003. It houses an interpretive center where visitors can view records and artifacts related to military history.

Figure 7: The guardhouse replica at Fort Stevenson State Park. Photo: North Dakota Department of Parks and Recreation

Moving away from Garrison Dam

This brief overview of the history and archaeology of Fort Stevenson is the last post on the historical archaeology of the Garrison Dam area. We will continue our series about the historical archaeology of the Upper Missouri Basin by moving south to the Oahe Dam area. Stay tuned!

References and further reading

Conrad, Marc. 2014. “Historical Overview North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department”. North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Accessed Via Internet Archive WayBack Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/20171208003914/http://www.parkrec.nd.gov/50th/depthistory.html. Accessed March 10, 2023.

Mattison, Ray H. 1951. “Old Fort Stevenson, a Typical Missouri River Military Post.” North Dakota History 18 (2–3): 54–91.

North Dakota Parks and Recreation. Nd. Fort Stevenson State Park. https://www.parkrec.nd.gov/fort-stevenson-state-park. Accessed March 10, 2023.

Smith, G. Hubert. 1954. “Excavations at Fort Stevenson.” North Dakota History 21: 127–35.

Smith, G. Hubert. 1960. “Archaeological Investigations at the Site of Fort Stevenson (32ML1), Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota.” In River Basin Survey Papers 15 - 20. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 176. Washington D.C. https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/22114/bae_bulletin_176_1960_15_1-23.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2023.

Thompson, Clive. 2017. “Stereographs Were the Original Virtual Reality”, Smithsonian Magazine, October 2017.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/sterographs-original-virtual-reality-180964771/. Accessed March 10, 2023.

Trobriand, Régis de. Military Life in Dakota; the Journal of Philippe Régis de Trobriand. Translated by Lucille M. Kane. Mississippi Valley Historical Association. Clarence Walworth Alvord Memorial Commission. Publications, v. 2. St. Paul: Alvord Memorial Commission, 1951.

 

Previous posts in this series

What is Historical Archaeology?

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Fur Trade 

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Military Frontier

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Indian Agencies

Garrison Dam

Lake Sakakawea and the Woman it was Named After

Garrison Dam Archaeology: Village Sites

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32MN1 - Fort Floyd

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32ML2 – Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32ML2 – Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is part of a series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys (RBS). In this installment I will discuss site 32ML2, which includes Like-A-Fishhook Village as well as Forts Berthold I and II, along with several other buildings associated with smaller-scale traders and Indian Agency buildings from a later period.

History of the Site

Site 32ML2, now under the waters of Lake Sakakawea, was located on the north side of the Missouri, opposite the mouth of L’Ours qui Dance (Dancing Bear Creek) in what is now McLean County. The village and first trade post were established there around 1845, on the first terrace above the floodplain.

 

Figure 1: Representation of Like-A-Fishhook Village, drawn from memory by Hidatsa historian Martin Bear’s Arm (photo: State Historical Society of North Dakota).

 

It is uncertain when exactly the village was founded, but it is clear that not long after the devastating 1837 epidemic,^[1] the surviving Mandan and Hidatsa moved north from their villages near Fort Clark (near present day Stanton, ND), to the region of 32ML2. It is also unclear if the trade post was built near the new village or the other way around, but evidence shows that by 1845, both a village and a functioning trade post existed at the site. The original founders of the village were probably Hidatsa, but it is possible the Mandan were also involved. At the very least they joined the Hidatsa shortly after its establishment (Smith 1972, p. 6–7). The Arikara did not move to the village until later. Around the time of the foundation of Like-A-Fishhook Village, they had taken over the abandoned village at Fort Clark to trade there with the United States. Frequent attacks by various Sioux tribes/bands and the traders’ abandonment of Fort Clark led them to leave that village in 1861 and establish a new one, Star Village, approximately two miles from Like-A-Fishhook, on the opposite bank of the Missouri. Star Village was short lived, however, for a series of attacks in 1861 (Like-A-Fishhook/Fort Berthold was also attacked at this time) caused the Arikara to abandon it and join the Mandan and Hidatsa at Like-A-Fishhook (Wood et al. 2011, p. 203–204).

 

Figure 2: Portrait of Maxi'diwiac, photographed ca. 1910. (Photo originally published in Wilson 1917. Reposted here via Wikimedia Commons)

 

The village at 32ML2 is referred to as “Fort Berthold Village” in fur trade and other euro-American documents produced during its occupation. During the salvage project, researchers started using the name Like-A-Fishhook, based on information they obtained from several sources, as described by Smith (1972, p. 8, 26). One such source is Maxi’diwiac (Buffalo-Bird Woman), a Hidatsa woman born around 1839, who lived in the village. Her memories were recorded in 1912. She stated that the name of the village was Mu’a-idu’ skupe-hi’ cec, which translates to Like-A-Fishhook Village, referring to a nearby hairpin bend in the river (Wilson 1917, 1934, p. 7–8). A similar name , Bua idutskupe hisa a tis (Fishhook House/Village) appears on a map painted in the early 20^th century by a Mandan man named Sitting Rabbit.^[2] Martin Bear’s Arm, Hidatsa tribal historian, also drew a representation of the village as he remembered it, sometime after its abandonment (See fig. 1).

 

Figure 3: Closeup of the map drawn by Sitting Rabbit (Image via Digital Horizons)

 

The first trade post at this location was probably constructed by James Kipp or Francis Chardon for the Upper Missouri Outfit.^[3] There are some references in the literature (see Smith 1972, p. 5) to a Fort James (presumably named after James Kipp). This was most likely an earlier name for Fort Berthold, rather than an earlier, temporary post. Letters and documents show that the name Fort Berthold was in general use by 1846. The name might be a reference to either Bartholomew Berthold (formerly partner of, and related by marriage to Pierre Chouteau, jr.) or his son, Pierre A. Berthold (nephew of Pierre Chouteau, Jr.) (Smith 1972, p. 5–6).

 

Figure 4: Painting of Fort Berthold II by Regis de Trobriand,^[4] ca. 1868. (Image: State Historical Society of North Dakota #12468)

 

In 1858, an opposition company named Frost, Todd, and Company built a second trade post at Like-A-Fishhook Village, called Fort Atkinson. It remained in business only briefly, and when the original Fort Berthold burned down after a Dakota raid on Christmas eve 1862 (Smith, 1972, p. 119; Wood 2008, p. 5), the UMO took over the abandoned fort Atkinson, renamed it Fort Berthold II, and continued doing business there.

 

Figure 5: Interior of Fort Berthold II, looking west. (Photo by S.J. Morrow, 1870. Reproduced from Caldwell and Smith 1952).

 

Military troops were stationed at the fort in 1864–1865. Although they stayed at the site through 1867 (when they moved to the newly constructed nearby Fort Stevenson), they were relocated to buildings outside the actual fort in April 1865. An Indian Agency was established at the location in 1868. Blacksmith and carpenter shops were built at this time, as well as saw- and grist mills. The agency moved to a new site a mile and a half away in 1875 because the original buildings were “vermin-infected” and “tumble down.”^[5] The Three Affiliated Tribes started to abandon the village in 1885, as they were being pressured to settle on individual farms by the Indian Agent. By 1888, only a few Mandan were left at Like-A-Fishhook (Meyer 1977, 134–135).

Archaeology at 32ML2

In 1950-52 and again in 1954, the State Historical Society of North Dakota undertook fieldwork at 32ML2. Smithsonian River Basin Survey crews conducted work there in 1952 and 1954. Several field reports were prepared describing this work, which were later synthesized by G. Hubert Smith in his 1972 volume on the site. Altogether, these crews excavated 20 earth lodges, parts of the original village stockade, the remains of Forts Berthold I (XU21) and II (XU30), and some other associated structures, including homes belonging to smaller-scale traders.

Like-A-Fishhook Village and the two posts covered a roughly circular area of approximately 40 acres (just over 16 hectares). The oldest section of the village was located between the two trade post locations. The first post burned around the same time the Arikara joined Like-A-Fishhook Village, and their new section of the village overlays the original post. The older section had a stockade surrounding it.

Investigators knew from Boller’s description (1868, p. 37)^[6] that the remains of Fort Berthold I should be on the northern site of the village, but could not locate the fort during the earlier stages of the excavation. However, during the excavation of House 20 in 1952, underlying features predating the house were noted. These turned out to be part of the stockade of Fort Berthold I, which was subsequently excavated as well.

 

Figure 6: Fort Berthold I excavation, looking east. (Reproduced from Smith 1972, p. 93).

 

It appears the post underwent some alterations over the course of its existence. The original construction measured approximately 80 feet square (24.4 meters), but the stockade was later extended to approximately 121 feet E–W by 110 feet N–S (36.9 x 33.5 meters).

Fort Atkinson/Fort Berthold II was built on the edge of the river terrace on the south side of the village. It was not oriented to cardinal directions, but rather with one side of the stockade paralleling a section of the village palisade. Here too was some evidence of later enlargement. Boller described Fort Atkinson in 1858 as measuring 100 x 120 feet (30.5 x 36.6 meters) (Boller 1868, p. 72; Wood 2008, p. 93). The maximum dimensions of the stockade line found during excavation, however, were approximately 140 X 180 feet (42.7 x 54.9 meters) (Smith 1972, p. 131). The remains of several buildings and pits were excavated inside the stockade.

 

Artifact assemblages

As I have described before, in my dissertation I compare the artifact assemblages from six different trade post sites on the Upper Missouri. The assemblages from Forts Berthold I and II are included in this comparison, even though both are problematic for different reasons.

The total artifact count from Fort Berthold I is suspiciously low. A total of approximately^[7] 3,680 objects was cataloged across 1,856 catalog numbers. Of those, I used 1,742 objects for analysis. Most likely, this number is low because the site was discovered late in the excavation process, and thus had to be excavated much faster than the rest of the area, in addition to the fact that the more recent section of the village intruded on the underlaying site. The excavation crews working on this site made an effort to distinguish intrusive features from features belonging to the fort occupation (Smith 1972, p. 95–96), and I have followed their judgment, subtracting features labeled as intrusive from my comparison sample. I used 1,742 objects from Fort Berthold I for my analysis. Almost half of those were glass beads (848). The next biggest categories were nails (238), glass containers (148) and imported ceramics (107).

 

Figure 7: "Glazed earthenware from Fort Berthold I" (reproduced from Smith 1972, p. 104)

 

Furthermore, Fort Berthold I is the only site in my comparison sample that burnt down while it was still occupied; all the other sites were intentionally abandoned. However, it does seem likely that the fort’s employees saved what they could and reused those items in the new fort, much like they did when intentionally abandoning a fort.

The artifacts from Fort Berthold I are curated by the State Historical Society of North Dakota. You can read more about the collection in a blog post by Meagan Schoenfelder, here. She has also written about artifacts collected from the village.

The problem with Fort Berthold II, by contrast, is that the general area as well as the actual fort buildings were occupied for a long time beyond the trade post occupation, and the artifacts from all occupations are mixed together, as is evident from the presence of artifacts such as coins that clearly postdate the trade post. Even so, some comparisons can still be made, as I will discuss in later installments. Approximately 24,500 objects were cataloged from the site, across 2,318 catalog numbers. Out of those, I used 20,761 objects for my analysis. Here too, the most plentiful object category was glass beads. I used 11,244 glass beads from Berthold II in my analysis. The next biggest categories here were imported ceramics (2,928), nails (1,967), glass containers (1,568), and windowglass (1,137).

 

Figure 8: Some of the many glass beads recovered from Fort Berthold II, painstakingly sorted by RBS crews and stored in our collections here at NMNH. (Photo Lotte Govaerts)

 

 

Figure 9: Imported ceramics recovered from Fort Berthold II. (Photo Lotte Govaerts)

 

Figure 10: Container glass from Fort Berthold II (Photos Lotte Govaerts)

 

Figure 11: Windowglass and imported ceramics recovered from Fort Berthold II (Photo Lotte Govaerts)

 

Figure 12: Some of the less common objects found at Fort Berthold II. Top left: metal number tags, probably used to label bales of skins. Top right: bone toothbrushes. Bottom left: finger ring. Bottom right: homemade domino. (Photos Lotte Govaerts)

 

In future installments of this series, I will write more about how I used these objects to compare the sites. But first, in our next post in this series, we’ll discuss one more site in the Garrison Dam area: Fort Stevenson, a military post that was in operation from 1867 to 1883.

 

---

[1] The steamboat St. Peters carried smallpox up the Missouri in 1837, and the resulting epidemic killed an estimated 17,000 people across the region. The semi-sedentary tribes of the Missouri were hit especially hard, both because they had less opportunity to avoid the outbreak than the more nomadic tribes, and because the US government’s vaccination program did not include them. These populations had already suffered various earlier disease outbreaks. The Mandan sustained the greatest losses of all, losing an estimated 90 percent of their population. The differential outcomes of the epidemic shaped intertribal relations and territorial expansions well beyond the 1830s (Daschuk 2013, p. 66–67).

[2] This map of the upper Missouri Valley from the approximate North/South Dakota boundary to just above the mouth of the Yellowstone depicts various landmarks, place names, and pictorial devices. Many villages pictured on the map were long abandoned when the map was drawn in 1906–7? (see Thiessen et al. 1979 for more history on the map).

[3] As we have discussed previously, the Upper Missouri Outfit (UMO) was the name given to the former Columbia Fur Company after it was bought out by The American Fur Company. In 1834, John Jacob Astor sold the UMO to Pratte, Chouteau & Company, which was reorganized as Pierre Chouteau, Jr., & Company in 1839. It remained in business until it was sold to the Northwest Fur Company in 1865.

[4] Philippe Regis de Trobriand was a French aristocrat who moved to the United States and later served in the US military. He was the commander of Fort Stevenson (near Fort Berthold) in the late 1860s. While stationed in North Dakota, he painted a number of landscape scenes and portraits.

[5] “Those now in use for that purpose are old, vermin-infected, tumble-down log buildings erected many years ago by the North American Fur Company,” United States Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the year 1874 (United States Government Printing Office, 1874).

[6] Henry A. Boller (1836–1902) worked as a clerk for Frost, Todd, and Company and was employed at Fort Atkinson for two years (1858–1860) until the firm was absorbed by the American Fur Company. He subsequently joined the newly created Larpenteur, Smith, and company as a junior partner, and returned to Like-A-Fishhook during the winter of 1860–61, until the company dissolved. Boller returned to St. Louis and retired from the fur trade. The journals he kept at Like-A-Fishhook offer valuable insight into life at the post. See Wood 2008.

[7] The total number is an approximation because the final object count for some artifacts is unknown and because some objects can’t be counted in the same way as others (for example, burned botanical remains).

---

References:

Boller, Henry A. Among the Indians. Eight years in the far west: 1858–1866. Embracing sketches of Montana and Salt Lake. Philadelphia: T. Ellwood Zell, 1868.

Daschuk, James William. Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life. University of Regina Press, 2013.

Meyer, Roy W. The Village Indians of the Upper Missouri: The Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977.

Smith, G. Hubert. “Archeological Work at 32ML2 (Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold) Garrison Reservoir Area, North Dakota, 1950-1954.” Plains Anthropologist 2 (1954).

Thiessen, Thomas D., Wood, W. Raymond, and Wesley A. Jones, “The Sitting Rabbit 1907 Map of the Missouri River in North Dakota.” Plains Anthropologist 24, no. 84 (1979): 145–167.

Wilson, Gilbert L. Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian Interpretation. Studies in the Social Sciences 9. University of Minnesota, 1917.

Wood, Raymond H. Twilight of the Upper Missouri River Fur Trade, The Journals of Henry A. Boller. Bismarck, N.D., 2008.

Wood, W. Raymond, W. F. Hunt, and Randy H. Williams. Fort Clark and Its Indian Neighbors: A Trading Post on the Upper Missouri. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011.

 

---

Previous posts in this series:

What is Historical Archaeology?

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Fur Trade 

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Military Frontier

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Indian Agencies

Garrison Dam

Lake Sakakawea and the Woman it was Named After

Garrison Dam Archaeology: Village Sites

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32MN1 - Fort Floyd

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32MN1 - Fort Floyd

by Lotte Govaerts

 

Today’s blog post is another installment in our series on the historical archaeology of the Missouri Basin Project. Links to all previous posts in this series are included below.  In this post I examine the history and archaeology of site 32MN1, the site of an 1820s trading post called Fort Floyd. The site, now under the water of Lake Sakakawea, was located in Mountrail County, on a high terrace on the northern bank of the Missouri near its confluence with the White Earth River. The precise identification of the site has been somewhat problematic, as I will discuss in more detail below. The name Fort Floyd was not known at the time of its excavation.

 

Map of the Missouri River in North and South Dakota, showing the location of Fort Floyd (32MN1)

 

Site History

The 1820s were an eventful time for the Missouri River trade. Two things happened in North America in the early 1820s that significantly changed the landscape for the fur trade. First, the Hudson’s Bay and Northwest companies merged in 1821, and the downsizing that followed that merger left many experienced fur traders out of business. Next, the U.S. government abolished the factory system in March 1822, leaving the Indian trade solely in the hands of private businesses. Some former Hudson’s Bay and North West Company employees were eager to do business as U.S. firms. Thus, Tilton and Dudley, also known as the Columbia Fur Company  was created in St. Louis in 1822 (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 251; Wood and Casler 2015, p. 9). This new company immediately became a strong competitor to the dominant American Fur Company (AFC), focusing on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers in particular. John Jacob Astor, owner of the AFC, eventually managed to buy out the Columbia Fur Company in 1827. He turned it into the AFC’s “Upper Missouri Outfit” (UMO), largely maintaining the existing company structure on the Missouri River.

 

151 portrait of James Kipp, drawn by Rudolph Kurz. Image held by the Ethnographic Collection of the History Museum of Bern, Switzerland, published in Wood 2011, p. 3)

 

One of the former North West Company employees who moved to the Columbia Fur Company was James Kipp, who was not only an experienced fur trader, but also a master carpenter (Wood and Casler 2015, p. 8-10; Wood 2011). He constructed several forts on the Missouri River for the Columbia Fur Company, and later the UMO. In 1826, he constructed Fort Floyd at the mouth of the White Earth River, a location convenient for trade with the “Gens des Canots” band of Assiniboine who lived nearby, as well as other bands who frequented the area (Hunt 1994, p. 18). It was the westernmost outpost of the Columbia Fur Company at the time. When Fort Union, at the mouth of the Yellowstone, became operational in late 1828, Fort Floyd became less important to the company, and it was abandoned not much later, probably in 1830 (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 255; Wood and Casler 2015, p.8, 19). Aside from the names of the people in charge of this post at various points in time, and two inventories dating to April 1829 (see below), not much is known about the fort from written sources.

 

Site Identification

 

Detail of map of Prince Maximilian's trip up the Missouri, showing the location of Fort Clark where he met James Kipp, and the location of Fort Floyd (not labeled) at the mouth of the White Earth River. Public Domain image via Wikimedia Commons (click for link to full high resolution map image)

 

The confusion regarding the precise identification and name of site 32MN1 stems from some contradictory statements about the existence and location of Fort Floyd in the literature. Fur trade historian Hiram M. Chittenden, stated that Fort Floyd was an older name for the post that later became known as Fort Union (at the mouth of the Yellowstone) (Chittenden 1902, 327-328). He based this identification on correspondence that was later lost. In their report of the excavation of 32MN1, Woolworth and Wood called the site “Kipp’s Post,” because they were aware that it was James Kipp who built the post, but did not yet know its proper name. They based their identification on Reuben Gold Thwaites’ translations of Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied’s journals. Prince Maximilian was a German explorer, naturalist, and ethnologist who traveled extensively and published his journals. In the early 1830s he traveled up the Missouri River. He met James Kipp at Fort Clark when he stayed there in June of 1833, and learned about the former post at the White Earth River (Thwaites 1905, p. 228). Maximilian discusses the fort when the traveling party passed its former location, but the Thwaites edition did not include the post’s name (idem, p. 214). However, some years after the excavations at 32MN1 were completed, Joseph C. Porter was editing Maximilian’s original field journals and noticed that they did include the name of the post: “Fort Floyd stood several years ago at the place where we are now, where the present fur company had a post, which it abandoned.” Hunt (1994) based his Fort Floyd article on this new information, and explains that other contemporary records appear to confirm this location for Fort Floyd. He suggested that a mis-transcription in an AFC letter book is the cause of Chittenden’s differing point of view.

There is some confusion regarding the precise date of abandonment of the post as well. Maximilian stated that the fort was abandoned in 1929 (Thwaites 1905, p. 214), but a letter written at Fort Union and referencing Fort Floyd, quoted in Wood and Casler’s recent article (2015, p. 11), suggest a slightly later date, as the fort appears to have been occupied at least until May 1830.

 

Archaeology

 

Artist's interpretation of Fort Floyd, based on the results of the archaeological excavations in the 1950s. Image published in the 1960 report on the site (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 246).

 

Site 32MN1 was known to locals before Thad C. Hecker mapped visible features in 1938. Hecker published a brief report on the site (Will and Hecker 1944, p. 84), but no effort was made to investigate it further until the large-scale archaeological work relating to the construction of Garrison Dam. In 1951, an RBS (River Basin Survey) field party under the direction of G. Hubert Smith carried out tests at the site. Although the area had been under cultivation for some years, several features (small hummocks and circular depressions) were visible at the surface. Cultivation had exposed some fired-clay chinking, bone, and a few (unspecified in the report) other artifacts. The crew located a palisade and collected artifacts. They drew a site map and took photos and notes. In July 1954, a crew from the State Historical Society of North Dakota returned to the site for more extensive excavations. They worked on the site through August of that year and excavated it fully (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 255-256).

The site consists of a palisaded area approximately 96 feet or 29.3 meters square. The exact height of the palisade is unknown, but was probably around 15 feet (4.6 meters), similar the height of palisades at other forts of that era. There was what appears to have been a defensive bastion at the northeast corner, but not a corresponding one at the southwest corner, unlike what is commonly seen in these types of constructions. There was a ten foot (3 meters) gated entryway in the south wall.

 

Map of the excavations at 32MN1. Published in the 1960s report (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 266-267)

 

Just inside the north wall of the palisades, facing the entrance, was a row of four structures, three of which were mud-chinked log constructions approximately 18 feet (5.5 meters) square. Only the westernmost of these structures appears to have been used as living quarters at the time the fort was abandoned, as it was the only building with a stick and mud fireplace. The remains of another fireplace were found under the floor of the building immediately east of the first one, suggesting it may have served as living quarters at some earlier point in time, before being turned into storage. A small number of window glass fragments recovered from the site suggests that at least one of these buildings had windows. The easternmost structure in the row appears to have been an 18x30 foot (5.5x9.1 meter) pole shed. There is some evidence of other lightly built structures inside the palisade (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 256-262)

 

Page of "Inventory of Stock remaining on hand at Fort Floyd, April 29, 1829.” Public domain image, original held by Missouri History Museum, St. Louis (click for high resolution image).

 

Because the post was deliberately abandoned it is likely that employees moved out everything that could be re-used elsewhere. Therefore any items left behind and preserved in the archaeological record were items that were broken, discarded, or lost while the post was occupied. There is some good information on 19^th century trade post supplies in the literature, because of surviving inventories, trader journals, and letter books. There exists a single three-page inventory of trade goods in stock (along with an inventory of tools and equipment in use) for Fort Floyd, dated April 1829 (Wood and Casler 2015, p. 8). Some of the types of objects mentioned in the inventory were recovered during the archaeological excavation of 31MN2.

The most plentiful trade items found were glass beads. Excluding the approximately 5,000 blue beads that were found in a single infant burial, a total of 1,829 beads was recovered from the site[1]. This number likely represents only a fraction of the beads present at the site at the time of the excavation, because these beads are very small, and no soil was screened during this excavation. Other types of items that were traded in large volumes are not as easy to see in the archaeological record. Textiles are not as easily dropped or lost as tiny beads, and they degrade in archaeological contexts. Their presence on a site can be detected more indirectly, however. Lead bale seals were commonly used to “label” textiles in the 19^th century and for hundreds of years before that. A single lead bale seal was cataloged at 32MN1 (Woolworth and Wood 1960, p. 303).

 

 

Lead bale seal recovered from 32MN1 (front and back). Photo from excavation report (Woolworth and Wood 1960, pl. 60)

 

Some artifact types aren’t as easily divided into categories of “trade goods” or “daily life” items. Imported tools, for example, were traded, but also extensively used at the site. Similarly, personal items like buttons can be seen on the trade goods inventory, and were clearly traded at the post, but were also worn by people working at the post. Other personal items include tobacco pipes. A total of 200 pipe fragments were cataloged at 32MN1, 174 of them imported, 26 most likely locally produced shale and catlinite specimens.

 

Buttons recovered from 32MN1. Photo from excavation report (Woolworth and Wood 1960, pl. 63).

 

The recovery of a single doll part, as well as an infant burial indicates the presence of children. Because the manner of burial differs from common local practice, the child appears to have had a non-Native parent (Wood and Casler 2015, p.6). From the literature, we know that trade post employees regularly married local women and had children with them. These wives and children lived at the post alongside their husbands and single men. Another indicator of the presence of Native people and of women in particular is the presence of small charcoal-filled pits for smoke-tanning hides, chipped stone scrapers, and fleshing tools, which are all associated with dressing hides, a task usually carried out by women.

The rest of the artifact assemblage is largely made up of architectural items (mainly iron nails and chinking fragments) and kitchen/table-related artifacts like broken tableware and kitchen refuse in the form of animal bone.

In my dissertation I compare the artifact assemblage from Fort Floyd with the assemblages from five other trading post sites, as I will explain in upcoming installments in this series. Next up, however, is a more in-depth look at the history and archaeology of the sites of Fort Berthold and Fort Stevenson, also located in the Garrison dam survey area.

 

---

[1] This number, as well as all other artifact count numbers in this post are from my dissertation research. For the purpose of artifact assemblage comparison between sites, I counted up artifact totals using original RBS catalogs along with current collection inventories, and in some cases, manual item counts in collections. The artifact collection for Fort Floyd resides with the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND), and I received a lot of help counting these particular artifacts from Dr. Wendi Field Murray along with interns and volunteers at the SHSND.

---

Previous posts in this series:

What is Historical Archaeology?

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Fur Trade 

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Military Frontier

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Indian Agencies

Garrison Dam

Lake Sakakawea and the Woman it was Named After

Garrison Dam Archaeology: Village Sites

---

References

Chittenden, Hiram M. The American Fur Trade of the Far West. 3 vols. New York: Francis P. Harper, 1902.

Hunt, William J. “Fort Floyd: History and Archaeology of an Enigmatic 19th Century Trading Post.” North Dakota History 61, no. 3 (1994): 7–20.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. “Travels in the Interior of North America in the Years 1832, 1833, and 1834.” In Early Western Travels 1748-1846, Vol. 23. Cleveland: Arthur P. Clark, 1905.

Will, George F, and Thad C Hecker. “The Upper Missouri River Valley Aboriginal Culture in North Dakota.” North Dakota Historical Quarterly 11, no. Jan.-April (1944): 5–126.

Wood, W. Raymond. “James Kipp: Upper Missouri River Fur Trader and Missouri Farmer.” North Dakota History 77, no. 1–2 (2011): 2–35.

Wood, W. Raymond, and Michael M. Casler. “A Revised History of Fort Floyd, North Dakota.” North Dakota History 80, no. 4 (2015): 3–13.

Woolworth, Alan R., and W. Raymond Wood. “The Archaeology of a Small Trading Post (Kipp’s Post, 31MN1) in the Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota.” In River Basin Survey Papers 15 - 20, Vol. 176. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 1960.

 

Garrison Dam Archaeology: Village Sites

By Lotte Govaerts

 

We’ve been a bit absent from the blog this past year, but we do have some new content lined up for you. First up, a return to our series on the historic archaeology of the Missouri Basin Project, with an installment on the archaeology of the Garrison Dam survey area. [Note: the site descriptions in this blog post are excerpts from my 2016 paper on the impacts of Garrison Dam (Govaerts 2016)].

In the most recent installments in this series (here and here) I discussed the construction of Garrison dam and its ecological and social impacts. In earlier installments I described how large-scale archaeological salvage took place between the 1940s and the 1960s, due to the construction of large dams:  concerned archaeologists formed the “Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains” (CRAR) and the Interagency Archaeological Salvage Program (IASP). The Smithsonian Institution (SI) created the River Basin Surveys (RBS) to conduct archaeological fieldwork under the IASP. A local office, the “Missouri Basin Project” (MBP) was established to deal specifically with RBS salvage work in the Pick Sloan dam area. This office was located in Lincoln, Nebraska. Operations began in July 1946. Ten local state universities and historical societies (from communities along the river from Kansas to Ohio), the Science Museum of St. Paul, and the University of Wisconsin joined field parties along the Upper Missouri. (Wood 2014, p.41)

 

Larry Tomsyuck (Administrative Officer, Missouri Basin Project, left) with John Corbett (Chief Archeologist, National Park Service, center) and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. (Director, River Basin Surveys, right) outside the Missouri Basin Project office at 1517 O Street, Lincoln, Nebraska, which housed Missouri Basin Project operations from 1951 through 1963-64. Roberts directed the River Basin Surveys program from its inception in 1945 through 1963-64. (RBS photo 00-L526, published with the above caption in Thiessen 1999, p. 34)

 

The contribution of the Missouri Basin project to the archaeology of the Northern Plains was significant. Hundreds of sites were recorded in these dam areas, over 150 of them in the Garrison survey area (Caldwell and Smith 1952). Only a handful of those were excavated more extensively in the limited time available to researchers. Even so, these excavations in the dam survey areas were important to the study of  indigenous cultures and the expanding Euro-American presence in the Northern Plains. As we’ve discussed previously, the investigation of “historic” sites was approached a little differently, compared to the investigation of other sites. Because these “historic” sites form the topic of my research, I will discuss them separately in upcoming installments in this series.

 

Plains Village Culture

Plains Village peoples were living in the Central and Northern Plains throughout the second millennium of the current era. They resided in permanent earth lodge villages near rivers, and practiced horticulture as well as bison hunting. The chronology of the Middle Missouri region of the Plains Village tradition was constructed based on the findings of excavations associated with the main stem Missouri dams. (Bamford and Nepstad-Thornberry 2007)

The excavation of Plains Village sites was prioritized over sites associated with earlier hunter/gatherer groups because they were considered more unique. Such sites existed only along the river, and thus a large percentage of them would be lost in the dam project, while hunter/gatherer sites are also found elsewhere. Further, Village Plains sites and historic period villages were easier to locate than deeply buried older sites, as they are more recognizable at the surface. (Wood 2014, p. 43)

 

Plains Village sites in the Garrison Survey Area

Among the Plains Village sites investigated in the Garrison Dam area was “Grandmother’s Lodge” (32ME59), which probably dates to the earliest Plains Village occupation of the area (Woolworth 1956). The site is associated with the “Grandmother” or “Old Woman Who Never Dies”, a mythological figure held in reverence by the Hidatsa, Mandan, and Crow.  The Grandmother’s Lodge site probably dates to AD 1200-1300 (Johnson 2007, p. 15, 174). The site consists of a single rectangular structure, making it a northern outpost of the “rectangular house tradition,” a building tradition associated with the earliest Plains Village occupations further south.

 

Excavations at Grandmother's Lodge (32ME59) (Photo: State Historical Society of North Dakota, reproduced from Caldwell and Smith 1952)

 

Nightwalker’s Butte-In-The-Bullpasture (32ML39), was given such a specific name to distinguish it from two other nearby butte sites associated with Nightwalker. “Nightwalker” is a mistranslation of a Hidatsa leader’s name that means something like “He Who Walks in Twilight,” and should more accurately be referred to as “Duskwalker.” The site consists of an isolated bluff-top village in a badland area of McLean country. The village is associated with a breakaway band of Hidatsa. It was palisaded and contained 27 circular earth lodges (Lippincott 2007). Analysis of some of the recovered material dates associated the site with the Knife River phase (1675–1862) of the “Disorganized Coalescent Variant” (Lehmer, p. 172-177). Further analysis of recovered materials later narrowed the village occupation date down to 1700-1750 (Johnson 2007, p. 194).

 

Later Village Sites

 

Aerial view of excavations at Rock Village, excavated houses dating to the village occupation are visible on both sides of a long trench, which was dug to expose a more deeply buried occupation. (Photo source: RBS, reproduced from Caldwell and Smith 1952

 

Later earth lodge villages examined during the RBS in the Garrison dam area include Rock Village, a Hidatsa village established in the late eighteenth century and occupied through the mid-nineteenth century; and Star Village, the last independent Arikara village, established in 1861 and abandoned one year later when the occupants joined the Mandan and Hidatsa at Like-A-Fishhook village across the river (Caldwell and Smith 1952). A still more recent Native site excavated by RBS crews was 32MZ1, also known as Crow-Flies-High (Malouf 1963). This was the site where another breakaway band of Hidatsa established a village away from the main Three Tribes villages at Like-A-Fishhook around 1870. This band of Hidatsa, led by and named after a man named Crow-Flies-High resisted reservation life and allotment. They established a village near Fort Buford at the mouth of the Yellowstone, and remained independent from the reservation for almost twenty-five years (Meyer 1977, p. 138-142).

 

Portrait of Crow-Flies-High, 1881 (unknown photographer, via Wikipedia)

 

Next up in this series , I will discuss the three “historic” sites excavated in the Garrison Dam survey area: Fort Stevenson, Fort Floyd, and Fort Berthold. Stay tuned!

 

---

Previous posts in this series:

What is Historical Archaeology?

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Fur Trade 

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Military Frontier

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Indian Agencies

Garrison Dam

Lake Sakakawea and the Woman it was Named After

---

References

Bamforth, Douglas B., and Curtis Nepstad-Thornberry. “The Shifting Social Landscape of the Fifteenth-Century Middle Missouri Region.” In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains, 139–54. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2007.

Caldwell, Warren W., and G. Hubert Smith. Garrison Reservoir: Geology, Paleontology, Archeology, History. Missouri Basin Project of Smithsonian Institution, 1952. http://www.npshistory.com/publications/corps/garrison-reservoir/index.htm.

Govaerts, Lotte E. “Transformative Consequences of Garrison Dam: Land, People, and the Practice of Archaeology.” Great Plains Quarterly 36, no. 4 (December 30, 2016): 281–308.

Johnson, Craig M. A Chronology of Middle Missouri Plains Village Sites. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 47. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 2007.

Lehmer, Donald J. Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropological Papers 1. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service, 1971.

Lippincott, Kerry. “Nightwalker’s Buttes: A Study in the Closing of an Archaeological Tradition and an Example of Hidatsa Oral History.” In Plains Village Archaeology: Bison-Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains, 259–69. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2007.

Malouf, C. River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 29: Crow-Flies-High (32MZ1), A Historic Hidatsa Village In the Garrison Reservoir Area, North Dakota. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 185. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1963.

Meyer, Roy W. The Village Indians of the Upper Missouri: The Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977.

Thiessen, Thomas D. “Emergency Archeology in the Missouri River Basin: The Role of the Missouri Basin Project and the Midwest Archeological Center in the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program, 1946–1975.” United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center Lincoln, Nebraska, 1999.

Wood, W. Raymond. “The Lincoln Office and the Upper Missouri River Basin.” In Dam Projects and the Growth of American Archaeology - The River Basin Surveys and the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program, 41–52. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, 2014.

Woolworth, Alan R. “Archeological Investigations at Site 32ME59 (Grandmother’s Lodge).” North Dakota History. 23, no. 2 (1956).

New Publication: Assessing Human Global Impact

By J. Daniel Rogers

 

When our team has a new publication we post a brief announcement.  I cannot claim much credit for the publication mentioned below, but I was glad to be part of the project.  I am author 13 of 120.  Yes, 120 co-authors!  The core research team was led by Lucas Stephens and included my Smithsonian colleague Torben Rick.  The article was recently published in the journal Science.

 

Stephens, L., et al. 2019 Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use, Science, 30 Aug 2019: Vol. 365, Issue 6456, pp. 897-902.  DOI: 10.1126/science.aax1192 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/897

 

A couple weeks ago the article was named one of the 10 most popular scientific discoveries from the National Museum of Natural History for 2019.  Every year the staff of Natural History produce hundreds of publications and we are honored to be singled out.  You can find details here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2019/12/31/10-popular-scientific-discoveries-2019/

 

In fields ranging from biodiversity, to environmental modeling, to human ecology it is routinely recognized that on-going research would benefit from a deeper historical knowledge of how and when humans began having a serious impact on the environment.   Although archaeologists around the world routinely study human interaction with the environment, there was no systematic assessment that brought the diverse information together.  Using a crowd sourcing strategy, the authors collected a standardized set of information in order to measure the timing, locations, and extent of human impacts.  All 120 co-authors contributed to some aspect of the research process; either planning recommendations, data, writing, and/or editorial input.  A total of 255 archaeologists contributed data reflecting their regional expertise.

 

            The results of the study show that major transformation of the planet by hunter-gatherers, farmers, and herders occurred by 3000 years ago, much earlier than expected.  The changes accelerated with the wide-spread adoption of agriculture.  At the regional level the results provide a starting point for comparative analysis and a baseline for further study of the long history of how humans have changed the world.

 

Sheep herding and maize cultivation in the Toluca Valley, Central Mexico, 2000. Photo by Bruno Frohlich.

End of Year Update, Part II: Cataloging and Field Work

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This is the second part of an update discussing the various projects we've been working on over the past few months. You can find the first part, in which Dan discusses his writing about encounters between the Aztec Empire and the Spanish, here.

 

 

Wrapping up the RBS

 

There is no such thing as an end to collections care and accessibility, although I have reached an important milestone. I spent the past few months finishing up the 39BF2 (Medicine Crow) cataloging project, part of the River Basin Survey (RBS) collection. That work consisted mostly of more numbering, which I’ve discussed in a previous blog post. After I finished numbering, I needed to resolve any remaining issues (i.e. deal with the artifacts that had become separated from their original field numbers sometime in the past half century), double-check everything, and finalize my collection spreadsheet, which totaled approximately 45,000 objects (this number does not include those objects that were already cataloged by the previous team). I am pleased to say that cataloging is now complete and the 39BF2 collection is ready for research. You can find all of this collection, along with all other Smithsonian collections online at the Collections Search Center.

 

Sherds from 39BF2, laid out for numbering earlier in the project. Everything is now numbered and ready! Photo Lotte Govaerts

 

This is the last of the South Dakota RBS collections to be cataloged (though there could always be more surprises! If you read our blog, you might recall we thought we were done two years ago after 39WW2). This completes an approximately seven year cataloging project! During this time we cataloged materials from H.P. Thomas (39ST12), Cattle Oiler (39ST224), Sommers (39ST56), and Larson (39WW2), in addition to those from Medicine Crow (check our blog index for posts about those other sites). I joined the lab six years ago, when work on Cattle Oiler materials had just begun.

 

Various drawers of cataloged and numbered artifacts from 39BF2. Photos Lotte Govaerts.

My summer in Belgium

Before returning to 39BF2, I spent my summer in Belgium, where, among other things, I volunteered with the City of Antwerp Archaeology service. I spent some time in the lab, sorting sherds, and I participated in an excavation in the center of the city.

 

Sorting various mid-2nd millennium AD ceramics at the City of Antwerp’s Archaeology Depot. As you can see, this doesn't look too different from our own collections photos.Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

The field work took place in a courtyard adjacent to some 16th century buildings, as well as some much more recent construction. An underground bicycle parking garage is planned there (to serve a museum, the city hall, and residential buildings), and excavations had to be carried out before the construction work could proceed. Various layers of city occupation (basements, floors, pits) were uncovered dating to periods between the present and the 12th century. Most of the architectural remains dated to the 15th and 16th centuries, but earlier occupations were found in the lower levels, which included some surprisingly well-preserved wooden construction. Below all of those, some Roman features (a couple of pits and a ditch) were also found.

 

Overview of the site, showing some of the lower levels, including wooden construction dating to the 13th century in the lower left. Photo: Lucid/Stad Antwerpen  [More photos https://www.antwerpenmorgen.be/projecten/binnentuin-ondergrondse-fietsparking-diva/over]

 

Because I no longer do regular field work, I was a bit worried this would be painful, but it turned out fine. Sure, there was some muscle soreness, but mostly it was just exciting to be back in the field! That said, we experienced a heat wave during this time, which included record-breaking high temperatures for the area (104° F / 40° C!). On the hottest days, we only excavated in the morning, when the site was shaded by the surrounding buildings, and of course took many water breaks, which are important when working in hot weather. At other times, the weather was more typically Belgian, i.e. cooler, and often rainy.

Selfies with some of the crew. Veerle Hendriks (bottom left) and Daan Celis (bottom right) were in charge of this project. Photos: Lotte Govaerts.

 

I’m grateful to the City of Antwerp Archaeology service for letting me tag along for a while, as I’d never actually done the archaeology of my own home town before!

 

More typical Belgian weather includes a fair amount of rain! Photo Lotte Govaerts.

 

New projects: Coming soon!

Aside from these two things, I’ve also been working on some other research for upcoming Rogers Lab projects, but we’ll tell you more about those as they progress. Stay tuned!

February 2019 Lab Update

By Lotte Govaerts and J. Daniel Rogers

Although we haven’t been very active on our blog or our Twitter, we have been pretty busy these past few months, both in and out of the lab (mostly out of the lab during the month of January, because the government shutdown closed our lab for most of that month, along with the rest of the Smithsonian). In this post we’ll discuss some of the things we’ve been working on recently.

Happy faces upon our return to the lab at the end of January. Selfie by Lotte Govaerts.

 

The cataloging work on the 39BF2 (Medicine Crow) collection continues, though the project was unavoidably on hold during the shutdown. Since our last update on that work, Lotte has finished numbering the Archaic components and moved on to other Plains Village components of the collection, which include a variety of ceramic, lithic, and bone artifact types as well as some metal. We will be posting more updates on the 39BF2 project as the work progresses.

Aside from cataloging, Lotte has been working on her dissertation, as well as several manuscripts which are in various stages of publication. So far only one of those has been published: a short review of Michael M. Casler and W. Raymond Wood’s “Fort Tecumseh and Fort Pierre Chouteau: Journal and Letter Books 1830 – 1850, which appeared in North Dakota History Vol. 83, issue 2. We will share information on the other publications once they are in print as well.

Additionally, she presented on her thesis research at two conferences. Most recently at the Society for Historical Archaeology’s annual meeting, which was held in St. Charles, Missouri in early January. A few months before that, she spoke at the 2018 National Fur Trade Symposium. This meeting, hosted by the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation, the Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation, and the State Historical Society of North Dakota, took place in late September in Bismarck, North Dakota. The National Fur Trade Symposium is a triennial event where fur trade historians, archaeologists, and other scholars gather. The event is held at various locations across the West. It includes research presentations, field trips to fur trade-related sites, and living history demonstrations.

 

Lotte Govaerts speaking at the 2018 National Fur Trade Symposium. Photo credit: Northern Plains National Heritage Area, North Dakota.

 

Dan, meanwhile, has been busy writing his book. The book’s working title is In the Age of Empires. Over the last three months he has drafted sections on the Natchez, Arikara (Sanish), and Pecos Pueblo. While on an extended stay in Santa Fe (Dan is retired now) he was able to consult with experts on the archaeology and history of Pecos Pueblo.

 

The ruins of the church at Pecos National Historical Park. Photo credit: Dan Rogers.

 

The three newly drafted sections of the book are part of a larger case study about European expansion into North America.  Next up for the book project is the fascinating story of the Aztec Empire’s encounter with Cortez and his expedition.  Dan directed excavations at Aztec-era sites in the Toluca Valley back in the 1990s.  He has plenty of material to draw on for this chapter of the book.

Stay tuned for more updates on the book project.

---

References

Casler, Michael M., and W. Raymond Wood, eds. Fort Tecumseh and Fort Pierre Chouteau: Journal and Letter Books, 1830 - 1850. South Dakota Historical Society Press, 2017.

Govaerts, Lotte E., Review of Fort Tecumseh and Fort Pierre Chouteau: Journal and Letter Books, 1830 - 1850, by Michael M. Casler and W. Raymond Wood. North Dakota History 83(2), 2018.

National Park Service, Pecos National Historical Park, New Mexico, https://www.nps.gov/peco/index.htm

Northern Plains Heritage Foundation, 2018 National Fur Trade Symposium - "Old Forts Never Die" The Middle Missouri Fur Trade, 1738-1850, http://www.northernplainsheritage.org/2018-national-fur-trade-symposium.html

 

Cataloging the Medicine Crow Site (39BF2)

By Lotte Govaerts

 

I recently returned to the lab, after having spent most of my summer in Belgium. I have settled back in, and picked up where I left off back in June. Among other things, I have resumed work on the cataloging project I begun in late 2017.

You might recall we very excitedly announced completion of the Larson cataloging project (39WW2), last summer. By finishing work on Larson, we completed a multi-year cataloging project that also included collections from three other sites. At the time we believed that these were the last uncataloged River Basin Surveys collections from the northern Great Plains. We soon discovered that that wasn’t entirely true when collections staff alerted us to the presence of the partially cataloged Medicine Crow (39BF2) collection. Molly Coxson, a museum specialist, worked on this project some years ago, near the end of her time here at the National Museum of Natural History. She made great progress, but after her departure the project remained in stasis until we picked it up again late last year.

Based on reader comments, we have removed this image. The removed image included an outline of the state of South Dakota, the Missouri River and some of its larger tributaries (prior to the construction of several large dams), as well as a dot showing the approximate location of the site under discussion.

 

Medicine Crow (39BF2) is a complex, multi-component site in Buffalo County, South Dakota. It includes Plains Village as well as Archaic components. The Plains Village components have been assigned to the Talking Crow Phase of the Post-Contact Coalescent Variant of the Coalescent Tradition (Lehmer 1971, p. 201-202). Lehmer dates the Talking Crow Phase to A.D. 1700-1750. In a later analysis of Arikara ceramics, James Deetz identified three Plains Village Tradition components at Medicine Crow, dating 1690-1720, 1720-1750, and 1750-1780 (1965, p. 39). Archaic occupations at Medicine Crow date to the Early Archaic (7000-8000 BP), Middle Archaic (5000-7000 BP), and Late Archaic (3000-5000 BP) (Ahler and Toom 1989). The site was investigated by River Basin Survey crews over the course of three field seasons between 1956 and 1958. Harold Huscher, William Irving, and James Deetz each directed the project for a season.

A photo of field work being conducted at Medicine Crow in 1958. The picture shows the west end of XU3 with some artifacts left in place. Northwest view. SIRBS photo no. 39BF2-234.

 

The Medicine Crow collection contains the same types of artifacts as Larson and the other sites we previously reported on here on the blog (here, here, here, and here). The cataloging process is also much the same as previously described. One major difference is that the objects in this collection had already been assigned SI numbers when the previous crew worked on this project, and that some objects had already been given labels, and had their data entered into the Smithsonian cataloging system. Additionally, all of the material had already been transferred to updated housing. My first steps were to match the rest of the objects with the correct numbers, create a large spreadsheet with all data pertaining to each artifact number, and print artifact labels. After matching each object or lot of objects with its artifact label, I moved on to the process of physically numbering objects. Numbering is always a slow process, and I’m currently working on this project by myself on one, or at most two days a week as I combine cataloging with my other duties. This means that this stage of work will be ongoing for some time, but I will post relevant updates to our blog as the work progresses.

 

A lot of as-of-yet unnumbered debitage from 39BF2, containing flakes of various sizes and materials. Some of the materials bears old field numbers, or numbers applied during analysis, but not SI catalog numbers. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

Another lot of unnumbered flakes from 39BF2. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

 

I have been moving through drawers in numerical order, and I’m currently working on a set of drawers that contain lithic material from an Archaic site component. What is interesting about these drawers is that they contain a large amount of lithic debitage (debris generated during the making of stone tools), which we did not see in the other collections we cataloged. There were some lots of “stone samples” in the Larson collection, but for the most part the previously cataloged collections contained fully or partially finished tools, not the debitage generated in the making of the tools. Soil was screened during the excavation of these areas of 39BF2, which means that there are some rather small flakes in these lot numbers. This calls for some very small handwriting, and is making the numbering process take a bit more time than it does for drawers with larger objects. On the plus side, the smooth writing surface on most of these flakes makes the numbering pens last much longer than they do when there’s large lots of potsherds to be numbered!

Some examples of newly-numbered lithic material. Flakes are from larger lots, shown separately to illustrate size differences and allow for close up. Photos Lotte Govaerts.

Some flakes remain in their box during numbering, because they are too small to write on. Photo Lotte Govaerts.

 

I look forward to sharing more updates about the Medicine Crow cataloging project in the future, so stay tuned!

 

---

References Cited:

Ahler, Stanley A., and Dennis L. Toom (eds.). 1989. “Archeology of the Medicine Crow Site Complex (39BF2), Buffalo County, South Dakota.” A report prepared in partial fulfillment of Contract No. CX 1200-6-3547 (originally Contract No. CX 1595-6-0010) by Illinois State Museum Society for the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. National Park Service. Denver, CO: Branch of Interagency Archeological Services, U.S. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office.

Deetz, James. 1965. The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Press.

Lehmer, Donald J. 1971. Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropological Papers 1. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service.

 

 

 

Travels in North Dakota, Part V: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This is the fifth and last post about my recent trip to North Dakota. Previous posts in this series are here, here, here, and here. In this post, I describe our last stop in North Dakota: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site (NPS). The park is located ca. 25 miles southwest of Williston, ND, near the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, on the North Dakota/Montana state line.

 

History of the fort:

Fort Union was the longest-lived of the Upper Missouri trade posts. Established in 1828 by the American Fur Company’s new “Upper Missouri Outfit” (UMO), it operated continuously through 1867. As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, John Jacob Astor sold the American Fur Company in 1834. The UMO was purchased by Pratte, Chouteau, and Company (later Pierre Chouteau Jr. and Company). Fort Union was built mainly for trade with the Assinboine, but many other Northern Plains tribes (Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) were also frequent trading partners at Fort Union over the years. The bison robe trade waned in the 1860s, and the company’s business turned mostly to hauling freight on their steamships and distributing annuities to the tribes. Military troops were stationed at the fort in its last few years. In 1865 the Chouteau company sold to the Northwest Fur Company, who in turn sold to the military in 1867. The military then dismantled the fort and used its materials at nearby Fort Buford.

Karl Bodmer: Fort Union on the Missouri. Aquatint from the book "Maximilian, Prince of Wied’s Travels in the Interior of North America, during the years 1832–1834" by Prince Maximilian of Wied (Publisher: Ackermann & Co., 1839). This image shows Fort Union during its earlier years. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons.

 

Because of its size, long life, and importance as UMO flagship post, Fort Union is the best documented of the Upper Missouri fur trade posts. Many records survive alongside writings and depictions by fort employees and famous visitors.

 

Painting of Fort Union by J.B. Moncravie [also spelled “Moncrevie” and “Moncrévier”]. J.B. Moncravie was an employee of the UMO who also had some artistic talent (see Hanson 1972 for more detail on what is known about J.B. Moncravie). He painted a treaty scene over one of the gates to the fort in the 1840s.That painting can be seen (with some effort) in the center of this image. Image Source: Original from the IX De Smetiana Collection, Midwest Jesuit Archives, St. Louis, Missouri. Reproduced here as a photo of the cover of Barbour 2001.

"Fort Union & distribution of Goods to the Assiniboins" watercolor with graphite underdrawing by John Mix Stanley, 1854. 

 

Historic Site Designation and Fort Reconstruction:

After the military dismantled the fort, the site lay abandoned for quite some time. Local interest in the history of the fort, however, led to its recognition as a landmark and the eventual reconstruction of the replica post. In 1961, Fort Union became North Dakota’s first National Historical Landmark. Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site was created in 1966. Archaeological field work took place at the site in 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1972. In 1985 a bill was passed in Congress funding a reconstruction of Fort Union. Prior to construction, more archaeological excavations took place, led by William Hunt between 1986 and 1988. Results of these excavations were used in the planning of the reconstruction. In the various 19^th century depictions of Fort Union included on this page, it can be clearly seen that many changes were made to the fort during its several decades of existence. As you can see in my photos below, the reconstructed Fort Union was built to look like the original fort did in its later years. Much more detail on the efforts preceding the establishment of Fort Union National Historic Site and the fort’s reconstruction can be found on the NPS’ page “Fort Union at Fifty, 1966-2016: An Online Exhibit.”

 

An 1865 drawing of Fort Union by Benjamin Franklin Griffin, a soldier stationed at Fort Union. Image Source: National Park Service, FOUS 568.

 

Our visit to the site:

Mat and I visited Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site after the blizzard we’d been traveling through had finally ended, though some fresh snow had fallen overnight which was still being cleared as we arrived. We visited the exhibit in the visitor center (located inside the Bourgeois House), and toured the grounds. We also chatted with the ranger on duty, Loren Yellow Bird. He provided us with much information about the site and the area. Below are some photos from our visit.

 

One of the bastions at reconstructed Fort Union. Note the bison weathervane. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

The front entrance to the reconstructed Fort Union. Above the gate is a painting that can be seen in some depictions of the original Fort Union. The original was by J.B. Moncravie, who also did one of the paintings included above. On the right side of the photo is a wooden fur press. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

Mat takes pictures of the reconstructed Bourgeois House, which houses the visitor center. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

One of the exhibit cases inside the visitor center at Fort Union. Many of these cases include artifacts recovered during the archaeological excavations at the site, alongside snippets of text from journals of employees and visitors to the fort. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

Mat was thrilled to find this hands-on part of the exhibit, including examples of different furs/hides that were traded at Fort Union. Photo: Lotte Govaerts

One of several sample bead sheets included in the exhibit inside Fort Union's visitor center (non-archaeological). These were distributed to traders by bead manufacturers. Many such beads were recovered during excavations at Fort Union. Photo: Lotte Govaerts.

 

We hope you enjoyed traveling through North Dakota with us! Stay tuned for new posts on different topics, or check out our blog index to see all our older posts.

 

 

References/Further reading:

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

Midwest Archaeological Center Featured Projects: Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

Barbour, Barton H. 2001. Fort Union and the Upper Missouri Fur Trade. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hanson, Charles E. Jr. 1972. “J.B. Moncravie.” In Fur Traders, Trappers, and Mountain Men of the Upper Missouri, edited by LeRoy R. Hafen, 73–82. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Kurz, Rudolf Friedrich, and J. N. B Hewitt. 2005. On the Upper Missouri the Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852. Edited by Carla Kelly. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Larpenteur, Charles. 1933. Forty Years a Fur Trader on the Upper Missouri: The Personal Narrative of Charles Larpenteur, 1833-1872. Chicago: Lakeside Press.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. 1906. “Travels in the Interior of North America, 1832-1834 by Alexander Philip Maximilian, Prince of Wied-Neuwied.” In Early Western Travels, 1748-1846. Vol. 22, 23, 24. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark.