Rogers Archaeology Lab

Oahe Dam Impacts: Standing Rock Reservation

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is an installment in my series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys and my sub-series on the Oahe Dam. In my previous post, I discussed the impacts of the Oahe Dam on the Cheyenne River Reservation. In this one, I will focus on the impacts of that same dam on Standing Rock Reservation.

 

"Fort Yates Agency N.D." View of Standing Rock Agency buildings ca. 1880–1890. Photo: State Historical Society of North Dakota 00036-096.

 

As I mentioned in my last post, the impacts of the Oahe Dam on the Sioux tribes have been studied extensively by Michael Lawson. He investigated the impacts of the Pick–Sloan dams on the Sioux tribes in his 1978 doctoral dissertation and published a paper dedicated to Standing Rock Reservation (Lawson 1976). His dissertation was converted into a book in 1982, which was updated in 2009 (Lawson 1982, 2009). Like my previous post, this one also is a very brief summary of the events and impacts described in those works; much more detail can be found in the cited research. In addition, to avoid too much repetition, I regularly refer to my previous post; I recommend reading both together so each post can provide additional context for the other.

 

Standing Rock Reservation before the Oahe Dam

As discussed previously, when the Great Sioux Reservation was created in 1868, the US government established several agencies across the reservation. It envisioned these agencies as part of a process of assimilation, in which Native peoples would abandon nomadic lifestyles and collective societies to farm individual plots of land instead. For the Lakota, however, the agency was the place where they picked up the supplies they were entitled to per the treaty.^[1] The Grand River Agency was constructed in the northern part of the reservation, near the confluence of the Grand and Missouri Rivers, to serve mainly Sihasapa (Blackfeet), Hunkpapa, and Yanktonai bands. Many of the Lakota did not recognize the treaty and did not agree to live on the reservation; they continued roaming their unceded lands,^[2] while the Yanktonai continued farming on the opposite side of the Missouri.

 

Map showing the location of Grand River Agency as well as the later Standing Rock Agency alongside the locations of various towns, forts, trade posts, and other locations relevant to 19th century events in the region. Cropped from “Northern Plains, 1804–1876” (Ostler 2004, p 19, Map 1).

 

The land around the Grand River Agency was not well-suited for agriculture, so farming efforts were not particularly successful. In 1873, the US government decided to move the agency to a location it considered more convenient. The agent, Edmond Palmer, selected a site 75 river miles above Grand River, on a high table, where “the river [was] narrow and deep, with a good landing, … accessible to steamboats at all stages of water” and where there was “an abundance of cottonwood timber, suitable for building purposes, both above and below the agency, and a fine tract of land near by, sufficient to accommodate all the Indians for farming purposes” (United States Office of Indian Affairs, 1873, p. 598). This new location was, however, outside the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation proper, in the unceded territory just north of the reservation boundary. An Executive Order in 1875 extended the northern boundary to the Cannonball River in 1875 (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 2022) so that the new boundaries included the agency, which was renamed Standing Rock not long after the move.

 

"Standing Rock, the sacred stone of the Sioux" 1879 Harper’s Magazine illustration by William Allen Rogers. “The lower illustration shows an interesting ceremony observed by the Sioux about the famous 'Standing Rock,' situated near the Missouri River in Northern Dakota. This rock is of a very peculiar shape, and with it are connected several Indian legends. Among the Sioux the one most generally believed is that the stone was, many years ago, a young and beautiful Indian girl, whose betrothed was slain in battle. She mourned for him with the deepest and most constant sorrow, and although many warrior suitors sought her in marriage, she remained true to her first and only love. When she died, many years afterward, the Great Spirit transformed her body into this stone, so that, instead of mouldering in the dust, it might remain forever as a memorial of her love and fidelity. It is an object of great veneration among the Sioux, who visit it frequently, strew tobacco leaves, medicine bags, food, and trinkets around it, and paint the surface with rude, fantastic designs." Photo: North Dakota State University Libraries, Institute for Regional Studies, Folio 102.InS72.3b.

 

When the Great Sioux Reservation was broken up in 1889, the newly created Standing Rock Reservation included approximately 2.3 million acres. The states of North and South Dakota were created shortly after. The state line cut through Standing Rock Reservation, which continues to complicate jurisdictional issues on the reservation. Just like Cheyenne River Reservation, Standing Rock also lost territory in the years before Lake Oahe was filled, most notably due to allotment. When the Oahe Dam was constructed, Standing Rock Reservation encompassed approximately 1 million acres (Lawson 1976, p. 205).

 

“Ration Day at Standing Rock Agency” drawn by H.F. Farny. Published in Harper’s Weekly V. 22, NO. 1388 (July 28 1883), pp. 472–473. Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Ilus. In AP2.H32 1883 (Case Y).

 

Oahe Dam Negotiations

Negotiations between the government and Cheyenne River as well as Standing Rock Reservation were regulated via legislation enacted in 1950, following government negotiations with the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold (Lawson 1976, p. 212–213; Lawson 2009, p. 93–95), as discussed in our previous post in this series.

Undated portrait of Josephine Gates Kelly (1888–1976), tribal chair of the Standing Rock Sioux from 1946 until 1951. Photo: State Historical Society of North Dakota1952-5040, reproduced from ndstudies.gov.

 

Negotiations were off to a rough start when the tribe wanted to hire its own lawyer, completely independent from the Interior Department, rather than have the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) pay for their legal services, as was standard procedure. The Indian Commissioner refused to sign off on this proposal. The tribe complained to the Interior Secretary, but their complaints were essentially ignored until a delegation, headed by chairperson Josephine Gates Kelly,^[3] traveled to Washington DC and camped out at the Secretary’s office until they received a hearing. Eventually the Secretary overruled the Commissioner and approved the tribe’s legal representation contract (Lawson 2009, p. 97–98). This rough start set the tone for eight years of difficult negotiations, which included issues like more obstruction by the Commissioner and the untimely death of another Standing Rock chair, Whitney J. Agard, in 1952 (Lawson 2009, p. 107, 108).

One of the stipulations of the negotiation legislation was that the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the BIA prepare appraisals of the lands to be taken for the dam project. Like the USACE, the Standing Rock tribe also hired a private firm to prepare its own appraisal in 1951. It eventually arrived at a proposal for a cash settlement of $26.4 million ($2.8 million for the land, timber, improvements, and severance, $7.6 million for indirect/intangible losses, and $16 million for a rehabilitation program). This amount was intended to compensate the entire tribe, as not only individual landowners would suffer the disruption of the dam project. In addition, the tribe asked for mineral, grazing, and hunting rights, access to the reservoir, and a block of hydroelectric power for their exclusive use, at a low cost (Lawson 1976, 214–215; Lawson 2009, p. 127–128).

The USACE’s appraisal totaled only $1.32 million, and negotiators refused to budge. The BIA, whose appraisal was also lower than the tribe’s ($1.7 million) and the USACE both suggested that the rehabilitation program should be introduced in separate legislation (Lawson 1976, p. 215; Lawson 2009, p.).

As no agreement could be reached after many months of negotiating, the Standing Rock tribe took the matter directly to Congress in 1954. A bill was introduced, but because Congress was preoccupied with the Cheyenne River Reservation’s settlement at the time, the Standing Rock settlement was put on hold. A new bill was introduced after the Cheyenne River settlement was finalized in 1955 (Lawson 1976, p. 216; Lawson 2009, p. 126). Many hearings followed until in June 1956, the House Committee on Interior and Insular affairs recommended a cash settlement of $14,075,000. However, several committee members issued a dissenting opinion, which called the committee’s proposed amount “exorbitant” and suggested the final settlement should be decided in federal court and the rehabilitation program should be handled separately. This stirred up some controversy, which led Congress to stall on the Standing Rock legislation (Lawson 1976, p. 216–217; Lawson 2009, p. 128–129).

 

"Lumber for Oahe Dam Construction, Pierre, Hughes County." Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society, Archives Department 2020-11-18-341.

 

Yet another proposal was introduced in 1957, followed by more deliberation. Time was running out for the Standing Rock tribe, as the USACE had acquired almost all the land it needed to close the dam and fill the reservoir. In the spring of 1958, the USACE filed condemnation proceedings to obtain a tract of land it needed to relocate a section of highway and railroad. Six acres of the tract belonged to the Standing Rock Reservation. Despite treaty requirements, it had condemned lands belonging to Crow Creek, Lower Brule, and Yankton reservations for similar purposes not long before. The Standing Rock tribe sued to stop the USACE from continuing work on the Oahe project until a settlement was reached and to dismiss the condemnation suit based on their treaty rights.^[4] The judge sided with the tribe and blocked the condemnation, but the dam project was allowed to continue (Lawson 1976, p. 217–218; Lawson 2009, p. 151–152).

A new bill made it through the House approximately two weeks before the public closing ceremony at the Oahe Dam in August 1958, and then through the Senate two weeks after the ceremony. Shortly after that, it was signed into law by President Eisenhower as Public Law 915. The total settlement amount in the bill, as signed into law, was $12,346,553: $1,952,040 for the land, $3,299,513 for direct and indirect severance damages, $6,960,000 for relocation and a rehabilitation program, and $135,000 for legal representation. The total amount was less than half of the tribe’s appraisal of its losses, but it was nonetheless the highest per-acre amount any of the tribes affected by Pick-Sloan received. The Standing Rock tribe also managed to secure all of the nonmonetary compensation it had asked for, aside from their request for hydroelectric power, which the US government decided would violate the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Lawson 1976, p. 217–219; Lawson 2009, p. 154–156).

 

Impacts of Oahe Dam

Oahe Dam inundated 55,994 acres of Standing Rock Reservation, mainly its most fertile and forested lands. Approximately 190 families (1/3 of the population) were forced to move from the most desirable homesites (Lawson 1976, p. 208; Lawson 2009, p. 48).

 

Map of Standing Rock Reservation showing lands allotted between 1889 and 1930. Map: State Historical Society of North Dakota 978.488 O324 1954. Reproduced from ndstudies.gov.

 

Ranching was the primary industry on Standing Rock Reservation and the dam destroyed 30,000 acres of the most valuable ranch land. Some 60% of the most successful ranches had to be relocated or liquidated. The reservation also lost most of its farmland. In addition, approximately 11,000 acres of woodland were flooded, representing 90% of the reservation’s timbered area. This was the reservation’s main source of lumber and the only source of fuel for more than half the population. The loss of these woods also reduced the natural food supply of the residents (Lawson 1976, p. 208–209).

Unlike at Fort Berthold and Cheyenne River Reservations, the Standing Rock Reservation’s headquarters at Fort Yates (ND) was not flooded; however, the town below the agency was, and most of the people living nearby had to be relocated. In addition, the agency site became separated from the mainland on an island (Lawson 1976, p. 209).

 

"Standing Rock Agency Office Building", undated, ca. 1900–1930. Photo by Frank Bennett Fiske, Office of Indian Affairs, Standing Rock Agency. Via State Historical Society of North Dakota, Frank B. Fiske Collection 1952, 1952-0148.

 

These losses naturally disrupted every single aspect of life on the reservation.

Because it took so long for the Standing Rock tribe to get its settlement finalized, the tribe faced a host of additional problems. Public Law 915 gave the USACE the responsibility of distributing the relocation funds. The USACE promised the tribe its funds soon after the settlement was finalized, but it took until January 1960 for the tribe to actually receive the money. The long wait caused an economic decline at the already depressed reservation. When the USACE provided the tribe with its settlement money, it also immediately evicted them, before any new housing could be prepared (Lawson 1976, p. 219­–220; Lawson 2009, p. 181–182).

In addition, the tribe had won the right to salvage their timber, but the USACE stopped them from doing so, as they claimed these activities interfered with their own work. The court eventually sided with the tribe, but it took so long for the case to be decided that not enough time was left to salvage anything. The tribe thus lost out on this valuable lumber, and because the USACE did not salvage it either, it ended up creating a navigation hazard for many years (Lawson 1976, p. 220–221; Lawson 2009, p. 190).

Another drawn-out disagreement occurred over the issue of hiring workers to clear the reservation area. The USACE did not hire tribal members for this work; it claimed it was required to enter into contracts with the lowest bidder and could not dictate whom private contractors hired. The tribe again appealed to Congress. A bill was eventually introduced, in 1961, that would require the USACE to hire tribal members but was not considered before time had run out (Lawson 1976, p 221–222; Lawson 2009, p 184).

 

Negotiations for Additional Compensation

In the 1980s, renewed efforts to obtain additional compensation resulted in some success. The Garrison Diversion Unit Commission (GDUC) was established in 1984 to review the Garrison Diversion Unit, the irrigation and water supply project for the Garrison Dam. During a public hearing of the GDUC, tribal representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold asked for the water development needs of the North Dakota tribes to be investigated, referring to the “institutional equity” clause that was included in the commission’s charter. The GDUC investigated the matter and found that Congress had failed to adequately compensate the tribes for their losses (Lawson 2009, p. 256–257).

Therefore, the Joint Tribal Advisory Committee (JTAC) was created in 1986 to carry out the GDUC directives (Lawson 2009, p. 258). The Interior Department was opposed to providing the tribes with additional compensation, arguing that the earlier settlements stipulated that they were final. The JTAC, on the other hand, believed that the government had a legal obligation to make the tribes “whole” for their losses (Lawson 2009, p. 258–259).

 

Screenshot of a page from the final report of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee, section submitted by the final report of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee, section submitted by the Standing Rock Landowners Association (US Congress, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs 1988, p. 131).

 

 

Witnesses testified about the impacts of the dams for two weeks. Economic consultants also provided estimates based on various analysis techniques. A “capitalization” technique was used to estimate the losses of the Three Tribes and concluded the amount was between 170 and 180 million in 1986 dollars (Lawson 2009, p. 259) while “consumer surplus” analysis arrived at an estimate of $342,897,374 for Standing Rock (Lawson 2009, p. 260).

JTAC thus concluded that Congress had not adequately compensated the tribes for the economic losses they sustained when the Garrison and Oahe Dams were constructed. It submitted its final report on May 23, 1986, recommending additional compensation in the range of $178.4 to 411.8 million for Fort Berthold and $181.2 to 349.9 million for Standing Rock, in addition to the implementation of various initiatives relating to development, water rights, and other issues (Lawson 2009, p. 260).

 

Screenshot of the JTAC interview with Reginald Bird Horse, who was forced to move from his home on the southern bank of the Grand River near Mobridge (US Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 1988, p. 138).

 

The Department of the Interior ignored these recommendations until the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs invited JTAC to present directly to that and several other committees. The federal government was coping with budgetary constraints at the time. No progress was made after multiple hearings until two things that coincidentally happened around the same time finally moved the matter along (Lawson 2009, p. 260–262). President Reagan, on a highly publicized visit to the Soviet Union made an off-the-cuff derogatory remark about the Indigenous population in the US. Both the remark and the angry responses from Native Americans were widely reported on internationally. To smooth things over, the President invited a group of tribal leaders to the White House, providing Ed Lone Fight of the Three Affiliated Tribes an opportunity to comment on the lack of progress. At the same time, a “double accounting” solution was proposed by a lobbyist to obtain funds for additional compensation: Congress was to build up a trust fund using surplus power revenues generated by Garrison Dam (Lawson 2009, p. 262–264).

 

Screenshot of the JTAC interview with Vernon Iron Cloud, who was forced to move when Lake Oahe submerged his home (US Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 1988, p. 144).

 

More negotiations and recalculations followed without much progress, but eventually, a bill (H.R. 492) was attached to the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 and passed both houses. The Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act was signed into law (Lawson 2009, p. 264–266). It authorized a recovery trust fund capitalized at $149.2 million for the Fort Berthold tribes and $90.6 million for Standing Rock and authorized irrigation projects for the reservations. It also, as I mentioned in my previous post, took USACE lands that were not used for the dam projects and transferred them to the Department of the Interior. This legislation acknowledged for the first time that the government did not adequately compensate the tribes for their losses and set a precedent for other tribes (Lawson 2009, p. 266–267).

 

To Be Continued

As we established in the previous post, the story of Oahe Dam’s impacts is an ongoing one. Much has changed since dam construction on the Upper Missouri started. Research on the environmental and social impacts of dams as well as their cost as compared to their benefits made them less popular in the decades after the Missouri River dams were built. In addition, the US government’s attitude toward tribal sovereignty moved away from ideas of termination in the 1960s and tribal governments became more powerful. Even so, echoes of the Oahe Dam story are obvious in the more recent Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) story. For example, the USACE rerouted the pipeline from its originally planned route near Bismarck to one closer to Standing Rock Reservation, for “environmental and economic reasons” (Estes 2017, p. 115). Changes in the federal government had a direct effect on the situation, as one administration ordered the easement for the pipeline on hold until a full environmental impact statement could be reviewed, while the next administration immediately reversed course (Estes 2017, p. 120). All of these events can be understood within the context of a long history of Indigenous resistance against settler colonialism (Estes 2017, 2019).

 

Water Protector encampment on the northern edge of Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Photo Cassi Alexandra for NPR, from the article “In Their Own Words: The ‘Water Protectors’ of Standing Rock” (Zambelich and Alexandra 2016).

 

Challenges remain in terms of sovereignty and water rights, but the taking of land for the construction of large dams like Oahe Dam is less likely to be a problem in the future. The river restoration movement is growing across the country and around the world; dam removal is on the rise in the face of (aging) dam safety concerns and climate change. The largest-ever river restoration project is ongoing on the Klamath River in Oregon and California, where four dams are being removed. This project is the result of the efforts of Karuk, Yurok, Klamath, and other tribes (American Rivers 2023).

As for other hydropower projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently announced a new policy, granting Native American tribes the power to quickly veto hydropower projects that impact tribal lands. The policy forces developers to consult with tribes before they can be granted a license to start construction (Phillis 2024).

 

Copco No. 2 dam before and after removal; the dam was removed as part of the Klamath River restoration project. Photo: Shane Anderson of Swiftwater Films, reproduced from a Press Release from the Klamath River Corporation (Klamath River Renewal Corporation 2023).

 

---

This concludes my sub-series on the construction and impacts of the Oahe Dam. These last four posts provide context for my next posts, which will discuss the historical archaeology of the Oahe Reservoir area. This archaeological fieldwork took place in the midst of dam construction, negotiation, and relocation. The first of the Oahe Reservoir sites l will discuss here is Fort Manuel. Stay tuned!

---

[1] The Lakota referred to the agencies as “owakpamni oyake”, or distribution place (Ostler, 2004, p. 54)

[2] According to Andersson and Posthumus (2022, p. 131), the Fort Laramie Treaty divided the Lakota into Wágluȟe (Agency Indians) and Watȟógla (Free/Hunting Lakota), a division that deepened over time.

[3] Josephine Gates Kelly (1888­–1976) was active in Indian politics for many years before she was elected tribal chair of Standing Rock Reservation in 1946 and became one of the first women to hold that position in the US (Lawson 2009, p. 96) In addition to her trip to Washington, DC to force a hearing, she again traveled there after the BIA, in the fall of 1951, announced its plans to consolidate the facilities for the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Reservations. After much protest and lobbying, that plan was eventually abandoned (Lawson 2009, p. 99).

[4] According to the treaty, land could not be taken from the tribe without the approval of ¾ of its adult membership. However, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that Congress could abrogate treaties to exercise its sovereign right of eminent domain, as long as just compensation was provided. However, it had also ruled that only Congress had this power, and it could not be extended to federal agencies without congressional authorization (Lawson 1976, p. 217–218; Lawson 2009, p. 151–152).

---

References

American Rivers. 2023. “65 Dams Removed in 2022, Reconnecting 430 Upstream River Miles.” American Rivers (website). February 14, 2023. https://www.americanrivers.org/media-item/65-dams-removed-in-2022-reconnecting-430-upstream-river-miles/. Accessed March 4, 2024.

Andersson, Rani-Henrik, and David C. Posthumus. 2022. Lakhota: An Indigenous History. University of Oklahoma Press.

Estes, Nick. 2017. “Fighting for Our Lives: #NoDAPL in Historical Context.” Wicazo Sa Review 32 (2): 115–22.

———. 2019. Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance. Verso Books.

Klamath River Renewal Corporation. 2023. “Press Release | Removal of Diversion Dam Restores Flows to Klamath River Canyon for the First Time in Nearly a Century.” International Rivers (website). November 2, 2023. https://www.internationalrivers.org/news/press-release-removal-of-diversion-dam-restores-flows-to-klamath-river-canyon-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-a-century/.

Lawson, Michael L. 1976. “The Oahe Dam and the Standing Rock Sioux.” South Dakota History 6 (2): 203–29.

———. 1982. Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944-1980. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

———. 2009. Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux. Pierre: South Dakota State Historical Society Press.

Ostler, Jeffrey. 2004. The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Phillis, Michael. 2024. “Native American Tribes Gain New Authority to Stop Unwanted Hydropower Projects.” AP News (website). February 23, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/native-american-hydropower-climate-change-navajo-b5e86f47d52ca06bceecd782044264c1. Accessed March 4, 2024.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 2022. “The Founding of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (website). Updated 2022. https://www.standingrock.org/about/ Accessed March 04, 2024.

United States Congress Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 1988. Final Report of the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate. November 19, 1987. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

Zambelich, Ariel, and Cassi Alexandra. 2016 “In Their Own Words: The ‘Water Protectors’ of Standing Rock.” NPR (website). December 11, 2016. https://www.npr.org/2016/12/11/505147166/in-their-own-words-the-water-protectors-of-standing-rock. Accessed March 4, 2024.

United States Office of Indian Affairs. 1873. Report of the Commissioner of Indians Affairs. Washington, D.C.

---

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: 32ML1 – Fort Stevenson

Oahe Dam

Oahe Dam Background: The Great Sioux Reservation

Oahe Dam Impacts: Cheyenne River Reservation

Oahe Dam Impacts: Cheyenne River Reservation

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is part of my series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys and my sub-series on the Oahe Dam. In my previous post in this series, I provided some background information on the Great Sioux Reservation. In this post, I will discuss the effects of the dam on the people of Cheyenne River Reservation.

 

“Oahe Dam Construction Site, 28563 Powerhouse Road, Pierre SD, Hughes County”. Photo: South Dakota Digital Archives 2010-04-07-015.

 

The impacts of the Pick–Sloan dams on the Sioux peoples have been studied extensively by Michael Lawson, going back to his 1973 master’s thesis, in which he focused on the Cheyenne River Reservation in particular. He later examined the other reservations in more detail as well for his doctoral thesis and published that research in Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944–1980 (Lawson 1982). That book was later updated and republished as Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux (Lawson 2009). The second version of the book includes several new chapters that describe events that occurred since the publication of the first book. The bulk of this blog post constitutes an extremely brief summary of some of the issues described in Lawson’s research. Much more detail can be found in the cited works.

Cheyenne River Reservation Before the Oahe Dam

When the Great Sioux Reservation was created, the US government established agencies where the Indian agents distributed annuities and monitored the various populations associated with these agencies. The Cheyenne River Agency was established on the Missouri, ten miles south of the Cheyenne River, to serve approximately 6,000 Minneconjou, Itazipco (Sans Arc), Sihasapa (Blackfeet) and Oohanunpa (Two Kettle) Lakota (Lawson 1973, p. 39). In 1889, Cheyenne River Reservation was established when the Great Sioux Reservation was broken up. The original site of Cheyenne River Agency was outside the boundaries of the new reservation; therefore, the agency was moved 55 miles upstream in 1891, across the river from the settler town of Forrest City (Lawson 1973, p. 50).

 

"Western Sioux reservations after the 1889 cession", Ostler 2004, Map 4, p. 229

 

Cheyenne River Reservation included approximately 2,804,000 acres when it was first established (Lawson 1973, p. 33). It was reduced in size several times before the Oahe Dam was constructed. Among other things, in 1900, the Milwaukee Railroad obtained a six-mile right-of-way through an 87-mile stretch of the reservation. The Indian Bureau^[1] leased 1,500,000 acres to a cattle syndicate in 1902. in 1908, the government opened non-allotted lands to white settlers, and in 1910, additional unallotted land was sold to a development company for the construction of several towns (Lawson 1973, p. 55–56). In the 1920s and 1930s, during periods of drought and agricultural depression, many Cheyenne River Reservation residents were forced to sell their allotments (Lawson 1973, p. 57–59).

 

"Supt. Robers addressing Indians at Cheyenne Fair, Cheyenne Agency, S.D." Photo: Frank Bennett Fiske, State Historical Society of North Dakota 1952-1929.

 

In 1934, the Wheeler–Howard Act or Indian Reorganization Act provided the Sioux tribes with some level of self-government. It also ended allotment (Lawson 1973, p. 59; Lawson 2009, p. 32).^[2] In 1937, the new Cheyenne River Tribal Council established a land consolidation program. This increased tribal land holdings from approximately 492,000 to over 798,000 by 1950. Of those, however, 390,000 acres remained in heirship status and 200,000 acres of the best grazing land was still leased to the Western Farm Management Company (Lawson 1973, p. 76).

 

“John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, meets with South Dakota Blackfoot Indian chiefs in 1934 to discuss the Wheeler–Howard Act, later known as the Indian Reorganization Act.” Photo: unknown author, via Wikimedia Commons.

 

Oahe Dam Negotiations

The Flood Control Act of 1944 did not include any details regarding Native lands; it did not authorize the taking of any lands and included no provisions regarding tribal interests. (Lawson 2009, p. 43). None of the Sioux tribes were kept informed during the planning and the finalized Pick–Sloan Plan was presented to them as inevitable. In 1946, as the Three Tribes of Fort Berthold were fighting the construction of Garrison Dam (see Meyer 1977), the Office of Indian Affairs established the Missouri River Basin Investigation Project (MRBI) to examine the situation, conduct surveys to estimate the social and economic effects of the dams, and calculate the cost of damages and/or replacement (Lawson 1973, p. 22). Its duties were later expanded to include helping the tribes obtain equitable settlements and assisting them with relocation and reconstruction. The first MRBI findings were not published until 1949, when dam construction had been proceeding for several years. It was only then that the affected populations learned the precise impacts of the ongoing project (Lawson 2009, p. 45–46).

 

"Lumber for Oahe Dam Construction, Pierre, Hughes County". South Dakota Digital Archives 2020-11-18-335.

 

The construction of Oahe Dam, the third of the Pick–Sloan dams, began in 1948. Armed not only with the experience of dealing with the US government for generations, but also with knowledge gained from the Three Tribes’ experience with the Garrison Dam and that of the Yankton Sioux with the Fort Randall Dam (which I will discuss in a future blog post), the Cheyenne River Sioux were prepared to negotiate the best possible deal if construction was indeed inevitable. The US government also had some experience with dam-related negotiations at this point and was hoping to make the process go more smoothly than it had previously. Therefore, legislation was enacted in 1950 that assigned responsibility for the negotiations to the Army Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Interior. It stipulated also that the settlement was to include not only payment for the land, but the cost of relocation as well. This legislation further required both the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to prepare appraisals and it gave individuals the right to reject those appraisals and have the value of their land determined in federal court at the Army’s expense. If no agreement could be reached, Congress would make the final decision (Lawson 1973, p. 87–89; 2009, p. 93–94).

The existence of this legislation provided the Cheyenne River Sioux with some reassurance, but they nonetheless remained concerned as several provisions had been dropped as the original proposal was finalized into legislation, particularly those relating to rights to electrical power from the dam, legal representation in the negotiations, and shoreline access (Lawson 1973, p. 89; 2009, p. 94–95).

Similar to what occurred in negotiations with other impacted populations, during the Cheyenne River Reservation negotiations the appraisals of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and tribal officials were vastly different. The BIA was willing to compromise, but the USACE refused to do so and repeatedly threatened to use its powers of eminent domain. The negotiations lasted much longer than provided for and failed to result in an agreement (Lawson 2009, p. 95).

A private firm hired by the USACE in 1951 concluded that the total value of the land that would be lost in the Cheyenne River Reservation was $1,605,410 (Lawson 1973, p. 94; 2009, p. 102). Both the MRBI and tribal negotiators pointed out errors in the USACE’s appraisal, leading to reviews and additional negotiations (Lawson 1973, p. 95–96; 2009, p 103–107). A joint committee was appointed to conduct a new appraisal in 1952 (Lawson 1973, p. 97; 2009, p. 108).

 

"Last Stand of the Cheyenne River Reservation Sioux", 1949. Reproduced in Lawson 2009, p. 140, credited to South Dakota State Historical Society. The cartoon appears to be signed “Feather”. Another version of this cartoon is credited to G.W. Laplant (Lawson 1976, p. 226).

 

However, when new negotiations were started, the Corps offered the same amount as during previous negotiations. The reviewing committee’s appraisal, $2,053,177, became the BIA’s official offer (Lawson 1973, p. 98–99; 2009, p. 109). Tribal representatives pointed out errors in both appraisals and arrived at an amount of $2,614,779 for land, improvements, and severance damages, in addition to $8,316,092 for “tangible future damages” (things like loss of grazing leases, timber, wildlife, and wild fruits), and $12,599.432 to establish a rehabilitation program,^[3] totaling $23,530,303 (Lawson 1973, p. 100; 2009, p. 109). This amount was intended to reimburse the entire reservation, as not only individual property owners would be impacted by the dam. In addition, the Cheyenne River Sioux suggested that relocation and construction costs should not come out of the settlement funds but out of the dam project’s budget. They also asked for mineral and grazing rights and a block of electricity, among other things (Lawson 1973, p. 103–105; 2009, p. 110–111).

 

Undated photo of Cheyenne Agency's main street. South Dakota Digital Archives 2014-10-07-319.

 

As an agreement could not be reached, the Cheyenne River Sioux proceeded to deal with Congress directly (Lawson 1973, p. 109; 2009, p. 112). They lowered their total to $21,715,678 and this amended proposal was introduced in Congress in early 1953 (Lawson 1973, p. 110; 2009, p. 113). After much back and forth, the total amount eventually passed by Congress in 1954 was reduced to $10,644,014 (Lawson 1973, p. 112­–117; 2009, p. 120–124). The Cheyenne River Sioux’s demands for electrical power and facilities were denied and they were not allowed final authority over disbursement. Even the significantly reduced amount of the final settlement provided the Cheyenne River Sioux with more money per acre than the groups who negotiated with the government before them. In addition, they also won the right to have relocation and reconstruction costs come out of the Army’s appropriations and they received mineral, salvage, and shoreline rights (with certain restrictions) (Lawson 1973, p. 119–120; 2009, p. 125–126). As it was clear that no other options remained at this point, a majority of Cheyenne River residents voted to accept the proposal. On April 6, 1955, the settlement became official. (Lawson 1973, p. 123; 2009, p. 126).

 

Undated photo on postcard, postmarked Gettysburg SD, Aug. 1, 1912. “Row of Houses, Cheyenne Agency SD, Dewey and Ziebach Counties”. South Dakota Digital Archives 2014-12-29-315.

 

Oahe Dam Impacts

Based on information from the MRBI appraisals, when the reservoir was filled in 1958–1962, Lake Oahe flooded 104,420 acres of Cheyenne River Reservation land (58,444 acres owned by the tribe, 45,976 by individuals). The reservation lost its most fertile land and most of its timber resources. This included 403 acres of cropland that produced 75% of the corn and 10% of the small grain on the reservation as well as 12,360 acres of meadowland, 12,412 acres of sheltered pastureland, and 75,087 acres of choice grazing land (Lawson 1973, p. 78–79). This land supported the reservation’s livestock industry, which was thriving despite the limitations caused by the effects of the Dawes Act that split the land into plots too small to support ranching (Lawson 1973, p. 74). More than 75 cattle enterprises had to be liquidated or relocated. Several ranchers lost all their bottomlands, crop lands, and pastureland, in addition to the headquarters for their business. They were thus left with only the upland grazing areas (Lawson 1973, p. 79).

 

“Native American House, Cheyenne Agency SD”, undated photo on postcard. South Dakota Digital Archives 2014-10-08-336.

 

These lands could not be replaced because no lands with similar features remained on or near the reservation after the reservoir was filled. The grazing lands outside the flood zone could not support an economic unit without the adjoining meadows and sheltered pastures and as such were difficult to dispose of; therefore, the market value of the remaining land declined as well (Lawson 1973, p. 79–80).

Approximately 15,000 acres of woodland, representing 90% of the timbered area on the reservation, was lost. This timber represented the only source of fuel for at least a quarter of the Cheyenne River Reservation population. Many of them also depended on it for lumber and food supply. These lands could also not be replaced (Lawson 1973, p. 80–81).

 

Undated photo showing view of Cheyenne Agency across the river from Forest City. “Cheyenne River Agency, Forest City, Potter County”. Photo: George Alexander Grant,

South Dakota Digital Archives, 2009-08-03-015.

 

The town of Cheyenne Agency, the administrative headquarters and the main population center of the reservation was also in the flooded area. The town included government and tribal buildings, a boarding school, hospital, dormitories for students, tribal and government offices and workshops, and the homes of 600 people. The town was also home to a 105-acre school farm that provided partial subsistence for students, as well as several churches and cemeteries (Lawson 1973, p. 82). The reservation’s administrative center was moved to the existing, non-Native town of Eagle Butte. Over 650 people were moved to temporary housing there while new housing was constructed for them (Lawson 1973, p. 136).

Aside from employment opportunities during relocation and reconstruction, the benefits of the dam largely did not manifest for the Cheyenne River Sioux (Lawson 148–160). The rehabilitation project that was part of the reconstruction program experienced numerous problems, mainly because it was implemented too quickly (Lawson 1973, p. 167–170), but the associated land consolidation program (which was assisted by other federal and tribal funds) was rather successful. Between 1950 and 1970, tribal land holdings increased while non-tribal holdings within the reservation decreased; in this way, the amount of land held by tribal members increased from 787,381 to 1,231,037 acres (Lawson 1973, p. 170–171).

 

"Cheyenne Agency School, Eagle Butte, Dewey and Ziebach Counties". Undated photo,

South Dakota Digital Archives 2009-07-16-017.

 

Although the Cheyenne River Sioux, through various programs, managed to increase their tribal assets, brought the average family income above the poverty line, and achieved the lowest unemployment rate of the major Sioux reservations, they continued to feel hampered by the damages suffered due to the Oahe project (Lawson 1973, p. 170–171).

Negotiations for Additional Compensation

In the 1980s, renewed efforts on the part of the North Dakota tribes resulted in additional compensation, as I have briefly mentioned in a previous post and will explain in more detail in the next post in this series when I discuss the impacts of the Oahe Dam on the Standing Rock Reservation. Following the North Dakota tribes’ success, the Cheyenne River Sioux started seeking additional compensation in 1993. They followed an approach similar to the one used by the Standing Rock Sioux to arrive at an estimate of $300.7 million in 1996 dollars. An alternative approach to calculate their losses resulted in an estimate of $279.1 million (Lawson 2009, p. 269).

Negotiations lasted until 2000 (Lawson 2009, p. 270). On November 13 of that year, President Clinton signed the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act into law as Title I of Public Law 106-511. It provided for the appropriation of $290,722,958 (plus interest) from the general fund of the US Treasury in a recovery trust fund, to be capitalized in 2012 (Lawson 2009, p. 280). This trust fund was the largest settlement ever awarded to a Native tribe impacted by a Pick–Sloan project. Similar to the other trust funds set up for these populations, the Cheyenne River legislation prohibited per-capita distribution of interest income to individuals; it thus did not provide any direct payments to individuals who lost land or any of their relatives or descendants.

The differences between the settlements received by the different groups and the different methods to calculate the amounts the US government felt the tribes were owed remain a topic of debate. According to Lawson (2009, p. 286), the only conclusion that can be drawn based on the analysis of these differences is that Congress was as erratic in providing additional compensation as it had been in providing the initial settlements associated with the Pick–Sloan dams and that thus the total compensation for different groups experiencing similar damages cannot be considered equitable.

The Mitigation Act

The Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act included a provision that returned “surplus” USACE lands (i.e., those lands taken by the USACE for the dam project that were located above the flood management level of the lake) to the North Dakota tribes. This provision was incredibly unpopular with non-Native North Dakotans, particularly those who used the lake and shoreline for recreation and those whose businesses depended on that recreation. The legislation was later repealed; the repeal authorized the USACE to administratively transfer the lands to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the tribes (Biolsi 2021, p. 217).

In the 1990s, while the previously discussed negotiations regarding additional compensation for the taking of the land were still ongoing, the state of South Dakota pursued legislation to transfer USACE-owned surplus lands outside of reservation boundaries to the state and to transfer USACE-owned surplus lands inside reservation boundaries back to the tribes (and provide both state and tribes with funds for wildlife rehabilitation) (Lawson 2009, p. 231; Biolsi 2012, p. 212–214). The idea of returning these lands to the tribes was as unpopular with non-Native South Dakotans as it had been in North Dakota, but the state was interested in owning the land outright so it could have jurisdiction over hunting, fishing, and recreation on the shore and the water. In practice, the state was already exercising this jurisdiction, but legally, it had no actual jurisdiction, as the land was federally owned. The state was hoping to make its jurisdiction official without risking additional lawsuits from the tribes and therefore offered those tribes the lands located within the reservation boundaries (Biolsi 2021, p. 220–221).

 

Fishing on Lake Oahe near Hazelton Recreation Area, North Dakota. Photo: USACE, via recreation.gov.

 

South Dakota commenced negotiations with all the Missouri River tribes, but only the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Sioux were willing to continue negotiating and eventually reached an agreement with the state. The issue of jurisdiction was a significant obstacle in these negotiations, as some sort of shared jurisdiction would have to be established to govern the water and shoreline, and the tribes recognized that sharing jurisdiction on tribal land meant accepting state jurisdiction over tribal members on tribal land, which had long been a contested and painful issue (Biolsi 2021, 227–228).

In the eventual legislation, Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, better known as the Mitigation Bill, USACE lands outside reservation boundaries (as understood by the US government) were transferred or leased to the state. Lands within the reservation boundaries, totaling approximately 33,000 acres for Cheyenne River Reservation, were transferred to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the tribes. The existing jurisdictions remained unchanged. Both the tribes and the state received trust funds for habitat restoration (capitalized at $57 million for the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Sioux) (Lawson 2009, p. 233–234).

 

Lake Oahe campground operated by South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. Photo: South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks.

 

This legislation was extremely controversial. The other Sioux tribes opposed it, as did many individual members of the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. The disagreement was largely based on their understanding of tribal boundaries (and sovereignty). Because the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 was the last treaty the Sioux signed with the US (the US stopped signing treaties with tribes shortly after), many consider the boundaries described in that treaty the only valid boundaries of the Sioux territory. Treaty rights and sovereignty cannot be negotiated away without the approval of all the Sioux tribes, and lands within the Great Sioux Reservation boundaries therefore cannot be transferred to the state without that approval (Biolsi 2021, p. 224–225). In addition, many expressed concern that cultural resources on these lands would be irreparably damaged if removed from federal protection (Lawson 2009, p. 232).^[4] Despite this opposition and a slew of lawsuits, the lands were officially transferred in 2002. The bill was, however, amended in 2000; among other things, a Cultural Resources Advisory Commission was established for the protection of cultural resources on the transferred lands and the secretary of the Interior was authorized to inventory and stabilize every historic and cultural site on the transferred lands within a period of ten years (Lawson 2009, p. 234).

To be Continued

The Sioux tribes and individuals within those tribes have filed multiple lawsuits against the US government over these and related issues. Considering the inequitable settlements discussed here, the US government’s shifting attitudes toward tribal sovereignty (Fouberg 2000; Biolsi 2021), and the issue of Indigenous water rights in the face of climate change, the story of Oahe Dam’s impacts is an ongoing one.

 

Harold Frazier (center), tribal chair of Cheyenne River Reservation during a ride to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Fort Laramie Treaty in 2018. Photo: Stephanie Keith/Reuters, from an article about that event (Keith 2018).

 

This concludes my review of the impacts of the Oahe Dam on the Cheyenne River Reservation. In the next installment of this series, I will take a closer look at the impacts of the dam on the Standing Rock Reservation. Then, I will discuss the historic sites investigated by River Basin Surveys archaeologists in the Oahe Dam area.

 

---

[1] The Bureau of Indian Affairs was known by different names, including the Indian Bureau, the Indian department, and the Indian Service until it was officially named the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1947 (BIA 2021).

[2] The Indian Reorganization Act was part of the “Indian New Deal”, which represented a turn away from the federal government previous focus on assimilation in its dealings with Native peoples. It soon shifted back, however, as not long after World War II, termination became a popular idea in the federal government. Ideas on Indian policy shifted with changes in leadership and these various political shifts directly affected the negotiations between the Sioux and the US government regarding the Pick–Sloan dams, as Lawson (1973, 2009) makes abundantly clear throughout his analysis. For more information on the Indian Reorganization Act and the Indian termination policy, see Deloria 2002 and Valandra 2010. For an analysis on the US government’s interpretation of Indigenous sovereignty and how this has affected the Cheyenne River Sioux in particular, see Fouberg 2000.

[3] “Rehabilitation program” was a term used for loans and grants to improve social and economic development on reservations during the Indian New Deal period (Lawson 2009, p. 109).

[4] The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) govern interaction with Native American cultural resources, burials, and human remains on federal land.

---

References

Biolsi, Thomas. 2021. “The Treaty Imaginary and Tribal Sovereignty in South Dakota.” American Indian Quarterly 45 (3): 209–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2021.0019.

Deloria, Vine Jr. 2002. The Indian Reorganization Act: Congresses and Bills. University of Oklahoma Press.

Fouberg, Erin Hogan. 2000. Tribal Territory, Sovereignty, and Governance: A Study of the Cheyenne River and Lake Traverse Indian Reservations. Native Americans. New York: Routledge.

Keith, Stephanie. 2018 “Riding with Native Americans to Mark Pact Anniversary.” Reuters (website). Augusts 9 2018. https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/riding-with-native-americans-to-mark-pact-anniversary. Accessed March 6, 2024.

Lawson, Michael L. 1973. “Reservoir and Reservation: The Oahe Dam and the Cheyenne River Sioux.” Master’s Thesis, Omaha: University of Nebraska.

Lawson, Michael L. 1976. “The Oahe Dam and the Standing Rock Sioux.” South Dakota History 6 (2): 203–29.

Lawson, Michael L. 1982. Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944-1980. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Lawson, Michael L. 2009. Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux. Pierre: South Dakota State Historical Society Press.

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

Ostler, Jeffrey. 2004. The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2021. “What Is the BIA’s History?" (website) January 12, 2021. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-bias-history. Accessed March 6, 2024.

Valandra, Edward Charles. 2010. Not without Our Consent: Lakota Resistance to Termination, 1950-59. University of Illinois Press.

---

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: 32ML1 – Fort Stevenson

Oahe Dam

Oahe Dam Background: The Great Sioux Reservation

Oahe Dam Background: The Great Sioux Reservation

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This post is part of a series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys and a sub-series on Oahe Dam. In the previous post in this series, I discussed the history of Oahe Dam and the impacts of dams in general. Before discussing the specific impacts of Oahe Dam on the people of Standing Rock and Cheyenne River reservations, I will first discuss the history of those reservations.

Both Standing Rock and Cheyenne River reservation were once part of the Great Sioux Reservation, which was created by the second Treaty of Fort Laramie. Just like the Fort Berthold Reservation we discussed previously, the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation changed over time.

 

Image from the Codex Canadensis.  “Roy de La grande Nation / des Nadouessiouek, Il est armé de sa Massue de guerre / qu'on nomme pakamagan, Il regne dans un grand Pais / au dela de la Vermeille” (King of the great nation of the Nadouessiouek. He is armed with his war club which is called pakamagan. He reigns in a great country beyond the Vermilion Sea). Codex Canadensis, p. 8. Public domain image via Wikimedia Commons.

 

The name “Sioux” comes from an Ottawa term that French visitors to the woodlands of the Mississippi valley wrote down as “Nadouessioux” (Ostler 2004, 21). The Sioux people refer to themselves as Oceti Sakowin, or the Seven Council Fires. This name does not refer to a political entity, but rather an identity based on a shared culture, language, and history. In the eighteenth century, pressure from moving populations to the east and dwindling food supplies caused some of the Sioux people to move west (the Lakota-speaking Teton and the Dakota-speaking Yankton and Yanktonai). This move is described as a return home, since the Sioux consider the Black Hills in what is now South Dakota the birthplace of their nation. At the time, other people (Cheyenne and Crow) were living in that region and were displaced by the Sioux. The Western Sioux acquired guns and horses through trading and became buffalo hunters. Especially after a series of smallpox epidemics significantly reduced the numbers of the more sedentary Missouri basin tribes in the late 18^th century, the Western Sioux became a very powerful people.

During the early to mid-nineteenth century, tensions were growing between US populations/interests and the various Native peoples of the Northern Plains. The tribes continued to feel pressure from population shifts to the east, as well as encounters with overland travelers heading west and corporate interests intruding on their lands (e.g., steamboat crews cutting timber and fur traders). In an effort to reduce conflict, the United States decided to establish Native land rights. To create boundaries and obtain safe westward passage for US settlers and interests, the United States signed treaties with various Native peoples. In 1851, the US Commissioner of Indian Affairs organized a Grand Council with the Plains tribes, which resulted in the first Treaty of Fort Laramie.

 

“Interior of Fort Laramie,” watercolor painting by Alfred Jacob Miller, 1837. Photo: Gilcrease Museum.

 

In the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, the Sioux territory was described thusly: “The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, commencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on the Missouri River; thence in a southwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River; thence up to the north fork of the Platte River to a point known as Red Bute [sic], or where the road leaves the river; thence along the range of mountains known as the Black Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence down Heart River to its mouth; and thence down the Missouri River to the place of beginning” (Kappler 1904, p. 594).

As Carl Sack (2017) explained, the vague description of the western boundary was interpreted in two different ways by the ICC in the 20^th century.^[1] Their 1965 interpretation located the boundary along “the drainage divide between the rivers flowing east into the Missouri and those flowing north into the Missouri” (15 ICC 577, cited in Sack 2017). The Sioux did not agree with this interpretation, because it left a neutral zone between their territory and that of the Crow to the west. Sioux attorneys argued this area belonged to them under the terms of the treaty. The ICC agreed with them in 1969 and redrew the boundary, based on Charles C. Royce’s 1896 Indian land cession maps.

 

Boundaries of the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty Sioux Territory, as interpreted by the Indian Claims Committee (ICC) in 1965 (l) and 1969 (r). Maps by Carl Sack, licensed CC-BY.

 

After more conflict, the second Treaty of Fort Laramie was signed in 1868, between the United States and the different Sioux tribes (as well as the Arapaho). In this treaty, three different kinds of Sioux lands were described: The Great Sioux Reservation, hunting territory, and unceded land (the eastern Sioux reservations that were established earlier were not mentioned in this treaty).

 

“Photograph of General William T. Sherman and Commissioners in Council with Indian Chiefs at Fort Laramie, Wyoming.” Photo: Department of Defense. Department of the Army. Office of the Chief Signal Officer, US National Archives and Records Administration. Via Wikimedia Commons.

 

This territory was described in Articles 2, 11, and 16:

 

Article 2: “…commencing on the east bank of the Missouri River where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses the same, thence along low-water mark down said east bank to a point opposite where the northern line of the State of Nebraska  strikes the river, thence west across said river, and along the northern line of Nebraska to the one hundred and fourth degree of longitude west from Greenwich, thence north on said meridian to a point where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude intercepts the same, thence due east along said parallel to the place of beginning; and in addition thereto, all existing reservations on the east bank of said river shall be, and the same is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them” (Kappler 1904, 998).

Article 11: “…reserve the right to hunt on any lands north of North Platte, and on the Republican Fork on the Smoky Hill River, so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase” (Kappler 1904, 1002).

Article 16: “The United States herby agrees and stipulates that the country north of the North Platte River and east of the summits of the Big Horn Mountains shall be held and considered to be unceded Indian territory, and also stipulates and agrees that no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the same; or without the consent of the Indians first had and obtained, to pass through the same; and it is further agreed by the United States that within ninety days after the conclusion of peace with all the bands of the Sioux Nation, the military posts now established in the territory in this article named shall be abandoned, and that the road leading to them and by them to the settlements in the Territory of Montana shall be closed” (Kappler 1904, 1002, 1003).

 

The boundaries of these lands have also been interpreted in different ways over the years.

 

Sioux lands according to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, as interpreted by the ICC in 1970 (l) and 1978 (r). Maps by Carl Sack, licensed CC-BY.

 

Many of the treaty’s articles focused on ways to impose a sedentary, agricultural lifestyle and mainstream American cultural norms on the Sioux people, in the form of annuities and provisions for agricultural work, blacksmith shops, clothes, schools, and mills. The Great Sioux Reservation included agencies for the different tribes; they were sometimes moved and renamed. The Sioux who agreed to settle on the reservation resisted the agricultural lifestyle and many left to hunt buffalo instead.

The US government already had its eye on the rich timber lands of the Black Hills when, in 1874, Custer’s expedition to the Black Hills found gold. The news of this find attracted gold seekers, leading to more conflict with the Sioux. After the Plains Wars that followed, in 1877 the US forced the Sioux to cede a 50-mile strip along the western border of the reservation, as well as all lands west of the Cheyenne and Belle Fourche rivers. This area included the Black Hills.

The General Allotment Act, or Dawes Act, was passed in 1887. Michael Lawson (2009, p. 30) described it as “the most devastating piece of legislation ever applied to the Sioux”. Under this law, Native American heads of households were given plots of land, to be held in trust by the government for 25 years. Upon receipt of the patent, the owners would receive full US citizenship. Unallotted lands were considered “surplus” and opened for sale to non-Natives. When the law was applied to the Sioux, lands were offered for sale before allotment was even completed. There were many other problems with the application of the law: The allotments on the Sioux reservation were not suitable for agriculture and not large enough for ranching. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not provide the promised training or equipment. Native families were pressured to sell their land, checkerboarding the reservation. With each generation, these problems worsened as the lands were further split up.

 

An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations (General Allotment Act or Dawes Act), Statutes at Large 24, 388-91, NADP Document A1887.

 

The Sioux Act of 1889 officially broke up the Sioux Reservation, reducing the tribes’ lands by over 9,000,000 acres and creating the different, smaller reservations: Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Yankton Reservations. All of those were affected by the construction of the Pick–Sloan dams. We will examine the effects of Oahe Dam on the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Reservations in the next posts in this series.

---

[1] The Indian Claims Commission was established under the Indian Claims Act of 1946 to investigate treaty claims. It had the power to interpret treaty boundaries and make decisions based on these interpretations.

 

---

References

Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Lawson, Michael L. 2009. Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux. Pierre: South Dakota State Historical Society Press.

Ostler, Jeffrey. 2004. The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sack, Carl. 2017. “Invisible Nation: Mapping Sioux Treaty Boundaries.” Northlandia (blog). February 18, 2017. https://northlandia.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/invisible-nation-mapping-sioux-treaty-boundaries/.

 

---

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: 32ML1 – Fort Stevenson

Oahe Dam

Oahe Dam

By Lotte Govaerts

 

This blog post is part of a series discussing my research on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys (RBS). In previous posts, I discussed Garrison Dam and several archaeological sites located within its reservoir area. In this post, as well as the next several posts in this series, I will focus on Oahe Dam.

Undated postcard with an aerial view of Oahe Dam. Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society, 2020-11-18-382.

Oahe dam is located in the middle of South Dakota, approximately 6 miles northwest of Pierre and 1,123 miles above the mouth of the Missouri (Caldwell and Smith 1963). The dam and reservoir take their name from Oahe Mission, which was established among the Dakota in 1874. The mission was located at the site of an old Arikara village called Ti Tanke Ohe (“Site of the Large House”). That name, later shortened to “Oahe” was used by the mission, and later by the dam project. A mission chapel was built in Peoria Bottom, near the site of the dam. It was moved to a temporary location shortly before the reservoir started filling, and then moved again to its current location (by the Oahe Dam Visitor Center) in 1964 (South Dakota State Historical society 2022).

 

The location of Oahe Dam and the other Pick-Sloan dams. Map: Lotte Govaerts, based on Google Maps data.

 

Dam specs

Oahe dam was the third of the main stem Pick–Sloan dams to be constructed. Construction started in 1948; the dam was closed in 1958, when reservoir filling began. The reservoir reached its minimum operating pool in 1962 and the dam has been operating continuously since then.

Aerial view of Oahe Dam Outlet works Intake Structures. Taken Aug. 5, 1958. “Two days after diversion. Pool Elevation 1439.5.” Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society 2010-04-01-002.

The rolled earth and shale berm dam measures 9,300 feet (2,835 m); it includes 92,000,000 cubic yards (70,339,047 m³) of fill and 1,045,000 cubic yards (798,960 m³) of concrete. While the exact measurements of reservoirs change over time, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers’ documentation, at 1,607.5 msl, the  Oahe Reservoir’s shoreline measures 2,250 miles (3,621 km), and its surface area is 310,000 acres (1,254.5 km²). Its maximum depth is 205 feet (62.5 m) (US Army Corps of Engineers 2012).

 

President John F. Kennedy at the Oahe Dam dedication, August 17, 1962. You can find the recording of his speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library website (Accession number WH-120-002). Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society, 2010-02-23-009.

Dam Impacts

As I previously discussed in my post on Garrison Dam and described in more detail elsewhere (Govaerts 2016), the construction of any large dam has enormous environmental and social impacts. The construction of the Pick–Sloan dams completely changed the ecosystems of the Missouri basin from Montana to the confluence with the Mississippi, as well as the lower Mississippi and its delta. Research continues to discover the far-reaching ecological impacts of this dam project (USACE 2004; Alexander et al. 2012; Johnson et al. 2012). Moreover, along with many thousands of dams in the world, the Pick–Sloan dams contribute to changes in the environment on a global scale.

 

The pallid sturgeon was placed on the Endangered Species list in 1990, mainly due to a loss of habitat caused by the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams on the Missouri River. Photo: US Fish and Wildlife Service, reproduced from NPS, nd.

As for the social impacts of dams, most of the data concerns displaced populations. Development-induced displacement, and specifically dam-related displacement has been extensively studied (Brokensha 1963; Cernea and Guggenheim 1993; Cernea 1999; Bilharz 1998; Scudder 2005). There is consensus in the field that, although every dam project, every displaced population, and every individual within such a population is naturally unique, development-induced displacement has predictable effects. All displaced populations experience trauma. The impact is especially profound for those populations whose sense of community and identity is closely tied to “home” as a physical location and whose culture is found only in geographically restricted areas. Indigenous people and other ethnic minorities who fit these susceptibility criteria are disproportionally affected by dam building worldwide (Scudder 2005, p. 135).

 

2004 ledger art painting of tribal members being relocated near the site of Oahe Dam, by Lakota artist Dwayne Wilcox. Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society, reproduced from Lawson 2009, p. 140 (original is in color).

Twenty-three tribes were affected by the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams. While the construction of Garrison Dam mainly impacted the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold, the construction of Oahe Dam impacted the people of Standing Rock and Cheyenne River reservations. I will discuss these impacts in more detail in the next three installments of this blog series.

 

---

References

Alexander, Jason S., Richard C. Wilson, and W. Reed Green. “A Brief History and Summary of the Effects of River Engineering and Dams on the Mississippi River System and Delta.” United States Geological Survey, 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1375/C1375.pdf.

Bilharz, Joy Ann. The Allegany Senecas and Kinzua Dam: Forced Relocation through Two Generations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

Brokensha, David W. “Volta Resettlement and Anthropological Research.” Human Organization 22 (1963): 286–90.

Caldwell, Warren W, and G. Hubert Smith. Oahe Reservoir: Archeology, Geology, History. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys, 1963.

Cernea, Michael M. The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. Washington: World Bank, 1999.

Cernea, Michael M, and Scott E Guggenheim. Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement: Policy, Practice, and Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1993.

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. https://doi.org/10.1353/gpq.2016.0050.

Johnson, W. Carter, Mark D. Dixon, Michael L. Scott, Lisa Rabbe, Gary Larson, Malia Volke, and Brett Werner. “Forty Years of Vegetation Change on the Missouri River Floodplain.” BioScience 62, no. 2 (February 1, 2012): 123–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.6.

Lawson, Michael L. Dammed Indians Revisited: The Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux. Pierre: South Dakota State Historical Society Press, 2009.

National Park Service, “Pallid Sturgeon in the Missouri River.” Lewis and Clark National Historical Trail, nd. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/pallid-sturgeon-in-the-missouri-river.htm

Scudder, Thayer. The Future of Large Dams Dealing with Social, Environmental, Institutional and Political Costs. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2005. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=430177.

South Dakota State Historical Society, “Oahe Chapel – Pierre, SD.” South Dakota State Historical Society, 2022. https://history.sd.gov/preservation/oahechapel.aspx

United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Oahe Project Statistics.” Oahe Dam, 2012. https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/487631/oahe-project-statistics/

United States Army Corps of Engineers - Northwestern Division. “Missouri River Final Environmental Impact Statement - Master Control Manual Review and Update.” United States Army Corps of Engineers - Northwestern Division, March 2004.

 

---

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: 32ML1 – Fort Stevenson

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

Fort Union Redux

Great Plains Travel Series

By J. Daniel Rogers

 

The mosquitoes were glad to see us.

If you remember a few posts back Lotte wrote about her visit to Fort Union, North Dakota during a cold spell in late Winter, 2017. By way of contrast I thought it might be interesting to make a few further comments and share a few images of the visit Garry Rogers and I paid to the fort on June 6, 2018 as part of our travels across the Plains. My summer images of green prairie and leafy trees are a nice contrast to Lotte’s frozen pictures of winter splendor. I haven’t written sooner about this visit because I intended to stop at the fort yet again in the summer of 2019. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it back to Fort Union—my route veered further to the west. I will mention some of the summer 2019 travels in a later post.

Fort Union was not a military fort. It was the headquarters of the Upper Missouri Outfit of the American Fur Company from 1828-1867. Perhaps the most striking thing about the landscape of Fort Union is that it sits on the edge of a low bluff along the meandering lowlands of the Missouri River. During the years the Fort was in use the river channel ran at the foot of the bluff, perhaps only 50 meters from the entrance. Today the channel has drifted several hundred meters south and left a marshland offering a remarkable habitat for wildlife, including swarms of mosquitoes. The mosquitoes were glad to see us that day. During my undergraduate years, as part of my minor in zoology, I took a course on the various species of mosquitoes. It did not give me an appreciation for these insects. I have trouble saying anything good about the creatures, except that they are annoyingly resilient and persistent.

With the river to the south, about a mile to the north the rolling uplands take over from the level plain around the fort. It was on this plain that bands of Crow, Cree, Assiniboine, Blackfoot, Hidatsa, Lakota, and others came in procession to trade at the fort and to pitch their teepees. Fort employees grazed their horses on this plain and occasionally chased bison. Famous Euro-American visitors at the fort included George Catlin, the painter, who visited in 1832 and went up to the low hills behind the fort to sketch and paint (Catlin 1973). The painter, Karl Bodmer, in the employ of Maximilian, prince of Wied-Neuwied, did the same, including painting several striking portraits of native visitors at the fort. On June 27th, 1833, Prince Maximilian described in his journal the arrival of an Assiniboine contingent of several hundred warriors, women, and children. The warriors sang and fired their guns in the air (Thwaites 1906). When the famous ornithologist, John James Audubon, visited in 1843 he spent several weeks at the fort describing the birds of the region (Harris 1951).

 

George Catlin painted this view of Fort Union and the teepees of the Native visitors in 1832. (Smithsonian American Art Museum, 1985.66.388)

 

Karl Bodmer painted this scene of Fort Union in 1833 from a location similar to the one chosen by George Catlin a few years before. Image from WikiArt.org.

 

The comings and goings at Fort Union established it as a hub of commerce on the Plains. Like Bent’s Fort in present-day Colorado it was a place everyone visited. Even with many visitors day-to-day life at the fort must have been very routine, although, there were also momentous days full of danger and tragedy. One of those times was the smallpox epidemic of 1837, which so devastated the native tribes that it forever changed the history of the region. The contagion also impacted the inhabitants of the fort. Although a vaccine was known, none was available and no one present really know how to make it. Charles Larpenteur, leader at the fort, began an ill-fated inoculation program that simply spread the disease faster. The head of the American Fur Company was informed that “at Fort Union all was wretchedness and despair—the Prairies covered with dead bodies, and the whole atmosphere tainted...” (Coues 1898:382).

 

 

Fort Union in Summer, 2018

In calmer and happier times my brother and I visited Fort Union. On the northern Plains the winters are long and the summers are short and glorious. Except perhaps on reenactment days, no modern images can capture the life of the fort. I took a few shots around the fort, as any visitor would do. Some are similar to Lotte’s 2017 images (see the earlier post).

 

The southwest block house at Fort Union and the newly mowed lawn, 2018. Photo by Dan Rogers

 

Closeup of the stonework on the block house, 2018. Photo by Dan Rogers

Inside the fort, 2018. Photo by Dan Rogers

A recreation of the painting by J.B. Moncravi that originally stood above the fort entrance, portraying the ideal of peaceful commerce, 2018. Photo by Dan Rogers

 

---

References/Further reading

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

Catlin, George. 1973. Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians: Written during Eight Years’ Travel (1832-1839) amongst the Wildest Tribes of Indians in North America. Edited by Marjorie Halpin.

Coues, Elliott, ed. 1898. Forty Years a Fur Trader on the Upper Missouri - The Personal Narrative of Charles Larpenteur 1833 - 1872. New York: Francis P. Harper.

Harris, Edward. 1951. Up the Missouri with Audubon: The Journal of Edward Harris. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Thompson, Erwin N. 2003. Fort Union Trading Post: Fur Trade Empire on the Upper Missouri. Williston, N.D.: Fort Union Association.

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

 

 

 

End of Year Update, Part I: Writing About the Aztec Empire

By J. Daniel Rogers

 

 

We have been neglecting our blog a bit this year, but we have been busy with various projects since our last update. In parts I and II of this post we’ll discuss some of the things we’ve been working on in the past few months.

 

 

Writing About the Aztec Empire

 

Over the last year, among other things, I wrote about the history of the first encounters between the Aztec empire and the Spanish.  A few years ago I began work on a book manuscript titled In the Age of Empires.  After getting off to a quick start writing bogged down as other obligations took precedence.  I took on administrative duties and began working on team-science projects involving computational modeling, especially Agent-Based Modeling (ABM).  Over the last year, as I moved into my second year of retirement, I’ve found a little time to pay attention to the Empires book.  During September and October I was in Santa Fe with access to a good library.  I decided to concentrate on the chapter about the Aztec empire.  This is one of the case studies that shows the diverse organization of empires, through the lens of culture contact.

 

The drama and peculiar circumstances of the encounter between the Spanish invaders and the most powerful state in Mesoamerica make for an unreal story.  Yet it was real.  In 1519 a small army of about 400 Spanish soldiers and their native allies marched from the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and were welcomed into the capital city of the Aztec empire, Teotihuacan.  Here they proceeded to take the emperor, Mochtizuma II, prisoner.  Although it seems strange, the emperor willingly went with the Spaniards, as his generals and guards backed away.  How could the motives of armed invaders be so misunderstood?  Spanish objectives were riches and conquest.  The Aztecs did not know this.  Instead, they believed the Spanish leader, Cortés, was the returning god Quetzalcóatl.  Here is some of what Mochtizuma said to Cortés, as later recorded by the Spanish priest de Sahagún (1978):

 

I [Mochtizuma] have been worried for a long time, looking toward the unknown from which you [Cortés] have come, the mysterious place.  For our rulers departed, saying that you would come to your city and sit upon your throne.  And now it has been fulfilled, you have returned.  Go enjoy your palace, rest your body.  [We] welcome our lords to this land.

 

Cortés’ arrival met several of the predictions about the return of Quetzalcóatl.  Whether men or gods, there was no denying the shocking appearance and great power of the Spaniards.  The Spanish also brought unseen weapons.  While Mochtizuma was still being held captive in his own palace epidemics never seen before began killing people in large numbers.  The first major smallpox epidemic hit in the fall of 1520.  Was it retribution from an angry god?  The priests, doctors, and administrators feared that it was.  Others took a more practical view.  Their emperor was being held captive.  It was time to free him or die trying.  In the following battle Mochtizuma was killed, probably by friendly fire.  The battle raged and Aztec losses were terrible, but the Spanish were eventually forced from the city.  The Spanish did not retreat very far.  They returned with their native allies and fought and burned as they went.  With the help of diseases like smallpox, Aztec resistance was weakened and the Spanish were eventually successful in their conquest. 

 

To me, great victories and great defeats are always tinged with a tragic quality.  The Spanish victors felt this as well.  They respected the bravery of the Aztec warriors and knew they had been part of something that would change the course of history.  Bernal Días del Castillo (1956:190-192), a sergeant in Cortes’ army, wrote about the city of Tenochtitlan:

 

I say again that I stood looking at it and thought that never in the world would there be discovered other lands such as these ....  Of all these wonders that I then beheld today all is over-thrown, and lost, nothing left standing.

 

The Aztec empire and all the peoples of Mexico became part of the Spanish colony of New Spain.  As unique as the story of the Aztec empire might seem, there is a structure to the encounter with the Spanish that can be compared to other examples of culture contact and the struggle between empires.  Revealing these structures is one of the points of my book project.  Stay tuned to see how it turns out.

SAR library and scholar program offices during a recent snow, October, 2019.  Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

As last year, the School for Advanced Research (SAR) was kind enough to make office space available during my fall visit to Santa Fe.  SAR has a long and distinguished history of sponsoring fellows conducting research on topics related to anthropology.  SAR also goes out of their way to help the random researcher who just shows up at the door—like me.  For this I thank Paul Ryer, Director of Scholar Programs and Katherine Wolf, Librarian of the Catherine McElvain Library.  Every day Ms. Wolf kindly assisted with my diverse requests, while making me feel welcome. 

 

 

---

References/Further Reading

de Sahagún, Bernardino, Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain  3. Vol. 2nd revised edition. Santa Fe and Salt Lake City: School of American Research and University of Utah, 1978.

del Castillo, Bernal Días, The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1956.

There are two important books that help us understand the Aztec perspective:

Carrasco, David, Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire: Myths and Prophecies in the Aztec Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

León Portilla, Miguel, ed., The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Expanded and Updated ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.

The Great Plains

(Part of a continuing series of travel commentaries)

By J. Daniel Rogers

 

The Great Plains brings all landscapes down to their essence—earth and sky. No hills, no trees. It is not boring, or blank or incomplete, the prairie is the foundation, the prototype. For me, it is the place to start.

The essence of the Plains. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

 

All simple and true things are oversimplifications. The Great Plains is not only flat land and ever-changing sky. There are rivers--sometimes very large rivers--and hills and valleys. Stands of trees and forest follow along the river and stream courses. The land is never really flat and sometimes mountains crop up (the Black Hills) while bare mesas define some regions. Today, wherever it is feasible agriculture defines the landscape of the Plains. In some areas new oilfields have popped up.

To the east grasslands give way to ever thicker forest. The Rocky Mountains rise up at the western edge of the plains. The landscape transition to the mountains is something of a shock. Almost no foothills, prairie becomes mountain with little warning. On a recent trip to the Great Plains I marveled at the first sight of the mountains. My traveling partner, Garry Rogers, a landscape ecologist specializing in arid lands, said, “look at the snow!” I couldn’t believe it. “Snow?” As we drove west across the sweltering plains on June 6 I just didn’t think it could be snow. Viewed from 50 miles away, I thought it must be haze or fog on the mountains. Garry was right and I was wrong, it was snow and lots of it. I have lived on the Southern Plains and traversed the Northern Plains, I have hiked prairies and mountains around the world, but mountains still surprise me.

A couple hundred years ago Lewis and Clark led their expedition up the Missouri River. On May 26, 1805 they saw the mountains for the first time. This is what Lewis wrote:

 

In the after part of the day I also walked out and ascended the river hills which I found sufficiently fortiegueing. on arriving to the summit one of the highest points in the neighbourhood I thought myself well repaid for any labour; as from this point I beheld the Rocky Mountains for the first time these points of the Rocky Mountains were covered with snow and the sun shone on it in such manner as to give me the most plain and satisfactory view. while I viewed these mountains I felt a secret plaesure in finding myself so near the head of the heretofore conceived boundless Missouri; but when I reflected on the difficulties which this snowy barrier would most probably throw in my way to the Pacific, and the sufferings and hardships of myself and party in them, it in some measure counterbalanced the joy I felt in the 1st moments in which I gazed on them; but as I have always held it a crime to anticipate evils I will believe it a good comfortable road untill I am compelled to believe differently. [Moulton 1983, Volume 4]

 

 A first glimpse of the Rocky Mountains. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

I suspect that Lewis knew at that moment the dream of a water route to the Pacific was not even a remote possibility.  He must have known it before then.  He and Jefferson were aware of the Rocky Mountains and that the expedition would need to travel from the Missouri River across the mountains and to the Columbia River.  After all, how can you travel up a river and expect it to connect to an ocean (the Pacific)?  Rivers begin in a series of smaller and smaller streams, or sometimes emerge from a lake.  Perhaps there will be a westward flowing river system nearby, but access would certainly require portages and the eventual construction of a canal.  Two hundred years later it is easy to wonder what President Jefferson, Captain Lewis, and many others were thinking.

Of course, the contrast of prairie and mountain was nothing new to the Native tribes of the region.  The Blackfeet, the Assiniboine, the Crow, the Sioux, and others and many generations of their ancestors often traveled from grassland to forest, from plains to mountains.  And, indeed Native guides led the Lewis and Clark expedition from the Missouri River drainage to the Columbia River drainage and eventually to the Pacific.  The first view of the mountains that shocked Lewis was routine to others, including even a few European trappers who had traveled up the Missouri over the previous 30 years.  I have only twice seen that view, traveling from the east to the west.

On June 1st Garry and I met in St. Louis and began our drive along the Missouri River towards those mountains.  Everywhere we went we were reminded of the Lewis and Clark expedition, such as the L & C Ford/Lincoln dealership in Yankton, South Dakota or the L & C Cafe in Washburn, North Dakota, plus lots of monuments and points of interest.  In Nebraska City, Nebraska we stopped at the Lewis and Clark Visitor Center, a fine museum and activity center dedicated to the Corps of Discovery.  An exhibit about the flora and fauna along the river was especially interesting.  We both enjoyed the replica of the Lewis and Clark keel boat in front of the visitor’s center.  The original was designed by President Jefferson and Captain Lewis.  Presidents these days don’t set down and help design expedition equipment.  Mr. Jefferson was a scholar and intensely interested in the history, geology, flora, and fauna of unknown regions—not to mention making the U.S. a global power.  He did a lot more for the expedition than design equipment, he also intensely instructed Lewis on making scientific field observations.

Garry Rogers and the keel boat. This replica of the Lewis and Clark keel boat was made for an early 2000s documentary. The original has not survived. The expedition keel boat has its own commemorative history, having been featured on the US nickel during the early 2000s. Photo by Dan Rogers.

 

At the Lewis and Clark Visitor Center I picked out a couple postcards in the gift shop to send home.  I asked about stamps at the counter.  The staff person said, “Oh, I’m going by the post office later.  I’ll get stamps for you and mail the cards.  No charge.”  Welcome to the Great Plains!  Everywhere we went we met helpful and kind people curious about why we were visiting their town.

Paying attention to the Lewis and Clark expedition is a good way to reflect on what has changed and what has remained the same over the last 200 years.  For me the point of the trip was to visit some key places on the Great Plains and develop a sense of place.  Mountains are interesting, but prairie comes first for me.  After driving for a couple weeks about all I learned for sure is that I must come back.

____________

[A few months ago Lotte Govaerts wrote in this column about her travels in North Dakota to Fort Union and other important places.   In subsequent posts I will follow-up with my perspective on some of the same places.]

 

References/Further reading

Lewis and Clark Visitor Center

Gary E. Moulton, ed. 1983.  The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition., Volume 1, Atlas, and Volume 4, April 8 - July 27, 1805.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Christian, Shirley.  2009.   Before Lewis and Clark: The Story of the Chouteaus, the French Dynasty That Ruled America’s Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ronda, James P.  1984.  Lewis and Clark Among the Indians.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

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.