TREE-RING DATING AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTH DAKOTA . by

TREE-RING DATING AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTH DAKOTA . by
TREE-RING DATING AND ARCHAEOLOGY
IN SOUTH DAKOTA
.
by
Ward Fredrick Weakly
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
.
' .For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 68
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my
direction b y _____ WARD F, WEAKLY_______________________________
entitled_________ Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology in___________
South Dakota________________________________
be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the
degree of ________Doctor of Philosophy_________________________
Dissertation Director
After inspection of the dissertation, the following members
of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and
recommend its acceptance:*
Name
a
Date
...
* This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's
adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the
final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into
the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory
performance at the final examination.
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona
and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to
borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without
special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source
is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or re­
production of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by
the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College
when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the in­
terests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission
must be obtained from the author
SIGNED:
PBEFACE
$he research reported in this paper was conducted under the
auspices of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, the University of
Arizona, Tucson®
Grants to the Laboratory by the National Park Ser­
vice supported the study from I96I4 through 1967a
The specimens were
obtained from the Middle Missouri Region in South Dakota as a result
of the Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage operations carried out in
connection with the construction of dams on the Missouri River®
The
majority of the collections were made by the Smithsonian Institution,
River Basin Surveys, Missouri Basin Project®
Other material was pro.
.
^
vided by the Nebraska State Historical Society, the University of
Nebraska, the University of South Dakota, the University of Kansas,
and the University of Idaho®
Over-all direction of the research
fell to Bryant Bannister of the Laboratory,
I was responsible■for
the Laboratory analysis®
Many individuals have contributed to all phases of the prepa­
ration of this report®
I owe a large debt to all of these people,
and it is a great pleasure to acknowledge their assistance, although
I cannot convey my gratitude to these many individuals adequately
here®
Bryant Bannister laid the groundwork for the study by nego­
tiating with the National Park Service for funds', and he provided the
over-all direction for the research®
ill
On many occasions Dr® Bannister
iv
took time from his busy schedule to assist the Missouri Basin Chron­
ology Projects
The value of this research would not have been as
great without his effortse
Wilfred D* Logan of the Midwest Regional Office of the
National Park Service and Warren W, Caldwell of the Smithsonian In­
stitution, River Basin Surveys received with enthusiasm the idea of a
study of the feasibility of utilizing tree-ring research in connection
with the Missouri Basin Project*
The Midwest Region of the National
Park Service, through the efforts of Dr* Logan and Dr* Caldwell, pro­
vided the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research with funds to carry out
the project and permission to study the specimens from the area*
The
support and cooperation of the Midwest Regional Office and the River
.Basin Surveys are to a great degree responsible for the success of
the project*
The laboratory analyses were aided by the cooperation of many
of the personnel in the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Bryant
Bannister, Jeffrey S* Dean, and William J * Robinson, in particular*
Dr* Bannister and Dr* Dean both assisted in checking the dating*
Dr*
Robinson was particularly helpful in setting up the system of records
and providing suggestions for organizing the material*
In addition,
there were Important contributions from others of the Laboratory
staff, Harold 0* Pritts, Marvin A* Stokes, Thomas P* Harlan, and S*
Allan Skinner, who were always willing to discuss both general and
specific problems connected with the research*
The organization and writing of this report reflect the
assistance of manyo
My dissertation committee, composed of Raymond
Ho Thompson, Harry T« Getty, and Bryant Bannister, has offered many
suggestions for the improvement of the manuscriptc Their enthusiasm
and cooperation have been instrumental in making it possible to com­
plete the report nearly on schedule0 The consideration shown and en­
thusiasm generated by the faculty of the Department of Anthropology
have been of great help*
Hazel Gillie and John M* Hannah should also be mentioned here
As typist and illustrator they have provided much assistance with the
mechanics of production*
My thanks to both of them for their time
and effort*
Finally, I want to thank, however, inadequately, my parents
and John 1* Ghampe*
and encouragement*
My parents have never wavered in their support
Dr* Ghampe and my father were the first to
interest me in archaeology and in tree-ring research*
Without their
continued interest and enthusiasm the completion of the work would
have taken much longer*
TABEE OF CONTENTS
Page
EX Si.* OF i’AijXiiS
f
l
o
o
o
EIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
o
o
.
o
.............
INTRODtloTION
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
i
B
e
o
o
e
o
o
e
3JC
e
.......... . . . » ..............xiii
ABSTRACT .
e
o
o
. . . * ................
e
m
® o
«
6
e
o
«
e
o
o
e
®
e
xiv
1
e
Tree-Ring Studies in the Central and Northern Great
FlamS o e o o t i t o o e o 0 o o t i e e e o o e o e
o o
Tree-Ring Studies in Peripheral Areas « « 6 . . . . , «
The Missouri Basin Tree-Ring Project
History of the River Basin Surveys3 Missouri Basin
Project
e » ®
e
o e e t i o
« e
e
’e
o
e
e
Development of the Missouri Basin Chronology Program « „
Definition of Terms
The Great Plains Area
.........
The Central Plains Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Northern Plains Subarea . . . . . . . a . . . *
The Middle Missouri Region * c .
local Topographical Names
Organization of the Report
8
9
10
10
11
Ik
11$.
16
16
.
19
THE PROBLEM AID THE METHOD...........................
Procedures
vollectlon o e e 0 e o o
Preparation of Specimens
Techniques of Study
Statistical Treatment
o
e
e
®
e
o
e
e
e
O
B
e
o
o
THE MODERN CHRONOLOGIES...........
Big Bend Chronology
.Chapelle Creek Chronology . . . ,
....... . . . . e
Little Bend Chronology o « « . « o » s « e « o . ® e o »
Mobridge Area Chronology
Cherry Creek Chronology .. ®
9
Modern Specimens with no Provenience
Discussion and Conclusions
2
5
7
21.
22
23
2lj.
25
2?
30
1|1
lj.5
k9
k9
$k
56
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
ho
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGIES
.
H3*StOmO Sxtes
Port Pierre II s 39ST21?
Port George,.39ST202
Port Sully, 39SL1&S oe e e o o e e o e B s o e o o o
Site 39LM3I 0 0 ,
.e e e e e o e f f l o o e e e e i B O e o©
Historic Lower Brule Site, 39LMS3 . . © . . « « • » »
Post,-contact Ooalescent Horizon Sites
....o
The Leavenworth Village, 39009 • • « . . . . * . « »
The Four Bear Site, 39DM2
the Medicine Crow Site, ,39BF2 . . » . . . « • • • • »
ihe Rosa Site, 39P03 ®
® ®© ©© ® © © © ©
The Talking Crow Site, 39BF3 . « »© . . » © . « .
®
The Qacoma Sites, 39LM26 and 39LM27
...........© ©
The Fort George Site, 39ST17
©
Site 39SL21©. © © e © © © ©>© © © © e e e . e e e o e .
The Swan Greek Site, 39W7
the Buffalo Pasture Site, 39ST6 . . . . . . . . . . .
The Davis Site, 39C01h © ©
.. © ©© © . © . »
The Crazy Bull Site, 29LM220
The Larson. Site, 39W2 . » © . © « © . « . . © . . © .
the Red Horse Hawk Site, 39C03l|. . © © . . . . . © . ®
Summary .© © ©.© © © © ©. © ©© © © .© ©© © ® . © .
The Extended Ooalescent Horizon . . . © . © « . . * © . ©
, The Sully Site, 39SLij- © . . © © . . © © © © . © © . ©
The Medicine Creek Village Sites, 39LM2 and 39LM222 •
The La Roche Site, 39ST232
©
The No Heart Greek Village, 39AR2 . . . . © . ©
. .
The Strieker Villages, 39LM1A, 39IM1B, and 39LM1C . «,
The Bice Site, 39LM31 . .... , . ... * ...... . . . .
The Cable Site, 39LM22lt
S m e 39SL202 . © © © © . © © ©. . © . © © © . . . .
Summary © © @ . * © © © © © .« * © © . © © © © . © .
The Initial Ooalescent Horizon
the Grow Creek Site, 39BP11
The Black Partizan Site, .39LM218
The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon
the McKensey, Site, 39ER201 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Thomas Riggs Site, 39HU1
The Cheyenne River Site, 39ST1 . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ketchin Site, 39ST223
The Hickey Brothers Site, 39LMh . . . . . . . . . . .
The King Site, 39IM55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
S3
63
66
66
66
69
69
73
73
102
107
107
116
116
121
121
125
125
129
129
133
133
137
136
139
150
150
150
153
153
159
159
163
l6i|
168
168
175
175
180
182
182
I8it
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
The Calamity Village Site, 39DM231
The Sully School Site, 39SL7 *... . .
.
The C* B« Smith Site, 39SE29 . . . * ^............
The Oattle Oiler Site, 39ST22i|................. •
The Durkin Site, 39ST238
Summary
.........
The Initial Middle Missouri Horizon
The Sommers Site, 39ST56.
The Hs P. Thomas Site, 39ST12
The Dinehart Village, 39LM33
The Pretty Bull Site, 39BF12 » . » o
6 e
The Grandle^Jones Site, 39HU60
The Jiggs Thompson Site, 39LM208 . . . . . . . . . .
The Swanson Site, 39BR16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Langdeau Site, 391M209 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Jandreau Site, 39LM225 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary
...... . . .. . . ..
The St. John’s Site, 39HD213 . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Dating and Proposed Chronological Reconstructions .
5»
6.
NON-CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION
188
188
19$
195
200
200
202
20i|
20k
209
209
217
217
222
222
222
226
226
228
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
235
Ecological Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Occupation and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . .
235
2U0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Future Research
REFERENCES «
2^6
. . . . . . . . . .
250
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
257
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1®
Modern Specimens
fromthe
Big BendArea * . . * « . * , « 32
20
Explanation of Symbols in Lists of Specimens
*.'..<>•
3® ' Statistical Characteristics of the Modern Chronologies
Ue
.
38
UO
Modern Specimens from the Chapelle Greek Area
k.2
Modern.Specimens from the Little Bend Area
U6
6e
Modern Specimens
fromthe
MobridgeArea . . . . . . . . . 5>0
7®
Modern Specimens
from,the
Cherry Creek Area . . . . . . . $2
8®
Modern Specimens with no Provenience
9®
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Pierre II,
398T21/ . . . . . . . . . . .. .. e ..e e e e o oe Q
65
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort George,
39i*,T202
. . @ . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
10®
lie
. . . . . . . . . .
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Sully,
9SLh-5 o ©,#. . . . © .. o.o o o
.. . e . ..
55
.
68
12®
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39LM51 . . . . .
70
13®
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Historic
Lower Brule, Site, 39LM53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
Archaeologieal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth
^rH a ge ^
^
o « ®
h.
Ibo
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Four Bear
Site*
,0 © e o a ® a© ®
® o o& ©. o o o ©©
16c
17o
©
103
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine
^row Sxte^ _3
® ©©©« © © © ® © © © © @ #
10h
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Rosa Site^
39P03 o©©,. ©a © »© ® o e d© e a ©© ■» ® ©00 op
lOB
1%
X
H S T OF TABEES— Oontlnued
Page
Table
. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Grow
18
SltBj 39BF3 .0 . 0
19=
.
21 o
22
.
23=
.. 6 o 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
f o
6
0
P
0,0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma Site,
39EM27 o #,o 0 . 0 0 0 00 .. oo o . o
o .00 00
120
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Fort George
Site, 39ST17
. o 0 0 0 00 6o o . o .
0 o o. 0 . .
122
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 398121$ . » . .
.
27=
.
.
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swan Greek
Site, 3 9 W 7 ,0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 00 0 . 0 0 0 00
126
. =
0
6.
0
0
0
0 0
, 0 0
0 0
6 0
0
0
0
O
0
6 0
0
6
0
1 3 0
132
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the larson Site,
39V®2 0 0 0 , 0 6 O o O O 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 . 0O O 0 6 6 0
131$
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Red Horse
hawk Site, 398031$ . . . . . . . . . o . . . .. . . .
29=
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site,
O
31=
127
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crazy Bull
Site, 391^220 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28
30=
121$
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis Site,
398011$
26
117
d
2ij.o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Buffalo
Pasture Site, 39ST6 .
. . .. . . . e . . .0 .
25=
109
Archaeological Tree-ling Specimens from the Oacoma Site,
0 0
20
00 .0 . 0 6 0
O
0 . 0
O
0
o
0
O O
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
ll$0
O
Archaeological "Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine
.........
Greek Tillage, 39EM2
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine
Greek Tillage, 39EM222
32. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the La Roche
Site, 39ST232 * =
ll$7.
=
ll$9
151
XI
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
33o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the No Heart
Creek Village, 3?AR2 . . . . . . . . . ® a
1$2
3lf.e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker
Village, 3SLH1A e e e o e e t i e e i o e e e o o o o o o
l^lj*
35® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker
^ J-llage, 3^LHaB
13^
360 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker
Village, 391*^10 eo oo 00 e e e e - e e e e o o e e o
lh7
37a Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Bice Site,
3% M 31
o ®
e
9 0
e
e
®. o
e
e
<9
0
0
1^}3
380 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gable Site,
39LH22li e e e o e o o e e o G Q O o e e e e e o e e t i
l60
39» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL202
162
0
. . . e .
hOo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crow Creek
Si US, 39R^*11 ee » e o ® » e e ® » o o e e o e o e e o
lO^
hi® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black
Partisan Site, 39LM218
........ . . . . . .
169
hSa Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the McKensey
Bite , 39aR201 ®
®
®
®®
o.®
&
®
®®
®©,.•
»®®[email protected]
17o
U3. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Thomas Biggs
Site, 39HU1,
® o ® ® o 6 e® ®e O 9,0 06.00 @ 6
177
44s Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cheyenne
River Site,.39ST1
. ® .., » ®
® ® „« « „ 0 e
181
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ketchin Site,
398T223 o o o o o e ® ®
o® ® e « o e®, e o® e ©
e o
183
lt.60 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey
Brothers Site, 39I>Ml|.
klo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the King Site,
39LH93* ®o f> ® 0 0
©o® © e
®»e©®
o.e©
18^
o©©eo 187
XXX
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
Page
U80 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Calamity
"7xllagc ^ 39L'®31
® ® ® ®
18^?
ItPo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully School
Site* 39SL7t 0 0 6 e# o y e o a e e o e o e o e e e e
1^2
5o,
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ca B® Smith
Si
39SL29
0
0 0
0
US *
5i®
52*
0
56,
57*
58®
59®
®
®
0
0
0
0
.0.0
® ®
0 0
0
197
20l
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers
3^6* 39ST56
®
20j?
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H® P0 Thomas
oxte* 39^112 0 0
0
0
0 . 0
0 0
210
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dinehart
Village* 39IM33 © ®® o® ® ® ® ®©© ® © ® ©® ®
215
0
0
0 0
©
0 0
©
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
© ©
0
0
0
0
®
0 0 . 5 ^ 0
0 0
©
©
0
0
0
0
0
©®
0
0
0 ®
0
0
. ©
0
©® ®
© ®
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Pretty Bull
site * 393F12 © © © ©© © ® © © ® ® ® o o® o ® . © ® © ®
218
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Qrandle-Jones
a Site * 39BU60 © ®®
©©© © ® © © ®© © © © © ®© ^© © ©
219
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs
Thompson Site* 39^208 p ® ® . . . © . © , © , © © © © ©
220
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specmens from the Swanson
Site 39BR16
223
*
0
0
0
0 0
©
© 0
©
0
©
0
0 0
0
©
0
0
0
® ©
6o« Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Langdeau
Site* 39-L^209
© © ®* ® © © ©© © © ©©.»®o © © © ©©
61®
62®
196
0 ®
®
®
55®
e
Archaeological Tree-Ring SpeciiiBns from the Durkin Site*
39ST238
0 0
5U.
e
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cattle
Oiler Site*,39ST22ii.
0
53®
e
22p
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jandreau
oxbe* 39iM225
© © ®© © © © ©© ® © ®© »© © © ® © © &
227
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the St, John’s
Site * 39BD213 ©®
©©o © © © © ©© © © © p.© ©--© © ©
229
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Page
1®
Areas of Tree-Ring Research in the Missouri Basin
2e
The Great Plains and its Subdivisions
12
3®
Locations of the Middle Missouri Chronologies « . » . * ♦ .
17
he
The Little Bend, Chapelle Greek, and Big Bend Chronologies
31
5®
The Mobridge Area and Cherry Creek Chronologies
5l
6e
Relationship of Mean Standard Error to Mean Index in
Groups 1 and 11 # » » »
@
@ « o ®« » ® ® ®
3S
7®
Locations of the Archaeological Sites Studied
6h
8®
Percentages of Species in the Collections Through Time
xiii
3
• • 237
ABSTRACT
In I96U a study of the feasibility of applying the methods of
tree-ring research to wood collected in South Dakota was undertaken
by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona.
Some
earlier work had been done in this and surrounding areas of the Cen­
tral and Northern Great Plains.
Criticisms of the earlier research
necessitated an independent investigation in the area.
In anticipa­
tion of this kind of study, collection of specimens had been under­
taken in the late ipjjQ1® and has continued to the present.
The research completed during this project demonstrates that
tree-ring chronologies can be. constructed in the Middle Missouri area.
Juniper and ash cross date well with each other.
Five area chron­
ologies of varying length and strength have been built on these
species using the records contained, in 125» modern specimens.
The area
within which these chronologies may be applied is certainly £0 and
possibly 100 miles in diameter.
Double or false rings are a problem
in the younger growth of the trees worked with but do not present
major difficulties in the mature growth.
Material recovered from
archaeological sites was examined
in an attempt to extend and strengthen the chronologies.
Favorable
results were produced for three of the chronologies covering the
Little Bend, Chapelle Greek and Big Bend portion of the Middle
Missouri.
Tentative dates were obtained for specimens from 15 of the
xiv
XV
sites and material from 13 others was plottedo
Several site collec­
tions contained no usable species,,
These dates make possible some clarification of the chrono­
logical reconstruction of the prehistory of the area0 The earliest
tree-ring date from a site in the Initial Middle Missouri Borison,
AOB0 11*09# suggests a relatively late development of semi-sedentary
patterns in the region,,
Thus, the earliest probable time for intro­
duction of the Village Indian pattern to the Middle Missouri is the
early 13th centuryc It is also evident that at least three of the
traditions, the Middle Missouri, Goalsscent, and Great Oasis, were
contemporary in the area in at least the 15>th and probably the 16th
centuries6
Bata on changes in the availability and use of wood by the
prehistoric groups indicate a shift from juniper to cottonwood through
time0 This shift apparently results from the human exploitation of
the relatively small number of slow growing junipers in the area*
The
increasing reliance, on cottonwood for house construction would account
for the smaller size of the structures observed in more recent
periods, because cottonwood is not as strong a construction material
as juniper*
In the most recent time periods in the Middle Missouri region
the length of site occupation averages about 30 years*
At earlier
periods, site occupancy was probably somewhat longer, although, the
samples available from these periods are not as complete*
The over­
all average length of occupation for all periods in the region is
about h$ years*
As yet, very little information is available on which to base
climatic relationships to tree-growth in South Dakota.
It is probable
that the same relationships to precipitation that have been found in
western Nebraska are applicable, but further analysis is required- to
verify this assumption®
Of major importance to questions of this
nature as well as any future tree-ring work in the area is the keeping
of adequate collection records.
The lack of precise provenience data
and both photographic and written records on specimens in the collec­
tion caused major difficulties during this project.
CH6.PT1R 1
INTRODUCTION
The placement of archaeological manifestations In time has
been a major problem facing the student of prehistory„
Cultural re­
mains can be placed in sequential order by stratigraphys seriation,
and similar methods that establish the order of occurrence.
Dating
for these sequences can be provided by the identification of index
artifactss tree-ring studies5 radiocarbon measurements, or a number
of other methods.
Tree-ring dating is one of the more useful methods for dealing
with problems of chronology.
It not only provides specific dates but
also makes available information of a non-ehronological nature.
Sci­
entific study of the annual growth rings of trees'began in the south­
western United States in the first decade of this century.
Dr,, A,
E, Douglass, an astronomer, was responsible for these pioneer inves­
tigations,
His primary interest was in the relationship of tree
growth and sun spot cycles,.-but his studies also considered the re­
lationship of tree growth to climatic factors such as moisture and
temperature (Douglass 1919£ 9-11}»
Douglass1 search for wood that
would extend his tree-ring records back in time led him to consider
archaeological specimens and resulted in the assignment of dates to
material excavated from sites (Douglass 1929: 737-70; 1935)©
1
2
free-Ring Studies In the Central and Northern Great Plains
the study of tree-rings in the Great Plains is a direct out­
growth of Douglass \ pioneering work in the Southwest«, Early Great
Plains studies were primarily oriented toward the relationship between
tree growth and climatic factorse
In 1931 a study of the annual growth increment of trees and
the relationship of this phenomenon to climate was undertaken in
western Nebraska at North Platte by Harry E„ Weakly (19I1O 2 18-19;
19k3i 816-9)*
It was about ten years later that these studies were
expandedj following again the southwestern example, to include archae­
ological materials (Hill and Metcalf 19l|l: 205; Champe 19k6; 23-33;
H„ E„ Weakly I9I4.6; 105-10) „ Weakly's initial studies, which involved
detailed analysis of the ring widths of some 2000 specimens, estab­
lished a definite relationship between tree growth and annual precipi­
tation in western Nebraska*
The studies also demonstrated that
species of juniper, pine, and oak available in that1 area form distinc­
tive patterns of ring width that are reliable for cross dating*
On the basis of his initial work and later studies of archae­
ological materials. Weakly has constructed tree-ring chronologies for
several portions of Nebraska*
The most important of his chronologies
are from the western part of the state*
In that area, a chronology
extending from A 0De 19h3 back to A,aDs 1210 has been constructed from
specimens derived from Ash Hollow Cave in Garden County and modern
specimens from an area included in Garden, Lincoln, Custer and Morrill
counties (Pig* 1)»
The tree-ring dates obtained for the cultural
3
120 M ILE S
CANADA
NORTH
DAKOTA
M I NNES O T A
FORT PE C K DAM
MISSOURI R
MONTANA
^
GARRISON
DAM
.MX
R'Ver
M O REAU
R IV E R
SOUTH
DAKOTA
IG BEND
DAMN
WYOMING
FORT RANDALL DAM
IOWA
NEBRASKA
R /v e r
r iv e r
R E P U B L IC A N
COLORADO
SALINE^R/ver
<■&
SM O KY H ILL R IV E R
FIGURE
A R E A S OF T R E E - R I N G R E S E A R C H
IN T H E MI S SOURI B A S I N
KANS A S
KEY
EZZl RESEARCH
BY H E W EAKLY
L ’] RESEARCH BY G.F WILL
I
1RESEARCH BY H.L. POTTS
Hi] RESEARCH
BY H.C. FRITTS
E 3 RESEARCH
BY M. A. BELL
CURRENT RESEARCH
BY W.F WE A K L Y
R IV E R
sequence at Ash Hollow Cave,, as a result of the construction of this
chronology in combination with other tree-ring dates from the area,
have played an important role in the formulation of culture sequences
in the central portion of the Great Plains (Champe I9U65 H e B e Weakly
1950; 90-1, 1962; 138-A6; Wedel 1961),
At about the same time as the work in Nebraska was being done,
investigations in North Dakota were undertaken by the late George F„
Will,
He first constructed a chronology based on two specimens of
oak collected near Bismarck (Pig, l) and later strengthened his record
by studying some 20 other specimens (Will 1914.6$ l-2h, 19lt9; I6I4),
By
combining the tree-ring record contained in specimens from archaeolo­
gical sites with his modern record. Will ultimately constructed a
chronology covering the period from A,D, 19A2 back to A,D, 1I4O6, This
chronology was used to assign dates to wood taken from ten archaeolo­
gical sites in North Dakota (Will 19^6; 11-18, 19)48$ 68-70),
These
dates were then utilized to aid in formulation of the cultural se­
quence in that part of the Great Plains,
The next major study of tree-rings in the Great Plains was my
master's thesis presented to the University of Nebraska (¥, F, Weakly
1961), This study was concerned primarily with a limited investiga-.
tion of.material from South Dakota for the specific purpose of
obtaining archaeological dates,
A chronology-was constructed covering
the period from A,D, 1958 back to A,D* 1302 and dates were assigned
to material from 20 sites®
The implications of the dates for the
cultural sequence in the area were discussed with emphasis upon their
relationships to the material from the Central Plains? espeeially in
Nebraska,,
After review by H« lo Weakly and W0 8, Galdwell of the Smith­
sonian Institution some of the dates presented in my master's thesis
were further made available in the Missouri Basin Shronology Program
Statement9 lumber 3 (1963)o
Since that time I have questioned the
chronology and dates presented in my thesis on the basis of the re­
search to be reported on here,.
These objections were presented in a
report to the National Park Service3 Midwest Regional Office in Omahas
Nebraska and at the 23rd Plains Conference in Topeka^ Kansas (W0 F*
'
Weakly 196S>> 1966$ i n ) «
My criticisms of the work done in South Dakota and Bell's
earlier comments on the work of Harry S0 Weakly and George F„ Will
(Bell 19l#8 10h-lGi| l.f$2s 3U3=35l) are presented in detail in a
later portion of this report*
■Tree-Ring Studies in Peripheral Areas
Tree-ring chronologies were also constructed quite early for
areas in the present states of Montana by M„ A* .BeH» and Colorado by.
Ho Id PottSo
Both investigators were concerned primarily with the
relationship between tree growth and climatic phenomena and have not
been applied to archaeological dating*
loth chronologies are avail­
able through the United States Army Corps,of Engineersj, Omaha Office,
but have not been formally published*
In one other instance the construction of tree-ring chron­
ologies in the Great Plains has been primarily oriented toward the
dating of archaeological remains (Grey 1963s 36-7)®
This study was
undertaken as a part of the looming Archaeological Society's investi­
gations of the Big Horn Medicine “
Wheel in Wyoming®
Dates were ob­
tained for wood recovered in the excavations that provided a basis
for the determination of the time of site construction®
Some work has also been done in the state of Kansas®
It has
been primarily concerned with relationships between tree growth and
climate or simple ring counts using specimens of juniper and elm
(Albertson 1938$
19^0: 85-95)®
In addition, I made a brief study
of an oak from the Council Grove area for the Kansas State Historical
Society (W® F® Weakly 196U) =
Slightly to the east of the Great Plains Area proper, in the
drainage of the Mississippi River, studies of tree-rings and their
usefulness for dating have utilised pine, hemlock, oak, ash, and pop­
lar (Hawley 19l|l) = In this study no actual' archaeological dates were
presented, but the feasibility of obtaining, such was demonstrated and
several species were found to be useful®
As in the Nebraska studies,
Hawley (I9itl$ U5-9) was able to demonstrate a relationship between
climatic phenomena, especially precipitation, and tree growthe A
continuation, of Hawley's studies later produced archaeological dates
from the area, primarily for the Kincaid site in southern Illinois
(Cole et alo 1951$ 158-61, 233-92; Bell 1952$ 3U5-51)® .A recent
study of the possibility of applying tree-ring dating techniques in
central Illinois has provided further support for the use of this
approach in the Mississippi drainage (Munson 1966: 21(1-5) e
Most recently, the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the
University of Arizona has done extensive sampling of trees along the
front range of the Rocky Mountains bordering the Great Plainse These
samples have been collected as part of an expansion and updating of
the Laboratory1s collections and also to extend its dendroclimatological stu.dies<,
In addition, a number of cores have recently been
collected by H 0 0 , Fritts of the Laboratory in northwestern Nebraska
and southwestern South Dakota in connection with the above studies,,
On the basis of the foregoing review of tree-ring studies in
the Central and Northern Great Plains and areas peripheral to them,
several items are apparent0 One is the general applicability of the
techniques of these studies in the area.
Second, a relatively large
number of species have, been successfully analyzed including juniper,
oak, pine, hemlock, ash, and poplara A third important point is that
a relationship between tree growth and climatic phenomena, especially
precipitation, has been found.
Also to be noted is the fact that
criticisms have been raised concerning the work in the area.
One
result of the present study is the demonstration that some of these
criticisms appear to be valid.
The Missouri Basin Tree-Ring Project
The study of tree-rings in the Missouri Basin on which this
report is based developed from and forms an integral part of a long
term program of study initiated, in the Missouri River Basin following
the Second World War,
It is one phase of salvage archaeological
operations in the United States which resulted from the spurt of dam
building and highway construction that took place in this country
immediately following that conflictc
History of the River Basin Surveys,, Missouri Basin Project
As recently discussed by Wedel (1967s 589-97) the River Basin
Surveys program and more specifically the Missouri Basin Project was
organized by various agencies of the federal government with the
encouragement of professional organizations following the Second
World War®
The goals of the Missouri Basin Project were the salvage
of archaeological and paleontological materials that were to be
destroyed as a result of the construction of a series of dams on the
Missouri River and its tributaries*
The studies and excavations
undertaken by the surveys program organized under the Smithsonian
Institution with fiscal support from the Department of the Interior
through the Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service have con­
tinued since 19U6*
In its work, the River Basin Surveys has been
aided by the cooperation of numerous state and private research or­
ganizations*
The result has been a vast increase in the knowledge
of the prehistory of the Missouri River drainage*
The project has located and surveyed hundreds of archaeolo­
gical sites throughout the Missouri Basin and excavations have been
carried out at many of these locations* • As a result, quantities of
information on the culture sequences and prehistoric peoples who
lived in this area from nearly 9000 years ago up to the Historic
period have been obtained. Much of this material is as yet unavail­
able in published form but it has been well summarized by Wedel (1961,
1961u 193“220s 1967s 389-97)*
Development of the Missouri Basin Chronology Program
It was early realized by those working in the area that some
kind of cooperative program of chronological research was a necessary
part of the studies being done in the Missouri Basin®
Such a program
was initiated in 1938 as the Missouri Basin Chronology Program®
It
has been coordinated by the River Basin Surveys office in Lincoln,
Nebraska since its founding*
The purpose of the program has been to
provide a time framework within which to interpret the information
becoming available and to provide a clearing house for chronological
information®
Two primary avenues of approach have been investigated®
first, radiocarbon dating, has provided about 100 dates®
The
The second
initiated in 1961)., is a project of tree-ring analysis to determine
whether this' method is applicable to the dating of archaeological re­
mains in the portion of the Missouri River Valley in central South
Dakota*
In 1961, I carried out a brief study of this problem.
It
resulted in the construction of a chronology and in the assignment
of dates to material from a small number of sites in the area (¥, F®
Weakly 1961)®
The current study grew out of this earlier one®
It
is the result of the recognition that an independent study of tree-
10
ring specimens from the Great Plains should be based on the techniques
developed by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University
of Arizona and carried out under the supervision of the laboratory
staff.
Such a study became possible in the Spring of 196^ when the
Laboratory successfully approached the Smithsonian Institution, River
Basin Surveys, Lincoln, Nebraska and the Midwest Regional Office of
the National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska on the feasibility of de­
veloping and financing a program of study for material from the
Missouri River Valley in South Dakota.. The results of that study
form the basis of this report.
Definition of Terms
For purposes of clarity it is necessary to define a few of
the terms that are employed by anthropologists for areas with which
this report deals.
The spatial units, that is, area, subarea and
region, are those proposed by Willey and Phillips (1962s 18-21).
The Great Plains Area
For anthropological purposes, the Great Plains Area was first
defined by Wissler in 1917*
His description was based primarily on
the exploitation of bison as a food source and a number of cultural
attributes shared by the historic tribal units in the area.
Wissler*s
Great Plains extended across the heart of the North American continent
roughly from a north-south line through the western boundary of Utah
on the west to the Mississippi River on the east.
The northern boun­
dary was central Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada and the southern
11
was In southern Texas near the juncture of the Pecos River with the
Rio Grande (Wissler 1938$ 2-9, 220-14)c
Since Wissler*s early definition of a Great Plains Area, the
concept has been used both for cultural and for archaeological re­
search in the area but its boundaries have been altered several times
(Kroeber 1939$ 7h-8h; Driver and Massey 1957; Vedel 1961)*
The most
recent of these definitions is the most clearly defined for archae­
ological purposes (Wedel 1961$ 20-145)*
Wed el defines an area between
the Rocky Mountains and the 9Utih degree of west longitude and the
Saskatchewan River Basin and the Rio Grande (Fig* 2)e He further de­
fines the area on the basis of its internal ecological zones and,
following Wissler, on the basis of the relative cohesiveness of the
cultural manifestations encountered during the historic period*
Although the definition of subareas is at least partially a
result of historical accident, they do represent the prehistoric
cultural configurations and probably also the historic patterns *
This report is primarily concerned with three of the divisions of the
areas
Middle Missouri, Central Plains, and Northern Plains*
The Central Plains Subarea
The first subarea to be defined is the Central Plains*
Its
delimitation resulted directly from the relatively early and inten­
sive excavations carried out in the state of Nebraska starting in
1929 by W* D* Strong (1935)®
As a result of this work and continued
study in Nebraska and Kansas, Wedel (19I4O: 291) was early able to
define an area centering on the state of "Nebraska and including
12
.NORTH DAKOTA1
I NNESOTA
MO N T A N A
NORTHERN
PLAINS
SOUTH \ DAKOTA
WYOMI NG
WIS.
|
! CENTRAL PLAINS
NE B R AS KA
IOWA
I LL I N OI S
/ IND.
KANSAS
COLORADO
U
SOUTHERN
v
KEN.
MI SSOURI
PLAINS
ARKANSAS
7 TENN.
OKLAHOMA
NEW/MEXICO
MISS.
TEXAS
LA.
MEXICO
FIGURE 2
100
200
SC A L E OF MI LES
300
THE GREAT PLAINS
AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS
13
immediately contiguous parts of Kansas,, northwestern Missouri and
Xowa0,r He also includes in his discussion material from South Dakota,
eastern Wyoming and Colorado*
Further refinements of the Central
Plains Subarea have been suggested at various times, but all.of these
have essentially utilized Wedel’s original definition with more or
.less minor modifications (Champe,19lj.6; W„ F* Weakly 196l; I 5 Lehmer
and Caldwell 1966; ^ll-l6)Q
■ The latter of these redefinitions most alters the Central
Plains concept*
Its authors, Lehmer and Caldwell, support the defi­
nition of the Central Plains as a region in a Northern Plains Subarea
(1966: £ll~l6)e
On the basis of historical precedent, I do not feel
this change is justifiable*
It results from the current emphasis on
work in the Middle Missouri to be defined below and does not help to
clarify a confusing terminological problem®
It seems to be more
reasonable to follow historical precedent and make the Middle Missouri
an extension of the Central Plains under the heading of a contiguous
area*
In addition, many of the cultural traits present in the Middle
Missouri Region appear at the present time to be the result of dif­
fusion out of the Central Plains thereby further supporting this
alignment*
For the purposes of this study then I w i H use Wedel's delimi­
tation of the Central Plains as that area bounded by the Rockies on
the West, the Missouri River on the east, the Niobrara River Valley
on the north and the Upper Arkansas River Basin on the. south (Wedel
1961: 79)=
For all practical purposes this, geographical unit is the
same as earlier definitions of it as being ''Nebraska and the areas
immediately contiguous to it" (¥„F0 Weakly 1961s l )0
The Northern Plains Subarea
The distinction of a Northern Plains subarea also enters the
anthropological literature quite earlye It was first defined on the
basis of cultural relationships of historic groups by Kroeber (1939s
80-U)o
He distinguished the area as essentially lying north of an
east-west line through Pike's Peak and the Arkansas headwaters0 Cur­
rent archaeological concepts, however, distinguish the area as being
that portion of the Great Plains Area lying to the north of the
.Central Plains, i„e0 Nebraska, and divide it into three regions
(Vedel 19615 195)o. For practical purposes .then the Northern Plains
Subarea can best be defined as that portion of the Great Plains Area
extending from the Niobrara Basin on the south to the Saskatchewan
River Basin on the north and from the Rocky Mountains on the west to
the drainage of the Red River of the north (Fig, 2)*
The Middle Missouri Region
As has been stated above the Northern Plains is divided into
three regions by its students =, Two of these regions, the Northwestern
Periphery and Northeastern Periphery, are not of immediate importance
to the current study and are defined by Wedel (1961$ 210-77)=
The
third region, the Middle Missouri (Fig, 2), is the focus of the work
presented here.
It has been defined as
,can eight-hundred-mile .
segment of the Missouri River, roughly from the mouth of the
Yellowstone, in western North Dakota, to the southern boundary of
South Dakota, five or six miles below Port Randall Dam" (Medel 1961:
156) o
The southern limit of the region is fairly generally accepted
but the northern has been placed at several different locales from as
far downstream as Bismarck, North Dakota (%?» Weakly 1961: 1)„ Most
recently, Lehmer and Caldwell have defined the Middle Missouri as
"e »Ba long and narrow 2one which is limited to the trench and terraces
of the Missouri River in North and South Dakota" (1966; 512)c This
latter definition is probably the most useful because it includes
essentially the entire portion of the Great Plains to the north of
the Central Plains in which the Village Indian developments took
placeo
The Village Indian period being that in which agriculture was
practiced prehistorically by groups living in semi-permanent villages0
The Middle Missouri Region then is the main valley of that
river in both North and South Dakota,,
Geographically it is part of
the Northern Plains, but culturally it is in reality an extension of
the Central Plains*
This study does not deal with material from the
whole of the region but is restricted to that portion of it in South
Dakota*
More specifically the materials come from that portion of
the region between the mouth of the Grand River on the north and the
White River on the south or about a 250 mile long segment of the
Middle Missouri*
16
Local Topographical Names
fwo major features of the Missouri River within the above
delimited region are important for this study.
portion of the river known as the Big Bend,
The first is that
It is a large loop of
the river between the mouths of the Bad and White rivers in the
southern part of South Dakota,
The second, the Little Bend, is also
a loop and is the point where the Cheyenne River flows into the
Missouri,
The general vicinity of these two loops in the river are
the locations of the two main chronologies presented in this report
(Fig. 35*
One of the other three chronologies has been derived from the
vicinity of Ghapelle Creek, a small eastern tributary of the Missouri
approximately midway between the Big Bend and Pierre, South Dakota*
A second chronology is from the area just to the south of the Grand
River in the vicinity of Mobridge, South Dakota*
The third chron­
ology in this group is based on material collected from the vicinity
of Cherry Creek where it flows into the Cheyenne River in Haskon
County, South Dakota (Fig, 3),
This latter chronology has as yet
little archaeological application being some distance to the west of
the area of main interest in the Missouri River Valley itself*
Organization of the Report
The balance of this report is concerned with a discussion of
the study of tree-rings and their usefulness for dating archaeolo­
gical materials in South Dakota*
This is accomplished by considering
the methods utilized and the problems involved in the study*
17
CORSON CO.
CAMPBELL CO
G R AN D
R IV E R
SOUTH
WALWORTH
MOREAU
R IV E R
DEWEY
\
D AKO TA
CO
CO
POTTER
CO
FAULK
CO
OAHE
RESERVOIR
ZIEBACH
CO
0'' /
SULLY
CO
HYDE
CO
HAND CO
C H E Y E N N E R IV E R
STANLEY
HAAKON
BAD
CO
HUGHES
CO.
)
A
CO
R IV E R
BUFFALO CO
LYMAN
JONES
CO
CO
JACKSON CO
W H IT E
KEY
L
■
I
Jbig bend chronology
CHAPELLE CREEK CHRONOLOGY
1LITTLE bend chronology
WiM MOB RIDGE
R IV E R
FIGURE 3
LOCATIONS OF THE MIDDLE
MISSOURI CHRONOLOGIES
area chronology
0
CHERRY CREEK CHRONOLOGY
scale
5
10__________ 20__________ 30 MILES
Following thiss the modern chronologies are presented and discussed
in detail®
The report then considers the archaeological materials studied,
their selection and the results obtained#
The implications of the
archaeological dates are discussed with reference to current chronol­
ogical reconstructions in the area and other -dating techniques®
A later section deals with the kinds of non-chronological
information obtained in the study®
This section covers information
of an ecological nature such as the species of wood available in the
area®
It also deals with the utilization of wood and changes in use
through time®
In addition, other possible kinds of information are
considered including determinations of the length of site occupancy,
relative time of house construction and climatological information#
'Finally the results of the study are summarized and certain
conclusions drawn concerning the study of tree-rings in South Dakota
and the Great Plains in general®
A consideration of the value of
this approach is presented along with a critical review of other re- ■
lated studies in the area.
Proposals dealing with future work in
the region are then presented®
CHAPTER 2
THE: PROBLEM AMD THE METHOD
Criticisms of the study of tree-rings and the use of archae­
ological dates obtained in the Great Plains by this method were
registered as early as 19^8 (Bell 19^8, 1952)„
He based his criti­
cisms on the lack of independent verification, the methods employed,
the species studied and cross-dating between them, the small number
of specimens used for constructing chronologies and the manner in
which the archaeological dates were presented*
In addition, criti­
cisms have been made concerning the distance between the location of
master chronologies and the sites for which dates have been obtained
(Meleen 1958; lehmer 1950; Hurt 1952; W*
Weakly 1966)*
The fact that such criticisms could be raised with regard to
some of the Great Plains tree-ring studies had been a major concern
of both those working in that field as well as interested archaeolo­
gists*,
It has, therefore, been recognized that an independent study
should be carried out to examine the validity of these criticisms
and the feasibility of employing tree-ring methods in the area*
It
has been further felt that such a study should be done under the
supervision of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research where adequate
checking of results would be possible*
Unfortunately, neither the
funds nor the personnel were available for a study of this nature
until quite recently*
19
20
This report then is an outgrowth of the need for an indepen­
dent investigation of the use of tree-rings for dating archaeological
remains on the Great Plains*
It represents the results of a study of
the feasibility of applying tree-ring methods to material collected
in the Middle Missouri Region*
The specimens come from living trees,
historic buildings and archaeological sites in South Dakota*
Several
species are represented in the collections*
The primary problem was concerned with the construction of
chronologies based on the modern specimens in the collections*
This
necessitated an analysis of the material to establish cross dating
and the areal extent of application*
It was also necessary to earn
amine the several species to determine which would carry a chronology
and which would cross date with each other*
Once these factors had been resolved, the problem became one
of building the chronologies back in time and strengthening them by
analysis of additional material*
This part of the problem was of
crucial importance because the chronologies needed to extend far
enough back to be applicable to the archaeological materials*
It
was necessary that they extend at least into the 18th century to be
useful for most of the South Dakota archaeological materials*
The dating of archaeological remains was the second major
problem*
The prehistoric populations of semi-sedentary peoples had
essentially abandoned what is now South Dakota by A*D» 1800„ There­
fore, the dated chronologies had to extend into at least the preceding
century to be useful*
Once this had been accomplished, the same kind
21
of approach as was used in dealing with the modern collections had to
be followed to build archaeological chronologies and to obtain dates
for the specimens used*
Analysis of the collections from selected sites was necessary„
The material from each had to be examined to determine <> again, whether
cross dating was present.
The various species, especially those found
to be useful in constructing the modern chronologies, had to be
studied to see if they cross dated with each other and a chronology
could be established for the site collection.
Finally, the archae­
ological material had to be studied in relation to the modern to see
if dates could be determined.
If this could be done, the chronologies
could be strengthened and possibly lengthened as a result.
Another
result would be the assignment of dates to archaeological specimens
which could then be used to aid in the interpretation of the pre­
history of the area.
Procedures
The general approach to the study of the South Dakota mate­
rials has followed that developed by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring
Research,
This has been done so that the rigid.controls used by the
Laboratory in its work in other areas could be applied.
Also by doing
the work under the Laboratory’s direction and supervision, it has been
possible to eliminate most of the possibilities for error which have
been pointed out regarding earlier work in the Great Plains,
Thus,
the study not only makes possible the construction of chronologies
for South Dakota, but it also allows an opportunity to make some
22
judgment as to the validity of the earlier Great Plains studies and
the criticisms of them*
Collection
The selection of species for study was based on several con­
siderations*
area*
Most basic of these is the kinds of trees native to the
The available timber resources in the Middle Missouri Region
have been described by Wedel as follows:
The timber that grew naturally in the (Missouri liver) valley
was another important resource for its inhabitants„„» It
consisted of groves of mixed deciduous trees? chiefly cotton­
wood, ash, elm, boxelder, hackberry, and oak, all growing on
the valley bottoms and the older islands* Here, too, chokecherry, buffalo berry, wild plum, and grape supplied edible
fruits* Along the unstable stream banks and on newly formed .
bars and islands, willows predominated* Stands of tall,
straight-growing juniper, especially prized by the Indians
for house-building, occurred on some of the islands and stream
side bottoms, and, usually in more scrubby form, on many of
the north-facing valley slopes (Wedel 1961$ 160)*
-
As this indicates, a fairly large number of possibilities were avail­
able from which to choose*
However, most of these species were
growing in the valley bottom where stress conditions would be least
prevalent*
Juniper was the most promising*
It grows in well drained
locations where it would be most dependent on precipitation*
Previous
'work in the plains has indicated its usefulness for chronology
building, and its use by the prehistoric population made it a prime
candidate*
For these reasons then the selection of living trees on
which to base the modern chronology was primarily oriented toward
juniper*
23
Other trees were also collected for study Including oak, ash,
and hackberry, but the emphasis was on the junipers.
cases full cross sections were obtained.
In all possible
This was possible since
most of the trees were within the pool limits of the reservoirs being
built along the river and the cutting down of the trees could be con­
sidered a salvage operation.
The largest portion of the collections was made in 1958 and
1959,
Collecting efforts have been more or less continuous since
that time.
Most of the specimens were collected by crews of the
Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys as part of their salvage
operations in the region.
Preparation of Specimens
The first step in preparing the specimens for study was done
in the Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Survey's laboratory in
Lincoln, Nebraska,
Here a preliminary sort of the material as to
species was made and, where necessary, it was cut to reasonable size
for transport to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research in Tucson,
Arizona,
Upon arrival in Tucson, a record-keeping system and a set
of working notes were established for the specimens.
The final preparation of the material for study consisted of
sanding.
In this step each piece was sanded with a mechanical sander
using a series of six graded papers, Number 60 through Number liBO,
This provided a surface that made it possible to examine the ring and
cell structure, in the wood.
In those cases, mostly archaeological,
where the wood was badly decayed or charred a razor blade was used to
cut a surface showing the cellular structure®
This latter procedure
has been described in detail by Douglass (19^3? 6)»
Techniques of Study
The methods employed in this study conform to those generally
accepted by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research,
They have been
adequately described in the literature (Glock 1937)*
I will not
attempt to go into a detailed discussion of these methods, but rather,
will outline the approach as it applies to the South Dakota study.
The first step in the analysis was species identification of
the specimens.
This was accomplished by visual examination of the
wood under magnification and consisted of recognising the different
structural patterns of the species.
An example is juniper which has
small cells, a distinct coloration, and sharply defined and narrow
layers of late wood* <This is contrasted with cottonwood which has
wide rings with quite large cells, frequently discernible without the
aid of
magnification,and an over-all effect of a lacy appearance.
The next step consisted of examining full cross sections of
wood and constructing skeleton plots of their variation in ring
Wicith'e This forms a two. dimensional picture of the variations of
annual growth produced by the trees.
In some instances plots were
made of several radii as a check on circuit uniformity, but for the
most part, this was done visually.
Following the initial examination of individual specimens,
comparisons of the variation between samples was done.
This procedure
established common variability, or cross dating, within the collec­
tion with known cutting dates6 This was first established for the
juniper specimens and later also for the ash*
The question of cross
dating was approached on an areal basis starting with small units and
expanding these to determine the area over which one could apply the
record obtained0
The final, step in the process consisted of the construction
of the master chronologies for the areas delimited*
This was done
by making composite plots of the records obtained from the individual
specimens after making sure that all possible double and missing
rings had been accounted for in each*
The result was the construction
of five distinct master chronologies for portions of South Dakota*
It should be emphasized that cross-dating quality, a function
of tree-growth and climate and the factor directly related to the
accuracy of tree-ring dates, is not generally as high in the Missouri
River Basin samples as it is in Southwestern specimens*
Consequently
the precision of the Missouri River Basin tree-ring chronologies and
archaeological dates is not of the same order of reliability as can
be demonstrated in the Southwest*
It is for this reason that I have
referred to the results presented here as tentative and perhaps sub­
ject to modification pending further verification through the future
study of additional tree-ring materials.
Statistical Treatment
Further analysis of 67 of the specimens included in the modern
chronologies was based on measured ring widths.
Using these data.
some of the tree-ring characteristics were analyzed in accordance with
standard laboratory principles as set down by Gloek (1937) <> Schulman
(195>6) j and Fritts and his associates (Fritts 1963, Fritts and others
1963a, 1963b)o
Indices were derived for the individual specimens and
these were merged to form the chronologies*
Other characteristics
including mean sensitivity, serial correlation, and standard deviation
were also examined*
In addition, an analysis of variance was carried
out on a group of ten specimens included in one of the chronologies
(Fritts 1963)*
The methods described above have made it possible to construct
master chronologies for South Dakota*
They have also made it pos­
sible to evaluate some of the characteristics of those chronologies
and reach certain conclusions concerning them*
This applies to both
the construction of modern tree-ring chronologies and the use of wood
specimens obtained through archaeological excavation for dating pur­
poses*
The next two portions of this report will present the data
obtained by this approach*
CHAPTER 3
THE MODERN CHRONOLOGIES
Five separate chronologies have been constructed for South
Dakota,
Four of these are centered along the Missouri River and one
is to the west along the Cheyenne River (Fig, 3),
The chronologies
have different beginning and ending dates as a result of the time of
collection and the number and length of the specimens included.
To construct these chronologies, 123 specimens were studied
in detail.
This number includes ten duplicates so that the chron­
ologies represent the results of analysis of 113 individual samples.
The species studied included 103 pieces of juniper, seven of ash,
three of oak, and two of hackberry.
Only the juniper and ash were
found to contain adequate patterns of growth on which to base the
chronologies.
Oak and hackberry lack circuit uniformity and could
not be used, but because of the small size of the sample in each case
they cannot be ruled out for chronological purposes until further
analysis has been done.
The chronologies as they now exist are based exclusively on
juniper and ash and are most heavily dependent on the juniper.
Of
the 103 pieces of juniper and seven of ash in the collection, 79 of
the juniper and four of the ash specimens were ultimately dated and
included in the chronologies.
This represents approximately 78% of
27
28
the usable specimens,.
In addition, another seven specimens of juniper
and ash could be tentatively dated giving approximately 81$ datability
in the collection®
The junipers studied were Juniperus scopulorum and Junipefus
virginlana® Both of these species are native to the area of the
study, but since (l) no data as to species were provided in the col­
lection records, and (2) the wood of the two does not appear to be
distinguishable, no separation of them has been made in this study®
The wood is characterized by small cells, a red coloration especially
in the older portion and a distinctive “cedar" odor®
Annual growth is
made up of a lighter colored layer of larger cells in the springwood
that varies in width and a very narrow layer of latewood, usually no
more than two or three cells thick, that has smaller cells sharply
sets off each ring from the next®
There appears to be very little
variation in the width of the latewood from year to year in the juni­
per*
The younger growth of the first 20 to $0 years is not readily
usable for dating purposes®
The trees go through a distinctly
juvenile period during this range starting with relatively small
rings, and once established, a rapid increase in the amount of growth
accompanied by generally erratic behavior until maturity®
At matur­
ity, the growth becomes much more sensitive to environment with a
concomitant general decrease in ring width®
Double or false rings
are also a problem during the juvenile period of growth, but essen­
tially cease to be formed once maturity is reached®
29
The modern collections contained juniper specimens with up to
2$0 annual rings#
In one archaeological specimen 319 rings were re­
corded with no indication of the last ring present being the last
year of growth#
Most of the specimens came from the higher terraces
and rough country, !,the breaks,R bordering the incised valley of the
Missouri Elver#
These locations are usually well drained so that the
trees growing there would be most influenced by the prevailing envi­
ronmental conditions#
The ash specimens, Fraxinus spp#, were also primarily derived
from similar locations#
The species identification is not available
in the collection records#
juniper#
Ash evidently has a shorter life span than
The oldest specimen in the collection has less than 70
annual rings#
The wood is quite distinctive from that of the juniper#
The ash has more variation in the width of the latewood band than of
the springwood#
The springwood is made up of quite large cells and
grades into the latewood with no sharp break#
The latewood is made
up of very small compact cells and contains a large number of duets
Interspersed through it#
darker colored#
The heartwood of the specimens is much
No double or false rings were found in the available
sample of ash*
The five South Dakota chronologies presented below are based
on 81 specimens#
Four of them apply to four segments of the Middle
Missouri Region between the general area of Brule County, South
Dakota on the south and the North Dakota border on the north (Fig* 3 )*
The fifth one is based on material from Haakon County, South Dakota
to the west of the Missouri River valley#
Big Bend Chronology
The modern chronology based on material from the Big Bend is
the longest and strongest*
A.B, 1963 back to iUD> 1631=
It is 332 years in length extending from
With the inclusion of archaeologically-
derived materials, it extends back to AeD«, 1531 or a total of ij.32
years (Fig* !(.)„
The collections are derived from an area approximately 30
miles in diameter centering on the Big Bend of the Missouri River*
This area generally lies within the bounderies of Buffalo, Hughes and
Lyman counties*
There are 56 pieces of wood from the locality of
which nine are duplicates (Table 1 )6 The symbols used on Table 1 and
all following ones are explained in Table 2* Of the hi individual
trees represented, U3 are juniper, two are ash, and two are oak*
Forty-one of the juniper and the two specimens of ash could be used
in constructing the chronology*
The remaining specimens, four juni­
per and two oak, could not be adequately dated for inclusion in the
chronology*
Skeleton plots were made for h9 of the Big Bend specimens and
35 of these were measured*
The chronology for this area is based on
these plotted and measured specimens (Fig* U)* In addition, certain
statistical characteristics were examined (Table 3) that have made
possible the comparison of the five chronologies in more detail*
The statistical characteristics of the tree-ring series ex­
amined include measures of mean sensitivity, mean ring width, stand­
ard deviation, serial correlation, and variance (Fritts 1963s 2-7j
,-v
•
:
■ •
, ,*.f '
-r/l,■:■•.’
.,{%®1
■'•’S’f 1 1
20
30
4o
1550
70
60
V.,’;.
90
20
80
70
1700
80
CHAPELLE CREEK
FIGURE 4
THE
L IT "LE BEND, CHAPELLE CREEK
AND blG BEND CHRONOLOGIES
L IT T L E
V
B
r n — rr
n
y
W
A
^
n
P
i .
TTTT
F
F
T T T
Tyrr FT"
|1
20
30
1550
60
70
80
90
I
■•I
1600
10
20
40
:br ,3
1650
90
1700
90
1800
1950
60
ffable 10 Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
DM58~1
m i A , Sec a 28, 11071, R72¥
Buffalo county
Juniper
l862p - 1958B
PA
DN58-2A
SBl/h, Seca 28, T107N, R72W
Buffalo county
Juniper
l866p - 1958B
P/M
DN58-2B
SBl/l*, Seco 28, T107NS R72M
Buffalo county
Juniper
l866p « 1958B
P
NElA, Sec. 28, T107N, R72¥
Buffalo county
Juniper
!3N58-itB
m i A , Sec. 28, T107N, R72W
Buffalo county
Juniper
I866p - 1958B
pA
DN58-5
SElA, Sec. 28, 1107N, R72M
Buffalo county
Juniper
1877p - 1958B
fA
DN58-6
NilA s Sec. 28, 11071, R72W
Buffalo oounty
Juniper
l869p - 1958B
?A
BN58-7
N$lA* Sec. 28, 11071, R72W
Buffalo county
Juniper
I882p - 1958B
pA
DN58-9
EL/2, Sec. 28, 'F107N, 1%72¥
Buffalo county
Juniper
1863? =• 1958B
p /m
DNJ>8-l6A
Sec. 32, $107N, R 72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
I8h9p - 1958B
p /m
B S 8-itA
Remarks
same as
DN58-2B
same as
DN58-2A
l866p - 1958B
PA
same as
DN58AB
same as
DN58-AA
Gore
Sable le Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Sontinned
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Remarks
DN58-16B
Sec, 32, T107NS R 72W
Lyman bounty
Juniper
1903fp - 1958B
P
Gore
DNS8-1?
Sec, 32, T107N, R72M
Lyman county
Juniper
(I770fp - 1928v)
P
Core
DN58-18
Sec, ;32, T107N, R72M
Lyman county
Juniper
1737fp - 1912vv
p/k
Core
DN58-36A
Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
l653p - l8o5vv
P/M
same as
DN58-36B
DN58-36B
Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
I68itfp - 1880B
p/k
same as
DN58-36A
DN38-37A/1
Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
l688fp - 1796w
.p /m
BN58-37A/2
See, 32, fl07N, R72W
Lyman county
Juniper
BN58-37B
Sec,"32, T107N, R72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
DN58-38
Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥
Lyman county
Juniper
Specimen
Number
-
same as
DN58-37A/2
DN58-37B
same as
BN58-37A/1
DN58-37B
1713fp - 1766vv
p
p
same as
DN58-37A/1&2
P?able
Specimen
Number
Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Provenience
Species
Bates
Plotted/
Measured
BN58=39
Sec* 16, ThN, R78W
Lyman County
Juniper
l86lp - 1938v
P
BX58-1
Seco 23, 1108N, R73W
Lyman County
Ash
1923fp - 1956v
P
.
mi/kp 'See0 28, $1081, 1731 . Juniper
Lyman County
- 1558b
Core
same as
BX58-7&13
Juniper
l891p - 1958B
DX58-6
SClA/ Sec, 28, $1081, 1731
Lyman County
Juniper
1920p - 1958B
BX58-7
S m A / Seco 28, $1081,
Lyman County
,
Juniper
- 1958B
0X58-8
Seco 23, $1081, R73W
Lyman County
Ash ■
0X58-9
Sec, 3, $1071, 1 7 W
Lyman County
Oak
(l876p - 1958B)
P
0X58-10
See, "3, $1071, R 7 W
Lyman County.....
Oak
(1872p - 1958B)
P
DX58-11
Bee, 16, $1071, R76M
Lyman County
Juniper
1917P - 1958B
P
1
SB/It,'See, 28, $1081, 1731
Lyman County
same as
BX584&13
'
1897p - 1958B
Remarks
p/m
table 10 Modem Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Species
Bates
Plotted/
Measured
Juniper
1924p - 1958B
P
SMlA# See, 28, floSN, B73M
Lyman county
Juniper
l6<?9p - 1958B
P/M
DZ58-1U
Sm As Sec, 3, T107N, S7W
Lyman county
Juniper
l87ltp - 1958B
PA
DX58-15
■SKIA, Sec," 3, T107N, B 7 W
Lyman county
Juniper
l852p - 1958B
?A
DX58-16
S>a/iis See, 3, T107N, B 7 W
Lyman county
,
Juniper
1866? - 1958B
?M
DX60-1
m a A , Sec, 3, T107N, R 7 W
Lyman county
Juniper
1825? - 1959B
P/M
DXgp-lA
(?) Lyman county
Juniper .
l635fp - I870v
P/M
same as
DX59-1B
DX39-1B
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
l6U3fp - iStlw
?A
same as
BX59-1A
DX62-1
m A , Sec, 10, T107N, R 7 W
Lyman county
Juniper
1855? - 1935B
P/M
DX62-2
NtEA, Sec, 10, T107N, R 7 W
..Lyman county
Juniper
l631p - 1928B
?A
Specimen
Number
Provenience
DX58-12
See, '16,
Lyman county
DX58-13
KL6¥
Remarks
same as
BX58-5&7
i
'
Table le Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Bates
Plotted/
Measured
BX62-3
Mm/4, Sec. 10, T10?N, R f W
Lyman county
Juniper
I890p - 1937v
'P
DX62-lt
Ml/4, Sec. 3, 11071, R74W
Lyman county
.
Juniper
l859p - 1937v
P
DX62-5
Mm/4, Sec. 3, T107M, R?4W
Lyman county
Juniper
l674np - 1928B
p/k
BX62-6A
NW2/4, Sec. 10, 1107m, R74w
Lyman county
Juniper,
1705fp - 1928B
pyk
DX62-6B
Ml/4, Sec. 10, 1107m, R74W
Lyman county
, ......
Juniper
1705fp - 1924v
p/k
DX62-7
Sec. 21, 11081, 172M
Lyman county
Juniper
1702p - 19360
P/M
DX63-I
(?)
Juniper
1919p-“ 1963B
DX63»2 ■
(?)
Juniper
1873P - 1963B
p/k
3911100-1
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
l854p - 1963B
P/M
391000-2
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
I691p - 1932v
P/M
391000-3
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
I85lp - 1963B
P/M
391000=4
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
I685p - 1937B
P/M
’
Remarks
{Table 10 Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area—-Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
39LMOO-5
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
I6ii3p - 19U0B
P/M
3 % m o o ~6
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
1707p - 1963B
#
39LMOO-7
(?) Lyman county
Juniper
l676p - 1930
P/M
MisCo 1A
Skunk Island
Buffalo-Hyde county line
Juniper
1900p - 190B
P
Misc* IB
Skunk Island
Buffalo-Hyde county line
Juniper
1900p - 190B
Remarks
same as
Misc„ IB
same as
Misc0 1A
liable to Explanation of Symbols in lists of Specimens
ifhe symbols used with the inside dates
year - no pith ring present
p - pith ring present
fp - the curvature of the inside ring indicates that
it is far from the pith
np - the curvature of the inside ring indicates that
it is near to the pith
She symbols used with the outside date*
B - bark present
Q - beetle galleries are present on the surface of the
specimens
L - a characteristic surface patination and smoothness, which
develops just under the bark, is present
c
- the outermost
ring is continuousaround the full circum­
ference of the specimen,. This symbol is used only if a
full section is. present»
r - less than a full section is present, but the outermost
ring is continuous around available circumference
v - a subjective judgment that, although there is no direct
evidence of the true outside on the specimen, the date is
within a very few years of being a cutting date
vv - there is no way of estimating how far the last ring is
from the true outside
*
- the nature of
the dating is suchthat one or more rings
may be missing near the end of the ring series, whose
presence or absence cannot be determined because the
specimen does not contain enough additional rings to
provide an adequate check
Dates in parenthesis {
) are tentative
Mo entry in Dates column - no date obtained
Table 2— Continued
No entry under Plotted
not plotted
P
Plotted
M
Measured
w
Mean ring width (mm)
10
1U
35
1.01
2
6
.98
*99
*98
Combined Areas
Q>
-p g)
A W
Cherry Greek
Area
Sample sise
I
Mobridge Area
Item
Chapelle Greek
Area
Statistical Characteristics of the Modern Chronologies
Big Bend Area
Table 3e
67
1*00
1*03
Standard deviation
.363
,1)30
«U25
•1+1+9
*620
•1+75
Mean sensitivity
»32
»3lt
*37
•35
•33
•29
Serial correlation
•ii3
*55
*1+7
*67
*79
•61+
Percentage variation
Retained by group
chronology
Due to tree dif. ferences
Due to radial
, differences
Group I
5*5
61
6e3
Group IX
Groups I & II
59*2
15*1
5.8
33*2
0*3
l+o9
Fritts and others 1965bg 393“U0l)o The relations between the Big Bend
ehronology and the other four from South Dakota are dlsomssed in
detail at the oonelmsion of this ohapter.
Ohapelle Greek Chronology
The material on which the Ohapelle Greek ehronology is based
derives from the area centering on the month of this eastern tribu­
tary of the Missouri Riverq
The locale is about midway between the
Big lend area and Pierres South Dakota in southern Stanley and Hughes
counties a The specimens come from an area approximately ten miles in
diametero
There are 23 specimens from the Ohapelle Greek area of which
one is a duplicateo
411 of the 22 individual trees represented are
juniper (Table h)o
Skeleton plots were made of seven of the speci­
mens and 15 were measuredo
Five could not be adequately dated or
included in the chronologyo
The modern chronology is 2?0 years in length extending from
A0B q 1963 back to A 0D 0 1693o' With the addition of arohaeologieally
derived materials, this chronology is 362 years, in length extending
back to A0B0 l601o On a tentative basis, specimens from other archae­
ological sites extend the chronology back to A 0D 0 1288 or a total of
675 yearsc
This latter extension is of such a tentative nature that
the portion from A 0B 0 [email protected] to A 6Bo 1288 is not included in the chron­
ology presented here (Fig0 I*), and the dating in this time range can
only be used with caution^
fable
Specimen
Member
ho
Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Creek Area
Provenience
Species
Bates
Plotted/
Measured
Remarks
DM58-19
Sec, 6, n09N, R?6W
Stanley county
Juniper
1909np - 1958B
M
Gore
DN58-20
Sec, 6s T109N, R76W
Stanley county
Juniper
1900p - 1958B
M
Gore
DM0-21A
Sec, 6S fl09N, R76W
Stanley county
Juniper
BI58-21B
Sec, 6, T109M, R?6¥
Stanley county
Juniper
(1719fp - 1956v )
P
Gore
DN58-22
Sec, 16, TltN, R72W'
Stanley county
Juniper
l865np - 1958B
M
Gore
DM58-23
Sec, 16, ThM, R72W
Stanley county
Juniper
1902np - 1958B
1
Gore
DN58-2U
Sec, 16,
R72M
Stanley county
Juniper
1755fp - 1958B
P/M
Core
DN58-25
Sec, 16, f W s R78W
Stanley county
Juniper
I867fp «■ 1958B
M
Gore
DN58-26
Sec, 1$, f#, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
1911tfp - 1957v
M
Gore
DN^8-27
Sec, 15, fW, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
1913np - 1958B
M
Gore
Gore
fable Ito Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Greek Area— Continued
Specimen
Number
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Provenience
Species
Remarks
DNF8-28
Sec* lit, fiiN, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
(l88lfp - 195SB)
DN58-29
Sec, lii, W , R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
I887fp - 1958B
M
Core
DN58-30
Sec, 1U3 TI4N, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
I85itfp - 1958B
M
Core
DN58-31
Sec, lit, fitN, 1|7¥
Stanley county
Juniper
I885np - 1955v
DN^8-32
Sec, lit, fitN, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
1911np - 1958B
DN38-33
Sec, lit, fitN, R77W
Stanley county
Juniper
DN58-UOA
Sec, 6, fl09N, R76¥
Stanley county
Juniper
l693fp - 1862vv
P/M
same as
DN58~itOB
DN^S-kOB
Sec, 6, f!09N, R76¥
Stanley county
Juniper
l699fp - 1862vv
P
Same as
DN58-itOA.
DN£84*1A
See, 6, fl09N, R76W
Stanley county
Juniper
17ititfp - 18U8B
P/M
DN98-N1B
Sec, 6, fl09N, R76¥
Stanley county
Juniper
Core
Core
M
Core
Core
table
Specimen
Number
hm
Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Greek Area— Continued
Provenience'
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
HD63-L1
N K L A S Seco 7, T109N, R75W
Hughes county
Juniper
l866p - 1963B
P/M
BD63-L2
SBl A s Sec, 3, TIOSNj, R76¥
Hughes county
Juniper
1738p - 1916w
HD63-13
SElA, Sec, 19,, T109N, R75W
Hughes county
Juniper
l807p - 1936B
P/M
Remarks
Measured rlng-widths were used to examine some of the statis­
tical characteristics of the Ohapelle Greek chronology (Table 3)«
No study of'^variance was attempted on this or any of the following
three chronologies because of the lack of an adequate sample.
Little Bend Chronology
The specimens on which this chronology is based were collected
from the general area of the Little Bend of the Missouri River and
south to the confluence of Okobojo Greek with the Missouri,
This area
is approximately 20 to 25 miles across and lies about 30 miles north
of Pierre* South Dakota,
It is centered in Sully and northern Stan­
ley counties.
There are 27 specimens from the Little Bend area of which 22
are juniper* three are ash* and two are hackberry (Table 5),
Eighteen
of the juniper and two of the ash specimens were plotted and nine were
measured in constructing the chronology.
The remaining pieces* four
of juniper* two of hackberry* and one of ash* either could not be ade­
quately dated or were from fence posts of unknown origin*
The chronology based on these specimens is 313 years in length
extending from A0D0 1959 back to AeD e l61j.6e Mith the inclusion of
archaeologlcally derived specimens the Little Bend chronology is 380
•years long going back to &,D. 1579=
In addition* material from other
sites that is tentatively dated pushes this chronology back to A0De
1288 or 671 years.
This latter portion is not included in figure k
because of its tentative nature.
Table 3 presents the statistical
characteristics for the Little Bend chronology.
fable 5>o Modern Specimens from the little Bend Area
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
DW58-1
SELA# Sec, 5, T8N, R29E
Stanley county ,
Juniper
BW58-2
SBa.A, Sec, 5, X8N, R29E
Stanley county .
Juniper
DE58-3
to.A, Sec, 5, T8N, R29E
Stanley county ,
Juniper
Plotted/
Measured
Bates
(l691p - 1875w )
Remarks
Fence
Post
Fence
Post
(
- l881tvy)
Fence
Post
BM58-5
. t o A # See, 17, T8N, R291
Stanley county .
Juniper
1903p - 1938B
P
BM58-6
SMLA# Sec, 17, T8N, R29B
Stanley county ,
Juniper
1853p - 1958B
P
D¥58~7
NMlA, T8N, R29$
Stanley.county
Juniper
1921p - 1958B
P
BW58-8
l#lA, Sec, 17, T8N, R29E
Stanley county
Juniper
190itp - 1958B
P
DW58-9
Sec, U, T8N, R29E
Stanley county
Juniper
1909p - 1958B
DW$8-10
Sec, It, T8N, R291
Stanley county
Ash
1917np « 1958B
p /m
Gore
DWg8-ll
Sec, it, f8N, R29E
Stanley county
Ash
19l8fp - 1958B
p /m
Gore
Gore
fable 5c Modern Specimens from the Little Bend Area— Continued
Specimen
Number
Ash
SElA, Sec. 29, $u 5n , R81W
Sully county
Juniper
l6ij.6p - I8l7w
P
DM59-2A
SELA, Sec. 293 T115N, H81W
Sully county
Juniper
l698p - l885v
PA
DM59-3
SSlA, See. 29j fll5N, R01M
Sully county
Juniper
I861tp - 1959B
pA
m$9-k
S B l A 5 See. 29,
Sully county
R8l¥
Juniper
l658p - l823w
p
T115N, R81W
Juniper
l662p - I8l9w
p
DM59-6
NBlA, Sec. 28, 1115N, R81W
Sully county
Juniper
(I7l5p - l81|6vv)
p
DM59-7 '
SBlA, Sec. 29, fll5N, R81W
Sully county
Juniper
185% - 1959B
F/M
DM59-8
SSIA , Sec. 29, T115N,
Sully county
Juniper
1725np - l86lvv
P
DM59-9
SElA, Sec, 29, T115N, R8l¥
Sully county
Juniper
I857np - 1959B
?A
GO
K
M59-5
:|f
'
1 1
Q
BM59-1
:I
Sec6 ks T8N, R29B
Stanley county
i
Species
•0158=12
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Provenience
Remarks
tl928fp - 1958B)
5
’Table 5# Modern Specimens from the Little Bend Area— Continued
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Juniper
I869p - 1958B
P/M
(?)
Sully county
Juniper
1917P - 1958B
P
D39SL00-10A
(?)
Sully county
Juniper
1906p - 1958B
P/M
B39SL00-10B
SSIA , Sec. 9# T1L3N, R80¥ .
Sully county
Juniper
I883p - 1958B
P/M
D39S100-11
(?)
Sully county
Juniper
190iip - 1958B
P
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
D39SLOO-1
m i / k } Sec. 16, T113N, B8l¥
Sully county
Hackberry
D39SLOO-3
1'JElA, See. 16, T113N, B8l¥
Sully county
Haekberry
D39SLCO-6
(?)
Sully county
D39SLOO-9
Remarks
Mobridge Area Chronology
The chronology for the Mobridge area is the shortest and
least reliable of the four which pertain to areas of archaeological
interest*
There are only four specimens from the area.
One of these
is oak and its location is questionable as I have been unable to cor­
relate the given provenience with available reference maps.
The re­
maining three specimens are juniper and have provided a chronology 6k
years long from A,D, 1962 to A,D„ 1898,
The three juniper pieces come from a very small area just to
the south of Mobridge, South Dakota,
All of the specimens were
plotted and two were measured (Table 6)*
Because of the small size
of the sample available for constructing this chronology, it cannot
be considered useful without the study of additional materials (Fig,
5)o
Cherry Greek Chronology
The 12 specimens from Haakon County that were studied are all
derived from the same small locale near Cherry Creek (Table 7),
At
present there is no archaeological application for the derived chro­
nology since it is based on material from an area approximately 100
miles west of the Missouri River where the major archaeological
sites are located.
Of the 12 specimens studied ten are juniper and
two are ash.
Six of the juniper were plotted and measured and they form
the basis of the chronology.
An additional three pieces of the juni­
per weate'1:’
plotted, but could not be adequately dated.
One juniper
Table 60 Modern Specimens from the Mobridge Area
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
DN62-1
K E L A j Seco 21, T18N, 130E
Corson county
Juniper
1937p ~ 1962B
P
DN62-2
NSl/ii, Sec. 21, T18N, R30E
Corson county
Juniper
19l8p - 1962B
P/M
DN62-3
NWlA, Sec. 22, T18N, R 30E
Corson county
Juniper
l898p - 1962B
P/M
DN63-1
SEl/h, Sec. 17, T19N, R801
Dewey county -
Oak
Specimen
Number
(I891p - 1963B)
P
Remarks
40
F GURE 5
1850
950
60
MOBRIDGE
60
AREA
THE MOBRIDGE AREA AND
CHERRY CREEK CHRONOLOGIES
I| 1 II I' 'I!
CHERRY CREEK
n n
1
1900
CHERRY CREEK
n
1650
60
1800
fable 7e Modern Specimens from the Cherry Creek Area
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Remarks
DN58-1QA
See* 35'T7N, R22B
Haakon county
Juniper
I871£p ~ Ipiiiw
p /m
Core
DN5S-10B
Sec, 3/T7N, R22E
Haakon county
Ash
DN58-11
Sec, 3? T7N, R22E
Haakon county
Juniper
Sec, 3, T7N, R22S
Haakon county
Juniper
(I897np - 1 9 ^ w )
DN58-12B
Sec, 3,-TJN, R22B
Haakon county
Juniper
I831p - 1907vv
DN58-13
Sec, 3,'T7N, R221 _
Haakon county
Juniper
DN$8-lhA
See, 3, f7Ns R221
Haakon county
Juniper
DH58-llj.B
Sec. 3,"f7M, R22B
Haakon county
Ash
DN0-lg
Sec, 3, f7N, R22E
Haakon county
Juniper
1929P - 1958B
?M
DNg8-3M
Sec, 3} T7M, R22E
Haakon county
Juniper
l637fp - 1876w
P/M
Core
1910p - 1958B
- p /m
Core
p
Core
p /m
Core
Core
p
Core
Core
Core
Table 7, Modern Specimens from the Cherry Creek A r e a - ontinued
Specimen
Number
DN58-3UB
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Sec^ 3, T?Nj 1221
Haakon county
Juniper
17U2fp - l88hw
P/M
Sec, 3, T7N, R221
Haakon county
Juniper
Remarks
P
&
and the two ash specimens could not be used®
The resultant chro­
nology is 321 years long extending from A.Be 1958 to ASB0 1637 (Figs,
5)o
Other characteristics of the chronology are presented in
Table 3®
Modern Specimens with No Provenience
Three pieces of juniper with completely inadequate provenience
data are listed in Table 8e These specimens were not plottedoor dated
and for purposes of this kind of study are useless since they could
have been secured from the area of at least two different chronologies
or be related to none of them0
Accurate provenience data are extremely important in attempt­
ing to construct chronologies and these three represent the most dif­
ficult cases encountered• They do not, however, represent the only
ones0 In several instances, the available provenience data have been
inadequate making the problem of comparing the ring records more
difficult®
Other problems encountered include the lack of adequate site
descriptions, photographic records, and species identifications®
All
of these have increased the difficulty of working with the material®
In addition, adequate collection records would have made possible
some further conclusions with reference to the results obtained in
examining the statistical parameters discussed below and would have
raised the level of confidence in the results of this study®
Ilf
•I
fable 8# Modern Specimens with no Provenience
Provenience
Species
39STOO-1
(Stanley county ?)
Juniper
398100-2
(Stanley county ?)
Juniper
393166-3
(Stanley county ?)
Juniper
Dates
Plotted/
Measured
Remarks
Discussion, and Conclusions
The statistical characteristics of the tree-ring series pre­
sented in Table 3 show some interesting features,,
The measures of
mean sensitivity* standard deviation* and serial correlation tend to
rise from south to northo
The measures of standard deviation and
serial correlation are considerably greater for the westernmost
series.
The mean ring width does not show any significant change
between the five series.
These trends appear to fit the model of
increased ring-width variability as one approaches forest border con­
ditions demonstrated by Fritts and his associates (1963b),
They also
fit general trends exhibited by the precipitation patterns and geo­
graphical elevations within the study area,
Precipitation in the
Great Plains tends to decrease to the north and west and there is
also a general rise in elevation in these two directions.
Given these conditions* it would seem reasonable to propose
that the most northern and western tree-ring series represent con­
ditions tending toward those of a forest border situation.
Because
of the disparity of sample size between the five series* this can
only be a suggestion,
A concentrated program of collection and study
with much more complete and pertinentrecords is necessary to go
beyond this point®
Again as a result of disparity in sample size* analyses of .
variance could not be made to supplement the above measures except
for the most southerly series,
Certain characteristics of the juniper
used in constructing the chronologies, can* however* be seen as a
result of this one analysis®
in analysis of variance was made on a group of ten trees9
selected for homogeneity, length of record, and geographical con­
tiguity*
They were divided into two groups of five on the latter
basis*
Two radii, ane fast and one slow growing, were measured*
The analysis spans a period of 69 years from A0D0 1890 to AoD* 1958=
While %9% of the variation in all radii is retained in the
group chronology by Group II, only
is retained in Group I*
This at first seems highly inconsistent but several factors appear
to be involved*
Group II is the most homogeneous geographically being
derived from the same section, township, and range*
from a larger area at least 12 miles square.
age age of the two groups is quite different.
Group I comes
In addition, the aver­
Group I has an average
age of 173 years, and Group II, only 92 years.
More importantly, however, two of the specimens included in
Group I consistently exhibit low or negative correlations with the
other members of the group.
This is further demonstrated by the
graph in Figure 6, which shows the relationship between the mean
standard error and the mean index for both the fast and slow growing
radii of the two groups.
The distribution of points for the Group II
series, is essentially normal but those for Group I are highly incon­
sistent,
This latter is the result of a relatively small number of
narrow rings fitting the chronology and the majority of the others
not doing so*
Visual examination of the specimens helped to explain
these inconsistencies.
The two problematical specimens show evidence
of severe injury and die-back during the period under consideration
MEAN
STANDARD
ERROR
£8
2.0
MEAN INDEX
Fig. 6. Relationship of mean standard error to mean index in groups
I and H
and very irregular growth throughout the period of analysis,,
In other
wordsj at least for the period included in the analysis of variance,
these specimens cannot be considered to be dated with sufficient
accuracy0 Also, extreme care should be exercised in attempting to use
similar material for constructing chronologiese It would be prefer­
able not to use them at alle
The analysis of the material in Group II seems to represent
the characteristics of the juniper used in this study more closely*
In this group approximately 60% of the variation in all radii is.re­
tained in the group chronology^
Approximately '6% of the variation is
due to difference among trees and something less than 1% is due to the
differences among radii (Table 3)®
On the basis of these characteristics and those observed while
plotting the Individual specimens several conclusions may be drawn*
First, the present areal applicability of the South Dakota chronolo­
gies should be limited to no more than 30 to 100 miles from the im­
mediate vicinity for which they are derived, with the small figure
being preferable*
Second, great caution must be observed in using
specimens which exhibit evidence of Injury or die-back of whatever
origin*
Third, while making skeleton plots it was observed that the
first 20 to 50 years of growth are of such a juvenile nature as to be
almost impossible to work with and as a result, extremely unreliable*
This point was further verified by examining the curves of the 20 year
means*
In all instances, the first 20. to 50 years showed rapid growth
up to a point in this range outside which a normal growth curve could
then be fitted®
Fourth, at least insofar as the skeleton plot chro­
nologies are concerned, there is sufficient similarity between the
chronologies to allow the application of any one of them over a wide
area in a general sense®
For accurate dating, however, this use
must be much more restricted*
CHAPTER
h
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGIES
Once the modern chronologies had been established, the next
part of the study involved determining whether the tree-ring records .
could be applied to the dating of archaeologically derived specimens^
It was hoped that this could be accomplished and that the chronologies
could be lengthened and strengthened in the process0
The study has been successful in achieving these goals„ Three
of the modern chronologies have been extended and strengthened by the
inclusion of the tree-ring records from archaeologically recovered
specimens*
As an additional result, dates have been determined for
these same specimens*
The work has involved detailed study and
analysis of over 2000 pieces of wood and charcoal from $k selected
archaeological sites*
Selection of the sites from which specimens would be examined
was governed by several factors*
First and most basic of these was
the availability of excavated material*
Since several Institutions
and research organizations have been active in South Dakota over the
past 20 years, a great deal of material is available from which to
choose*
The second factor in selecting the sites to be examined was
the probability they would contain specimens from late horizons that
could be cross dated with the existing modern chronologies*
61
In this
62
manner? wood from progressively earlier occupations could be studied6
This in turn would make possible the continual lengthening of the
record and the dating of progressively older materiale Several people
were especially helpful to me in selecting those sites that would ful­
fill these requirementse In particular the personnel of the Smith­
sonian Institution's River Basin Surveys were of great assistance^
In general the same methods and techniques that were used to
study the modern specimens have been applied to those of archaeolo­
gical origin#
The procedures of record keeping, specimen preparation,
species identification, and analysis have for the most part been
identical#
The preparation of specimens for study has been somewhat
more tedious because of the often decomposed or charred nature of the
wood, but the processes followed have been essentially the same#
Those specimens, especially of juniper and ash, that were found to be
the most useful for constructing the modern chronologies have re­
ceived the strongest emphasis in studying the prehistoric materials#
The following portions of this chapter deal with the work on
the archaeological specimens#
The information for each site is pre­
sented in tabular form and a brief statement of the affiliation of the
cultural remains from the site is given#
The data are organized in
the framework of the recently defined Middle Missouri and Coalescent
traditions (Lehmer and Caldwell 1966)#
I use the term phase in place '
of the traditional terminology of the Mid-Western Taxonomic System#
The concept of the phase better fits the defined groupings#
In terms
of overall organization of this report, the most recent material is
presented first and progressively older material is then discussed.
Figure 7 shows the geographic locations and relationships of the
archaeological sites.
Historic Sites
Data on five historic sites are presented in this section.
Three of these, Fort Pierre 11, 39ST217, Port George, 39ST202, and
Fort Sully, 39SLii5, were military and/or trading posts occupied during
the 19th century.
The remaining two sites, 39D€>1 and 39IMf>3» prob­
ably relate to the early reservation period in South Dakota, again in
the 19th century.
One tree-ring date was obtained for material from these five
sites.
It pertains to a specimen from Fort Pierre II and: is of
special importance because it extended the little Bend chronology
back to AeD, 1379.
The outside date, A.D. 1825, fits the known con­
struction date of the post.
Ho dates could be determined for the
specimens from Port George, 39BM51 or 39IM53«
Final analysis of the
material from Port Sully was not completed because of the limitations
on the project.
Fort Pierre II, 39ST217
Port Pierre II is a trading post established after A.D. 1855
(Smith 1960s 87).
One specimen of juniper available from the site
(Table 9) contains a record extending from A.D. 1579 to A.D, 1825$
The difference between the date of the construction of the post,
after A.D. 1855, and the outside date for the timber, A.D, 1825,
CORSON CO.
CAMPBELL CO.
GRAND
R IV E R
WALWORTH
MOREAU
R IV E R
DEWEY
CO.
POTTER
ZIEBACH
CO.
CO.
FAULK
CO.
CO.
SULLY
CHEYENNE R IVER
CO.
HYDE
OAHE
RESERVOIR
CO.
HAND CO.
HUGHES CO.
(8) PIERRE
HAAKON
CO.
STANLEY
CO.
BIG BEND
RESERVOIR
BUFFALO CO.
BAD R IV ER
LYMAN CO.
JONES
CO.
JACKSON CO.
W HITE
R IV E R
BRULE 11CO.
FIGURE 7
LOCATIONS OF THE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES STUDIED
TRIPP CO.
FORT R A N D A L L '
RESERVOIR
GREGORY
CO.
Table 9« Archaeological Tree-Ring- Specimens from Port Pierre II, 398T217
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
Plotted
653
East Stockade
Juniper
lf>7.9np - 1825w
P
Remarks
66
suggests that the timber may have been salvaged from Fort Pierre I
which Go H e Smith informed me was built in A»Be 1831»
Although this
may be the case, the last dated ring on the specimen is not a cutting
date, and I can not determine the number of outside rings which might
be lost because the specimen has been mechanically shaped*
Port George, 39ST2Q2
This historic post is located on the west bank of the Missouri
River approximately 7 miles south of Antelope Greek in Stanley County,
There are llr specimens derived from this site available for study.
Unfortunately^ all of these pieces were populus and no dates could
be obtained, (Table 10),
Fort Sully, 39SLk$
This site is situated near the east bank of the Missouri River
not far above the Oahe Dam in Sully County,
It was a United States
military post from A*D» 1866 to A 0D, l88i| (Mattes I960),
four juniper specimens available from the site (Table 11),
There are
Because
of the time limitations on the study, the material could not be
studied in. detail and no dates were obtained.
Site 3%Mgl
Site 39IM51 is located near Oaeoma on the Missouri River in
Lyman County,
Material recovered from, the site includes metal, china
and other historic period artifacts indicating to V, ¥, Caldwell that
it was probably occupied during the early reservation period in the
Table 100 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Port George, 39ST202
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
1982
North Stockade
populus
1983
North Stockade
populus
1981
North Stockade
populus
1985
North Stockade
populus
1986
(?)
populus
1987
(?)
populus
1988
(?)
populus
1989
(?)
populus
1990
(?)
populus
(?)
populus
1992
(?)
populus
1993
(?)
populus
1996
(?)
populus
1997
(?)
populus
1991
.
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 11#
Specimen
Number
Archaeologic al Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Sullys 39SLl|.5
Provenience
Species
3U8
Sink near married:men1s
quarters
Juniper
iiah
lime storehouse
Juniper
iias
lime storehouse
Juniper ,
1U16
lime storehouse
J uniper
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
19th centuryo
The one piece of juniper from this site could not be
dated (Table 12),
Historic Lower Brule'Site, 39TM53
Site 39LM53 is located several miles downstream from the Big
Bend Dam#
County#
It is on the west bank of the Missouri River in Lyman
The site is a historic occupation with log buildings#
Three
specimens, two of populus and one of juniper, were in the collection
(Table 13)®
No dates could be determined for this material#
Post-contact Coalescent Horizon Sites
This horizon as defined by Lehmer and Caldwell (1966) included
the developments that took place in the Middle Missouri region after
the 17th century or in the proto-historic and historic period#
One
of the main unifying factors of the excavated sites is the presence
of European trade goods in the collections from them#
Another point
most of these sites have in common is the assumed or documented occu­
pation of them by the Arikara#
Several of the sites discussed here have more than one com­
ponent#
Some of these components correctly belong in other horizons#
These sites are included here because the tree-ring dates from them
can best be placed in this horizon and the specimens are generally
associated with the related components#
Material from l£ sites is discussed in this section#
These
sites are located throughout the entire portion of the Missouri River
dealt with in this study#
The most recent of the sites is the
Table 12o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 3%K^1
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
7
P3j floor
juniper
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
-F3 = (?) house
-O
O
Table 13. Archaeological Tree-ling Specimens from the Historic Lower Brule Site, 39 LM53
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
91
FI
populus
290
F3
populus
l£8
F?
juniper
Dates
FI - burned, dirt roofed, log building with 3 sections or rooms
F3 = north room of El
F7 = cabin beside FI
Plotted
P
Remarks
72
Leavenworth site, 39009, in Corson County.
No dates have been ob­
tained for it, but its occupation in the first quarter of the 19th
century by the Arikara is well documented*
The Four Bear site, 39DW2, and the Medicine Crow site, 39BF2,
have also been associated with Arikara occupation*
From the first of
these, four specimens have been dated between A„D* 1758 and A0D* 177Uc
Six dates for material from 39BF2 range from A#B„ 1705 to A*D. 1776*
In addition, one other date from the Rosa Site, 39F03, falls in the
second half of the 18th century at A [email protected] 1766*
Material from three other sites including the Talking Crow
site, 39BF3, one of the Oacoma sites, 391M26, and the Fort George
site, 39ST17, have provided dates in the later portion of the 17th
and early portion of the 18th centuries*
date between A.B* 1671 and A«B0 1707*
Five specimens from 39BF3
Ten dates ranging from A0D0 1669
to A,Da 1731 have been obtained from 39LM26, and two tentative dates
of A*D® 1667 and A»D* 1723 come from 39ST17o
Two sites for which no tree-ring dates could be determined
have been assigned temporal positions by other methods.
A radiocarbon
date of A<sB* 1710 ± 80 years has been obtained for a specimen from
39SL2lu
Occupation between A.D. 1700 and A.D# 1725 has been proposed
for the components of the Swan Creek site, 39WW7, from which the wood
samples studied were obtained.
Specimens from the Buffalo Pasture site, 39ST6, could not be
dated with the available chronologies.
!
A site chronology has been
73
established for the material.
This chronology will allow internal
temporal comparison of the materials® .
No dates have been determined for specimens from five of the
sites in this horizon®
Two of these, the Davis site, 3?G01i|., and one
of the Oacoma sites, 39IM27, contained no dateable species®
The
material from the Crazy Bull site, 39DM220, could not be dated.
Final
analysis could not be completed on the Larson site, 39W2, and the
Red Horse Hawk site, 39C03U, and no dates have been obtained for
either of them*
The Leavenworth Village, 39009
This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri River a
few miles upstream from the confluence of the Grand River in Corson
County,
The site was occupied by the Arikara during the period from
about AsDs l800 to A CD 0 1833=
Approximately I4.OO pieces of wood and
charcoal were available for study from the site®
The great majority
of the material was in fragmentary condition and consisted primarily
of populus with some ash, willow, and unidentified bark fragments
(Table llj.)= No dates were obtained from the specimens in this col­
lection*
The Four Bear Site, 39M2
This site is situated near the mouth of Buffalo Skin Greek
(Le Beau Greek) in Dewey County,
The cultural material has been
assigned to the Four Bear phase (Hurt and others 1962),
It is be­
lieved that Lewis and Clark saw this site while it was still occupied
in October, I80lj. (Hurt and others 1962; v)»
Table lit0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
U320
1227, P2k5
populus
L321
1227, F2k5
populus
U322
1227, P2k5
populus
1323
1227, F 2 M
populus
132k
2227, F2k3
populus
k325
2227, F2k5
populus
k326
2227, F2k5
populus
k327
2227,
populus
k328
1227, F2k5
populus
if.329
2227, F2U5
populus
k330
1227, F2k5
populus
k331
2227, F2U5
populus
2227, F2k5
populus
k333
2227, F2k5
populus
h33h
2227, F2U5
populul
k332
,
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
Table llu
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3900?— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
1*335
1227 $ F245
populus
U336
X227, F245
populus
ii337
1227, F245
populus
4338
1227, F245
populus
4339
1227, F245
populus
4340
1227, F245
populus
4341
1227, F245
populus
4342
1 1227, F245
populus
4343
1227, 1245
populus
4344
1227, 1245
populus
4345
1227, 1245
populus
4346
1227, 1245
populus
4347
1227, 1245
populus
4348
1227, 1245
populus
4349
1227, 1245
populus
6174
1225,
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table liu
Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth Village* 39009— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
6175
X225
populus
6176
X223>
populus
6177
X225
'
populus
-6178
X225
populus
6179
X225>
populus
6180
X225
populus
6181
X225
populus
6182
. X225
populus
6183
X225»
populus
6l81|.
X225
populus
6185
X225
populus
6186
X225
populus
6187
X220
populus
6188
X225
populus
6189
X225
populus
6190
X225
populus
6191
X225
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table liu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Villages 39009— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
6192
1225
populus
6193
1225
populus
619k
3C225
populus
6195
1225.
populus
6196
1225
populus
6197
X225
populus
6198
1225
populus
6199
X225
populus
6200
X225
populus
6201
X225
populus
6202
2225
populus
6203
X225
populus
620k
X225
populus
6205
X225
populus
6206
X225
populus
6207
X225
populus
6208
X225
populus
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
fab le lUs
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e ,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
6209
122$
populus
6210
122$
populus
6211
122$
populus
6212
122$
populus
6213
122$
populus
621U
X22$
populus
6290
X22hs F770
populus
6291
222US F770
populus
7172
X8$0
populus
7173
2850
populus
717b
2850
populus
7175
2850
populus
7176
2850
populus
7177
populus
7178
2850
\
• 2850
7179
2850
populus
populus
P lo tted
39
GO9 —Continued
Remarks
Table l lu
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e, 39GG9—Continued.
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
7180
X8£o
populus
19896
X1567, P150S
ash and
Bark (Spp0)
19897
X1567, F15'03
ash and
bark (Spp*)
19898
Xl56? $ F1505
ash and
bark (Spp,}
19899
11567, 51505
ash and
bark (Spp*)
19900
X1567, F1505
ash and
bark (Spp*)
19901
11567, Fl5o5
ash and
bark (Spp*)
19902
X1567, F1505
ash and
bark (Spp*)
19926
X1567, F1510
populus
19927
X1567, F1510
populus
19928
11567, F1510
populus
19929
X1567, F1510
populus
19930
XL567, F1510
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
fab le llte
A rchaeological free-R ing Specimens from the Leavenworth Tillage-, 39009—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
19931
11567, F1510
populus
19932
20.567, $1510
populus
19933
11567, $1510
populus
19931
11567, $1510
populus
19935
11567, P1510
populus
19936
11567, P1510
populus
19937
11567, F1510
populus
19938
20.567, R 510
populus
19939
11567, $1510
populus
199k©
20.567, $1510
populus
19910.
20.567, $1510
populus
199U2
11567, $1510
populus
199k3
20.567, $1510
populus
199k.lt
20.567, $1510
populus
199k5
11567, $1510
populus
199k6
20.567, $1510
populus
Dates
P lo tte d
Remarks
Table lit*
Specimen
Humber
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e, 3900P--Continued
Provenience
Species
199117
21^67, F1510
populus
199118
21567, F1510
populus
199U9
21567, F1510
populus
19959
21567, F1510
populus
19951
21567, F1510
populus
19952
21567, F1510
populus
19953
21567, F1510
populus
19955
21567, 5151©
populus
19955
21567, 12510
populus
19956
21567, F1510
populus
19957
21567, FL510
populus
19958
21567, F1510
populus
19959
21567, F1510
19960
21567, F1510
populus
19961
21567, F1510
populus
19962
21567, F1510
populus
19963
21567, F1510
populus
.
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 11+, A rchaeological TreeSBing Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39Q09—Continued
Specimen
lumber.
Provenience
1996^
11567, P1510
19965
30.567, n 5 lO
populus
19966
30.567, F1510
populus
19967
11567, F1510
populus
19968
30.567, F1510
populus
19969
11567, P1510
populus
19970
21567, F1510
19971
21567, F1510
populus
19972
21567, F1510
populus
19973
21567, F1510
populus
1997b
21567, F1510
populus
19975
30.567, F1510
populus
19976
21567, F1510
populus
19977
21567, F1510
populus
19978
21567, F1510
populus
19979
21567, F1510
populus
19980
21567, F1510
populus
Species
-
'
populus
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table lib
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e, 39009—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
19981
11567, F1510
populus
19982
11567, F1510
populus
19983
H 567, $1510
populus
1998a
H 567 , 5-1510
populus
19985
11567, F1510
populus
20020
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Sppe)
20021
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp6)
20022
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp0)
20023
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp«)
2002^
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp»)
20025
11567, F1512
populus and
bark ( 8pp.)
20026
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (3pp.)
20027
11567, F1512, cache p i t
wood more recen t than p i t
Ash
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table Ik*
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e, 39009—Continued
Specimen
Humber.
Provenience •
Species
20028
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
20029
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (Spp0)
20030
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (Spp.)
80031
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
20032
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
20033
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
2003k
13.567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
2003$
11567, F1512
populus and
b a rk . (8pp.)
20036
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
20037
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
20038
11567, $1512
populus and
bark (8pp.)
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table lit® A rchaeological f r e e - lin g Specimens from th e Leavenworth V illa g e, 39009—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20039
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp„)
200U0
XL567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
200141
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
20012
11567, F1512
200it3
X1567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
populus and
bark (Spp®)
200itU
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
200li.5
11567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp® >
200W
X1567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
2001+7
XL567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
200W
X1567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
2001+9
X1567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp®)
20050
X1567, F1512
populus and
bark (Spp,)
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Sable l k °
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e? 39GQ9—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
20051
11567 s F1512
20052
X1567, F1512
20053
H 567, F1512
20051
30.567, F1512
20055
11567, F1512
20056
11567, F1512
20057
11567, 51512
populus and
bark (Spp#)
20058
11567, F1512
populus
20059
21567, F1512, cache p i t
wood more recen t than p i t
ash
20060
11567, F1512, cache p i t
wood more recen t than p i t
ash
20061
20062
11567, 51512
11567, Fl5lit
populus
populus and
bark (Spp#)
20063
11567, Fl5llt
populus and
bark (Spp#)
Species
Dates
populus and
bark (Spp.)
populus and
bark (Spp0)
populus and
bark (Spp0)
populus and
bark (Spp#)
. populus and
bark (Spp#)
populus and
bark (Spp#)
P lo tted
Remarks
Table lii.0 A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39009—Continued
Number
- i. *
Provenience
Species
J
.. -
20061).
30.367* Pl3lb
populus and
bark (Sppc)
20063
30.367* P l3lb
populus and
bark (Spp0)
20066
X1367* Fl3lli
populus and
bark (Spp,)
2006?
3C1367* Fl3lU
populus and
bark (Spp0)
JL. U
*
20068
'11367, F l3lb
populus and
bark (Spp„}
20069
11367, Fl3lb
populus and
bark (Spp,)
20070
11367* F i3lb
20071
11367, F l3lb
populus and
bark (Spp.)
populus and
bark (Spp.)
20072
1
l
X
20073
21367, F i3lb
2007b
11367* F1313
populus
20073
11367* F1313
populus
20076
11367, F1313
populus
populus and
bark (Spp.)
populus and
bark (Spp.)
B lotted
Remarks
Table lUo
Specimen
Number
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illa g e, 39009—-Continued
Provenience
Species
20077
20078
21567, 11515
populus
' 11567, 11515
populus
20079
X1567, P1515
populus
20080
21567, P1515
populus
20081
21567, P1515
populus
20082
21567, F1515
populus
20083
21567, F1515
populus
20084
21567, #1515
populus
20085
21567, #1515
populus
20086
21567, fi5 i5
populus
20087
21567 , I i5 i5
populus
20088
21567, 11515
populus
20098
21567, I 1517 s cache p i t '
ash
20099
21567, 11517
populus
20100
21567, 11517
populus
20101
21567, I l i a !
populus
20102
21567, 11521
populus
20103
2156?, 11521
populus
Bates
Plotted.
Remarks
Table lU*
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens.from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39C09—-Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
201014
11567, F1521
populus
20105
11567, F1521
populus
20106
11567, F1521
populus
20107
11567, F1521
populus
20108
11567, F1521
populus
20109
11567, F1521
populus
20110
11567, F1521
populus
20111
. 11567, $1521
populus
20112
11567, F1521
populus
20113
11567, F1521
populus
201114
11572, post
s a lix
20115
11572, post
ash
20116
11572
ash
20117
11572,
ash
20118
11572
ash
20119
11572
populus
20120
11572
ash
20121
11572
populus
and ash
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table liu
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20122
3.572, 11522
populus
and ash
20123
3.572, F1522
2012b
3.572, F1522
populus
and ash
populus
and ash
20125
3 5 7 2 , F1522
populus
and ash
20126
3 5 7 2 , F1522
populus
and ash
20127
3 5 7 2 , F1522
populus
and ash
20128
3 5 7 2 , F1522
populus
and ash
20129
3 5 7 2 , F1522
20130
3 5 7 2 , F1522
populus
and ash
populus
and ash
20131
3 5 7 2 , F1522
20132
3 5 7 2 , F1522
20133
3 5 7 2 , F1522
- populus
and ash
populus
and ash
populus
and ash
Dates
G —Qontinued
39 09
P lo tted
Remarks
Table II4.0 A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39009—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
2013b
11572, F1522
populus
and ash
20135
11572, 11522
20136
11572 , P1522
20137
X1572, Fl52b
20138
m 572, Fl52b
populus
and ash
populus
and ash
populus and
bark (Spp„)
populus and
bark (Spp,)
20139
n . 572 , F152 U
populus and
bark (Spp,)
201b0
X1572, P15214
populus and
bark (Spp0)
201b!
201U2
11572 , 21523
populus
11572 , 21523
populus
20113
11572, P1523
populus
2011tb
11572, F1577
populus
20155
11568, 21529
bark (Spp,)
20156
11568, 21529
bark (Spp,)
20157
11568, 21530
bark (Spp,)
20158
11568, 21530
bark (Spp,)
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table lUo
Specimen
Humber
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village^ 39G09—Continued
Provenience
Species
Dates
20159
20160
Xl568? 1153©
Bark (Spp0)
X1568, F1535
bark (Sppo)
20161
21568, 11535
bark (Sppo)
20162
21568, 11535
20163
21568, $1535
bark (Sppo)
2016^
20165
21568, 51535
21568, 51535
bark (Sppo5
bark (SppQ)
20166
21568, 51535
bark (Spp«)
2016?
• 21568, 51535
' bark (%Pe)
20168
21568, 51535
bark (Spp»)
20169
21568, 51538
bark (SpPo)
20170
21568, 51538
bark (SpPo)
20171
21568, 51538
bark (SPPo)
20172
21568, 51538
bark (Sppo)
20173
21568 , F1538
bark (Spp0)
2017k
21568, 51538
bark (SPP=)
20175
21568, 51538
bark (Sppo)
20176
21568, 51538
bark
-
bark (Sppo)
( SPPo)
P lo tted
Remarks
Specimen
Number
Provenience
20177
Z1568, 31538
I
f
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from th e Leavenworth T illa g e , 39009—Continued
20178
215685 F1538
bark (Spp„)
20179
21568, F1538
bark (Spp,)
20180
21568, H538
bark (Sppc)
20181
' 21568, 31538
bark (Spp,)
20182
50.568, 31538
20183
21568, 31538
bark (Spp0)
2018^
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20185
21568, 31538
bark (Spp0)
20186
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
2018?
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20188
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20189
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20190
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20191
21568, 31538
1
f
Table llj .0
20192
21568, 31538
bark (8pp.)
20193
21568 , P1538
bark (Spp.)
20194
21568, 31538
bark (Spp.)
Dates
Sw ^
Species
P lo tted
Remarks
1
!
Table lk »
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth V illage, 39^09—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20195
11568, P1538
bark (Spp,)
20273
11650, F1621
popului and
ash mixed
20271*
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20275
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20276"
X1650, F1621
20277
X1650, F1621
20278
n 6 5 o , $1621
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
20279
H 650, F1621.
populus and
ash mixed
20280
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20281
%1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20282
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20283
n 6 5 o , F1621
populus and
ash mixed
Pates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table lit#
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20283+
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20285
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20286
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
2028?
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20288
n 6 5 o , F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20289
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20290
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20291
XL650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20292
n 6 5 o , F1621
populus and
ash mixed
20293
X1650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed
2029lt
XI650 , F1621
populus and
ash mixed
Dates
C —Continued
39 09
P lo tted
Remarks
Table Iko
v » -•
>" * '
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39009—Continued
• *r •
••
*
.
‘
•
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20295
11650, F1621
populus and
ash mixed .
20296
11650 , F1621
20297
21650, 11621
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
20298
H 650 , F I 621
20299
21650, F1721
20300
X1650, 51721
20301
21650, 51721
20302
21650, F1721
populus and
ash mixed
20303
21650, F1721
2030k
21650, F1721
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
20305
21650, F1721
populus and
ash mixed
20306
21650, F1721
populus and
ash mixed
'
’
Dates
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
+ *
P lo tte d
r-. •
Remarks
fa b le lUo
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag es 39009—.Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20307
Xi65o} F1721
20308
XI630 , 11721
populus and
ash mixed
populus and
ash mixed
20309
X1630, 11622
populus
20310
XI630 , 11622
populus
20312
21630,-11622
populus
20312
2L630, F1622
populus
11630, 11622
populus
20314
X1630, 11622
populus
20313
30.630, F1622
populus
20316
11630, F1622
populus
20360
11368, 11349
hackberry
20361
11368, 11349
hackberry
20362
30.368, 11349
hackberry
20363
30.368, 11349
hackberry
20364
30.368, 11349
hackberry
20363
30.368, 11349
hackberry
20366
11368, 11349
hackberry
20313
.
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table llu
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag es 39009—Continued
Specimen
lumber
Provenience
Species
20367
X1568, 31549
hackberry
20368
X1568, F1549
hackberry
20369
X1568, F1549
hackberry
20370
Xl568s F1549
hackberry
20371
11568s F1549
hackberry
20372
X1568, F1549
hackberry
20373
X1568, F1549
hackberry
20374
X1568, P1549
hackberry
20375
' 30-568, F1549
hackberry
20376
30568, P1549
hackberry
20377
30568, 31549
hackberry
20378
30568, F1549
hackberry
20379
30568, 31549
hackberry
20380
30568, F1549
hackberry
20381
30568, F1549
hackberry
20382
30568, F1549
hackberry
20383
XI568, 31549
hackberry
20384
30568, F1549
hackberry
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table Ilia
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illag e, 39C09*—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
20385
X1568, Fl5h9
hackberry
20386
X1568, F15U9
hackberry
20387
X1568, P15L9
hackberry
20lt06
X1651, F1679, m ortar
ash
20L07
X l65l, FI 678, s trin g e rs and
post
oak
201.28
X1568, F1533, wood flo o rin g
in cache p i t
populus, s a lix
and bark (Spp0)
20k5h
(?)
bark (Spp,)
20156
X1500, Midden
ash
X22j| = House 3h, Lower V illag e, c ir c u la r e arth lodge
X225 = House h i 9 Lower V illag e, c irc u la r earth lodge
X227 = Midden T est, Lower V illage
X8*?0 = House, Lower t i l l a g e , c irc u la r earth lodge
Xl^OO = Midden (?)
Xl56? - (?) Lower V illage
XI5)68 = (?) Lower V illage
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
fabl© lit* ' Archaeological Sree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illage, 39009—Continued
Xl572 = 6th road p a tro l out, Lower V illage
X1650 = House 20, Upper V illa g e, c irc u la r earth lodge
US$1 - (? ), Upper V illage
F2liS = wood in trench in 122?
F770 * eharred wood in X22l|.
H505 = cache p i t
in 11567
F1510 = cache p i t
in 11567
51512 = wood from cache p i t in XL567
F l5 lh = (?) in 3(1567
F1515 = cache p i t in 21567
F l5l7 ® wood from cache p i t in 21567
F1521 = cache p i t
in 21567 with post adjacent to North rim
51522 = cache p i t
in 30.572
F1523 = cache p i t
in 21572
Fl52it = cache p i t
in 11572
F1529 = (?)
F1530 « cache p i t
in 21568
F1535 = cache p it
in 21568 with wood fragments
F1538 = cache p i t
in 21568
|Table ll *0
A rchaeological Tree=Eing Specimens from the Leavenworth T illa g e , 39009—Oomtinued
P15U9 - wood fragments from cache p it in Xl568
$1577 = cache p its in X1572
51621 = (7)
P1622 « cache p it in X1650
51678 = strin g ers and post in 21651
F1679 • wooden mortar in 21651
51721 - (?)
102
Five specimens a ttr ib u te d to t h i s s i t e , a l l of ju n ip e r, have
been studied*
Dates have been determined f o r fo u r of the specimens*
The dates range from A0D0 1758 to A0D„ 1775 (Table 15)»
There i s ,
however, a question whether th ese specimens are a c tu a lly from 39D¥2e
The Medicine Grow S ite , 39BF2
This s i t e is lo cated four m iles west of F o rt Thompson on the
e a st bank of the M issouri R iver in Buffalo County*
I t i s a th re e -
component s i t e which has been te n ta tiv e ly dated between A«D0 1690 and
A*D* 1780*
The occupation has been id e n tifie d as A rikara (Deetz 1965)*
The d atin g , c u ltu r a l id e n tif ic a tio n , and European tra d e m ateria ls r e ­
covered would a l l lead to the placement of the s i t e complex in the
P o st-co n tact Goalescent Horizon®
There are 55 pieces of wood and charcoal rep re se n tin g 30 d is ­
c re te specimens in the s i t e collection®
Of the 30 specimens, six are
ju n ip e r, fiv e are ash, 17 are populus and two are o f u n id en tifie d
species (Table 16 )® Six d a te s, two of which are te n ta tiv e , have been
determined fo r th is material®
The dates f a l l between A®D® 1705 and
AoD® 1776 but none of them are c u ttin g dates®
A ll of the dated
specimens are derived from Area A of th e s i t e which contains m ateria ls
rep re se n ta tiv e of Components A and B® Deetz (1965$ 38-9} has sug­
gested th a t these two components date between A®[email protected] 1720 and A*D» 1780
so th a t th ere i s qu ite close agreement between h is te n ta tiv e dating
and the tre e -rin g dates®
fab le l5o . A rchaeological free-B ing Specimen® from the Four Bear S ite
Specimen'
Number
.
Provenience
Species
Pates
P lo tted
2
(?)
Juniper
l?10fp - l?7l|vv
p
3
(?)
ju n ip e r
k
(?)
Juniper
1723p - 1761}.vv
P
100¥, 100N
Juniper
1699P - 1767W
P
U0¥, 90N
Juniper
l696p - 1768w
f
21
91
-
P
39
DW2
Remarks
Table
16
* A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow Site,, 39BF2
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
188
Area A, Feature 1, f i l l
populus
227
Area A, Feature 52 in Feature
1 , f i l l 0 to If. inches .
populus
2$k
Area As Feature 52 in Feature
1 , f i l l 6 to 10 in c h e s.
populus
3i*G
Area A4 Feature 52 in Feature
1 , f i l l 8 to 10 inches
ash
587
Area A, F55 in F I, f i l l 0 to
6 inches
populus
66l
Area A, F81j, in P55 of FI
cache p i t
populus
797
Area A, F55, in F I, f i l l
populus
859
Area A
populus
938
Area A, F85 in FI
bark (Spp?)
952
Area A, F89 in Fl
1 ,0 to 1 ,5 f e e t below surface
ash
1298
Area 0, F220, flo o r
ash
2365
Area B, XU2, squares J18-19
1,25 f e e t below surface
populus
21,02
Area B, XU2, squares J18-19
F65 ■ ...
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 16„
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow S ite 3 39BF2--Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
2672
populus
Area B, XU3, squares 112-13
p»5 to 0,75 f e e t below surface
W2
Area A, P5oo, l a s t w all post
populus
5lij.9A-F
Area A, F502
populus
5258
Area A3 F5oU
ash
5268A-0
Area As F5oU
5269A-C
Species
Bates
P lo tted
Remarks
one specimen
l66Unp”1713r
P
ju n ip er
(I676np-17l6w )
P
one specimen
Area A, F5oU
ju n ip e r
l66Up-1705w
P
one specimen
5270A-C
Area As F5olt
ju n ip e r
(l681»p-1717w)
P
one specimen
53WUB
Area A, F506
ju n ip er
171hp-1776vv
P .
one specimen
5608
Area A, F511, entrance post
populus
56824-0
Area A, F512
ju n ip er
l61i.6p-1768vv
P
one specimen
6121 ....
Area A, F522
populus
6II46
Area As F522
populus
69ii9A
Area C, F227
populus
69U9B
Area G, F227
ju n ip er
691490
Area 03 F227
ash
69U9D
Area C3 F227
Spp<>?
7103
Area 0, F229, cache p i t
populus
Table l 6 „ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow S ite , 39BF2—Continued
Feature 1 - c irc u la r earth lodge in Area A, entrance to the SW in Feature
Feature 52
= ME quadrant of Feature 1
Feature 53
= SB quadrant of fe a tu re 1
Feature 5h
- SW quadrant of fe a tu re 1
Feature 55
= MW.quadrant of Feature 1
Feature 65
= p o ssib le cache p i t , probably a multi-componentrodent burrow in
Feature 83
= 5 by 15 fo o t
t e s t across a cache,a continuation southward
Feature 8h
- cache p i t in
Feature 55
Feature 85
- ? in Feature
1
Area B
of Feature
1
Feature 89 = t e s t trench e a st of Feature 83, contained b u ria ls
Feature 220 - c ir c u la r
e arth lodge in Area 0
Feature 227 =c irc u la r
earth lodge in Area 0
Feature 229 = cache p i t in Area 0
earth lodge in Area A.
Feature 502 =c ir c u la r
earth lodge in Area A
Feature 50h =c ir c u la r
e a rth lodge in Area A
Feature 506 «c ir c u la r
e arth lodge in Area A
Feature $11 - c irc u la r
earth lodge in Area A
Feature 512 =c irc u la r
e arth lodge in Area A
Feature 522 = c ir c u la r ceremonial lodge, entrance to the ME, in Area A
106
Feature 500 =c ir c u la r
The Rosa S ite , 39K>3
The Rosa s i t e i s situ a te d on the e a st bank o f the M issouri
R iver southwest of th e former F o rre st C ity in P o tte r County,
A sim i­
l a r i t y of th e m a teria l from one of th e occupation a re a s. Occupation
B, of t h is multi-component s i t e to l e Beau phase m a te ria ls has-been
noted, but a d e fin ite assignment to th a t phase has not been made
(Hurt 1957s 5 -6 )o I f th is assignment i s c o rre c t, the m ateria l would
be p a rt of th e P o st-co n tact Coalescent Horizon,
There are two pieces of wood in the c o lle c tio n from the Rosa
s ite .
B,
Both of these are derived from a house assigned to Occupation
One specimen i s ju n ip e r and a te n ta tiv e date of A,De 1766 has been
determined fo r i t .
The second specimen i s pine and could not be dated
(Table I ? ) ,
The Talking Crow S ite , 39BF3This s i t e is located near the M issouri R iver south of the Big
Bend Dam in Buffalo County,
I t i s a multi-component s i t e most of
which are probably re la te d to the Coalescent Horizon*
At l e a s t one
component. Component B, has been te n ta tiv e ly assigned to th e P o rt
Thompson phase (Smith 1957? Stephenson 1954)=
There are 9k pieces of wood and charcoal in the c o lle c tio n
from th is s i t e .
These re p re se n t 81 specimens of which fo u r are ju n i­
p e r, two are a sh , and 75 are pop ulus (Table 1 8 ),
None of the mate­
r i a l i s assignable by component on the basis of r e a d ily a v a ila b le in ­
form ation,
Five o f th e specimens have been dated and provide a range
Table 17e A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Rosa Site,, 39-P03
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
'
1
HI
pine
2
Hls west side
ju n ip er
HI - c ir c u la r lodge
P lo tted
.
P
(l652p-1766vv)
P
Remarks
Table
18
„ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow S ite , 39BF3
Provenience
Species
162
F9# post
populus
163
F9 , c e n tra l support post
populus
161|.
F9, o u ter post
populus
193
5*9# ^oof ( ? ) .............
populus
2U5A-1
F9, roof tim ber, e a s t quad0
ju n ip er
2^5
F13, p o st, rec e n t o rig in
po ssibly a fence post
populus
k37
FI4,, stockade post
populus
108
F2h, e x te rio r cache p i t
populus
1|.39A
F9
ash
U39B
F9
populus
ItUo
F9 , post from North quadrant
populus
libl
F9 , post from outer row
North quadrant
populus
liU2
F9, T6
populus
hk3
F l ^ ,’outer v e rtic a l p o st,
North quadrant
populus
Will
Flf>, flo o r of North quadrant
populus
WW>
F15, roof beam, North quadrant populus
"
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
l593fp-1707w
P
one specimen
109
Specimen
lumber .
fab le 18»
A rchaeological free-B ing Specimens from, the Talking Grow S ite ,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
lih6
Pl5>, roof beam, North quadrant populus
^7
$1^, roof beam
^8
F l5, ro o f beam. North quadrant populus
a?
F15, roof beam. West quadrant populus
^0
F l5 , roof beam, l a s t quadrant
populus
ItSl
FlS, flo o r . West %uadrant
populus
h!>2
F l5, ro o f beam. West quadrant
populus
a3
FlS
populus
Ua
F l5 , roof?
populus
a6
$15, roof beam. North quadrant ju n ip er
a?
Fl5, roof beam, North quadrant populus
a8
Fl5» o u ter v e rtic a l post
North quadrant
populus
a?
115, outer v e r tic a l p o st,
North entrance
populus
5U7
132, e x te rio r cache p i t ,
Mound 1
ash
7a
F15, North quadrant
populus
. F27, fence post
Dates
P lo tted
l622p-l671w
P
I637p-l678w
P
BF3 —-Gonttnued
• Remarks
populus
- populus
110
88^
Species
39
Table
18
* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow S ite ,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
886
F27 j entrance post
populus
88?
F27 , entrance post
populus
9ia
F32 , e x te rio r cache p i t .
Mound 1
populus
9k2
H 3 , o u ter post,. .West quadrant populus
1107A-F
F39, f lo o r NW quadrant
populus
1129
F39 , f lo o r SB quadrant ...
populus
1132
F39, sla n tin g p o st, o u ter
edge, _SW' quadrant
populus
13U7
F68 , square 13
populus
1338
F68 , T13R1-ML/2
populus
11+89
F68 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed
populus
1300
F68 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed
populus
1388
F68 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed .
populus
1639
192k
F68 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed
F71, E x te rio r cache p i t near
House 3
populus
populus
198h
F62B, e x te rio r cache p i t
near house 3
populus
2111+
F39, corn cache. House 3
juniper
‘
Dates
3
y|BF3 —Continued
P lo tted
Remarks
one specimen
l331p=l687w
Table
18
„ Archaeological T ree-ling Specimens from the Talking Grow S ite s
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
2115
P68A, southeast quadrant of
House 6
populus
2116
P68A5 southeast quadrant o f
House 6
.. ..
populus
211?
F68A, southeast quadrant of
__
House 6
populus
2119
P68A, southeast quadrant of
House 6, forked beam
populus
2120A-E
F68A, n o rth east quadrant of
House 6
ju n ip e r
2121
F68A, House 6.#. edge
populus
2122
F69, f o r t if i c a t io n mound
populus
2123
F68A, flo o rj southwest
quadrant. House 6 ....
populus
212k
F68A,
House
F68A,
House
populus
2125
southwest quadrant
6
southwest quadrant
6
populus
2126
F68A, e a st .edge of House 6
populus
2128
F68B, northw est quadrant
House 7
populus
2129
F68B. northwest quadrant
House 7
populus
39
BF3 —Continued
P lo tted
Remarks
P
one specimen
Table l 8 a A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow S ite , 39BF3—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
2130
F68B, northw est quadrant,
edge o f House 7
populus
2131
F68B, northwest quadrant
House 7
populus
2133
F68B, southwest quadrant.
House 7
populus
2134
F75s e x te rio r cache p i t .
Mound 1
populus
2136
F68B, House 7
populus
2171
F68B, House 7
populus
2175
F28, southwest quadrant
House 4
populus
2176
F28 , n o rth ea st quadrant,
House 4
.
populus
2257
F68A, n o rth ea st quadrant,
edge of House 6
populus
3118
F68A, House 6
populus
3507
400030, e x te rio r post
between houses
populus
3643
F121, southwest quadrant.
House 8
populus
4394
F171, c e n tra l block. House 13
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table l 8 a A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow S ite ,
Specimen
Number
Provenience
hh$h
F172, b u tt end of post in
refu se f i l l e d e x te rio r p i t
populus
W 20
Tl5, 12 inch deep t e s t p i t
populus
5162
F28, southeast quadrant
House k ...
populus
5207
F28, northwest quadrant
House k
populus
529I1
T2, post in outer rin g , Test
in unexcavated house
populus
5295
T2, T est in unexcavated house
populus
5296
T2, Test in unexcavated house
populus
Feature U = Stockade post
Feature 9 = House 1
Feature 13 = Post of recen t o rig in
Feature 15
=House 2
Feature 2h
- e x te rio r cache p it
Feature 27
=House 3Soutside f o r tif ie d area
Feature 28
=House It, Ceremonial lodge
Feature 32
- e x te rio r cache p i t . Hound 1
"
Species
Dates
39
’
P lo tted
BP3 —Continued
Remarks
Table
18
<, A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Grow S ite , 39BF3—Continued
Feature 39 = House
Feature 623 = e x te rio r cache p i t near House $
Feature 68 = Houses 6 and 7 mixed
Feature 68A = House 6
Feature 683 = House 7
Feature 69 * F o rtif ic a tio n mound
Feature 75 = e x te rio r cache p i t , Mound 1
Feature 121 ® House 8
Feature 171 * House 13
Feature 172 = House lli. Test trench
T2 - Test in unexcavated house
T6 * Test in House 1
Tl5 » 12 inch deep t e s t p i t
from A0D« 1671 to A«D, 1707»
These were probably derived from the
l a t e r components a t the site®
The Oacoma S ite s , 39EM26 and 39LM27
These two s ite s are
CountyoThey have a mutual
s itu a te d near the town of Oacoma in Lyman
boundary®
A date of A»D® 175>0 has been
suggested fo r th e ir occupation (K iv ett 1952t 59), and the two com­
ponents have been assigned to the F ort Thompson phase®
This l a t t e r
would place them in the P ost-contact. Coalescent Horizon*
There are II4I4 pieces of wood and charcoal a v a ila b le from
39LM26 fo r study*
This number a c tu a lly re p re se n ts only 36 in d iv id u al
specimens of which 21 are ju n ip e r, nine are populus, fiv e are ash,
and one i s bark from an u n id en tifie d sp ecies (Table 19)»
A ll but two
of th e specimens were derived from c ir c u la r housesc Ten d ate s ranging
from A.Do 1669 to
f a l l in
A0D„ 1731 have been determinedj two te n ta tiv e dates
t h is same time span®
From 39LM27, th ere are 25 pieces of wood and c h arco al.
are a c tu a lly only th ree in d iv id u al specimens.
These
A ll are populus and
none could be dated (Table 20), .
The F ort George B ite, 39ST17
This s i t e i s lo cated on the west bank of the M issouri liv e r a
few m iles south of P ie rre in Stanley County,
Although a f in a l rep o rt
on the s i t e is y e t to be published, i t has been described as being a
p roto-his'boric A rikara s i t e .
T entative datin g places th e occupation
between A,D, 1700 and A,D» 17^2 (Hoffman 1965)»
Table 19o A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma S ite , 3912426
Specimen
Humber
.
Provenience
Species
93h2
n i
Bark (Sppc)
107lt$
f l9
populus
10751A-L
F2
populus
populus
10753"
House f i l l
.
Bates
P lo tte d
10755A/1-3
P H , Posts n o rth east outer
row
ju n ip e r
l 63Ufp-l 68lv v
P
10755B/1-2
P H , Posts n o rth east ou ter
row
ju n ip e r
l 6ijln p -l 699 vv
P
1076 b
PH
populus
10773
11002A-G
#11
populus
F15, l a3 f e e t below surface
ju n ip e r
128 blA-W
F76
populus
15218A/1-7
F90
populus
15218B
#90
ash
226011-%
#50
ju n ip er
I 632p”l 696vv
P
26383A»g
#80
ash .
P
F35-1
F35
ju n ip er
P
F35-2A & B
#35
ju n ip er
P
P50-1A-K '
#50
populus
Remarks
Table 19o A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma S ite , 39M26—Oontinueci
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
F50-2
F30
ju n ip e r
FS0- 3A/1 -2
F50
ju n ip e r
F50-3B
F50
ju n ip er
P
b
F5o
ju n ip e r
P
F30-5A & B
f 5o
ju n ip e r
P
F30-6A & B
F30 .
ju n ip er
F^d—7
#50
ju n ip er
F50-8
F50
FgO-9A & B
Pgo-hA &
Bates
P lo tted
Remarks
(l632p-17l5w )
P
same as
F30-11
l65lp-1732w
P
l 376p - l 686w
P
ju n ip er
l62hnp-17 Oli.vv
P
F30
ju n ip e r
I6l5p-1711w
P
FgO-lOA & B F30
ju n ip er
FgO-llA & B F50
ju n ip e r
F50-12
F50
ju n ip e r
F50-13A-B
F50
ju n ip er
F80-1
F80
ash
F80-2
F80
ash
F90—
1A—
0
F90
ju n ip e r
F90-2
F90
ash
P
l 61i6np- 1712w
P
same as
F50-2
P
(I701p-1736vv)
P
l6 3 3 P " l6 6 9 w
P
118
'
-
Table 19»
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oaooma S ite ,
39
M 2 6 —Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
P lo tted
Misc, 14-0
(?)
ju n ip er
l651np-l693w
P
MisCo 2
(?)
populus
Misco 3
(?)
populus
F2 * c ir c u la r lodge
F l l = c irc u la r lodge
$15 = (?)
$19 = (?)
$35 = c ir c u la r lodge
F50 = c ir c u la r lodge
F?6 = storage p i t in F110
F80 = c ir c u la r lodge
F90 = c ir c u la r lodge
$110 = c ir c u la r lodge
Remarks
fa b le 20o Irch a e o lo g ie a l Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oaeoma S ite , 39LM27
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
ltO?2
F2, O05 to 1*0 fe e t
populus
U335A-Z
F5
populus
U3A3A-K
F I, Square N210
'
Bates
P lo tted
Remarks
populus
F2 = c ir c u la r lodge
H = Test square
F5 - Storage p i t in F2
120
121
There are If? pieces of wood and charcoal making up 13 d is c re te
specimens in the F ort George s i t e c o lle c tio n s .
Of the 13 specimens,
nine are ju n ip e r, two are populus, one i s ash, and one could not be
id e n tifie d (Table 21)*
S ig h t d a te s, two o f them te n ta tiv e , have been
determined from m a teria l in t h is c o lle c tio n .
These dates range from
A„De 166? to AeD6 1723, but none are c u ttin g d a te s.
In general the
tr e e - rin g dates agree q u ite w ell with the proposed period fo r the
occupation.
S ite 39SL2U
This s i t e i s located on th e e a s t bank of the M issouri River
in th e l i t t l e Bend in S ully Gounty,
The s i t e m a te ria l i s unpublished
but i s described as being sim ila r to th a t from the Molstad s i t e
(Hoffman 1967: k$)o
A radiocarbon determ ination on wood from 39SL2ij.
has provided a date of A,D, 1710 ± 80 y e a rs.
The a v a ila b le informa­
tio n would in d ic a te th a t 39Sl2lj. i s re la te d to the R ost-contact Hori­
zon,
There are two specimens of populus a v a ila b le from the s i t e
(Table 22), b ut no dates could be obtained fo r these specimens.
The Swan Greek S i t e , 39’W7
This s i t e i s s itu a te d on Swan Greek in Walworth Gounty south
of Mobridge,
There are fo u r occupation areas in the s i t e of which
one. Occupation A, has been assigned to the Akaska phase and th e
o ther th re e , Occupations B, 0, and D have been assigned to th e Le
Beau phase (Hurt 1957)®
Occupations B and 0,
A ll of th e wood m ateria l i s asso ciated with
A date of A«D, 1700 has been suggested fo r
Table
21
„ "Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the F o rt George S ite , 39ST17
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Dates
P lo tted
7
back f i l l
ash
l 6hhp-l 679vv
P
3h
F2 , Pl5, stockade post
populus
109
F9 , P2 , . not s tr u c tu r a l
(?)
111
F9 , P21, lea n e r post
ju n ip er
l622p-1723vv
P
112
F9, P22 , lea n er post
ju n ip er
l 609p - l 667#vv
P
250
F3h, roofing
j w ip e r
l 601p - l 667 vv
P
252
F3I1, roofing
ju n ip er
l 6o8p - l 68 hvv
P
319B/1 & 2
Fii.7 , square 3
ju n ip e r
3hl
Fit?, P10, palisad e post
populus
603
f l l h , ' P16
ju n ip e r
l 629 p~l668vv
P
795A & B
826
F125, P69
ju n ip er
(l6 3 lp -l6 6 7 w )
P
F129, p i t f i l l
ju n ip e r
1118
F173, P33
ju n ip er
Remarks
x
P
P
(l65hnp"l699w )
P
F2 » f o r t if i c a t io n d itc h
F9 = House 1, c ir c u la r house
FSh = c ir c u la r ceremonial house
122
Flj.7 = palisade
Table 21#
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the F o rt George S ite ,
39
ST1 ?—Continued
a -lii = f o r t if i c a t io n d itc h
F12f? == House 3» c ir c u la r house
EL29 = cache p i t undercutting p alisade
FI?3 == p i t in entryway of House 6
123
Table 22*
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL2U
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
189
surface
populus
23?
F23 PI & PIO, outer posts
n o rth east edge
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
F2 * la rg e c irc u la r ceremonial lodge
H
ro
£r
125
Occupation B and a term inal date of A„D0 1725 has been proposed f o r
the Le Beau phase occupation a t th is s i t e (Hurt 1957, 27)*
Both the
Akaska and l e Beau phases are placed in the P o st-c o n tac t Coalescent
Horizon*
There are ten pieces of wood in the s ite c o lle c tio n re p re ­
sen tin g e ig h t in d iv id u a l specimens*
The m a teria l c o n sists of six
specimens of populus and one each of ju n ip er and pine (Table 23)a.
No dates could be determined fo r t h is c o llectio n *
The B uffalo P asture S iie 3 39ST6
Buffalo P asture i s situ a te d on the west bank of the M issouri
River j u s t above the axis of Oahe Dam in S tan ley County*
I t is
ch aracterized by th e S tanley and Snake Butte phases? both of which
have been dated in the 18th century (Lehmer 195k: 119-21)*
The
Stanley and Snake Butte phases have re c e n tly been made components of
the P o st-c o n tac t Coalescent Horizon (lehmer and Caldwell 1966)*
There are 29 pieces of wood from the Buffalo P asture s i t e
which can be reduced to 21 d iff e re n t specimens*
Five of these sp e c i­
mens are ju n ip e r, Ik are populus, and one each i s pine and bark of an
u n id en tifie d species (Table 2k)*
A s i t e chronology 126 years in
len g th has been constructed based on fo u r of the ju n ip e r specimens*
I have n o t, however, been able to c ro ss-d a te the s i t e chronology with
the dated ones*
The Davis S ite , 39C01k
This s i t e is on the south bank o f the Grand R iver near i t s
confluence with the M issouri River in Corson County*
I t has been
Table 23#
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Swan Greek S ite , 39 W7
Specimen
Number
P rovenience
S p e c ie s
1
House A* house shoulder
pine
2A & B
House bn house shoulder
populus
3
House k) flo o r
populus
k
B urial A6
populus
5>A & B
(?)
populus
$99
House a t north end of s i t e
populus
600
House a t north end of s i t e
ju n ip e r
601
House a t north end of s i t e
populus
D ates
P lo tte d
Remarks
126
Table 2ke A rchaeologieal Tree-Blng Speelmens from the Buffalo P asture Site,, 39ST6
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Bates
P lo tted
Remarks
T29A-0
$1 , f i l l
ju n ip er
53fp-119w
P
USNM # A13826
1383 *
F I, flo o r
populus
USNM # A13839
1385A-D
FA, flo o r
populus
USNM # A13839
•
FA, flo o r
populus
USH # A13839
1396A & B
FA, flo o r, n o rth ea st quadrant
populus
USNM # A138AO
1588
F13A in FA
populus
USNM # A138AA
1678A
P19
ju n ip e r
I 678B
F19
populus
USNM # A138A6
(? ) pine
USNM # A138A6
1366
16780-E
' 119
.
...
.
63p- 123 w
F
USNM § A138A6
1835
F30 , northw est quadrant
populus
USNM # A13850
is ia
F30, southeast quadrant
populus
USNM # A13851
iQkh
F30 , southwest quadrant
populus
USNM # A13852
1998
F30, f i l l
populus
USNM # A1385A
2066
F30, flo o r
populus
USNM # A13856
2091
F35
populus
USNM # A13859
2280
F57, "boat" (?)
bark (Sjpp.)
USNM # A13A81
2326
f 6oa
ju n ip er
lp - 126 vv
P
USNM # A13865
2555
South Stockade
juniper
A8p - 123w
P
USNM # 113867
'
'■
Table 2l|.0 A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Buffalo Pasture S ite , 39ST6—-Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
26?8A
Feature G
juniper
USNM # 113606
2678B
Feature G
populus
USNM # 113606
MisCo 1
(>)
populus
USNM # 1413899
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
51 = c ir c u la r e arth lodge
fit = c ir c u la r e arth lodge
F13A = cache p i t in P i
F19 = cache p i t in F i
F30 = c ir c u la r e a rth lodge
F35 = cache p i t in F^O
F30 = c ir c u la r e arth lodge
F3? = cache p i t in F^O
F60i = p alisade
Feature G = cache p i t in midden area
128
129
d e s c rib e d as b e in g c l o s e ly r e l a t e d c u l t u r a l l y to th e m a te r i a l from th e
Swan Greek S i t e , 39W2 (Bowers I p o ? )„
T h is r e l a t i o n s h i p would p la c e
th e complex i n th e P o s t- c o n ta c t G o a lesc en t Horizon®
T here a re 2j?
p ie c e s o f populus in th e s i t e c o l l e c t i o n t h a t a re r e p r e s e n ta ti v e o f
2k in d iv id u a l specim ens ( T able 25)*
Mo d a te s could be d e riv e d f o r
t h i s m a te r ia le
The C razy B u ll S i t e , 39EM220
'
The C razy B u ll S i t e i s in th e neck o f th e Big Bend o f th e
M iss o u ri R iv e r i n Lyman County®
I t has been a ss ig n e d to th e Choteau
A sp e c t, o r p h a se , and a d a te n e a r A®B® 1700 h as been su g g este d f o r
i t s o c cu p a tio n (F ra n tz 1962)®
The c u l t u r a l a f f i l i a t i o n and su g g ested
d a tin g in d ic a te t h a t t h i s s i t e b elo n g s in th e P o s t- c o n ta c t G o alescen t
Horizon®
There a re th r e e wood specim ens i n th e c o l l e c t i o n from
39LM220 in c lu d in g one each o f ju n ip e r , oak, and p o pulus (T ab le 26)®
A ll of th e specimens were derived from one house®
No dates could be
determined®
The L arso n S i t e , 39WW2
The Larson s i t e is s itu a te d in Walworth County on the e a s t
bank of th e M issouri R iver a sh o rt d istan ce downstream from i t s con­
fluence w ith th e Moreau River®
tu r a l remains as proto-historic®
Bowers (196?) has described the c u l­
Although the s ite is as y e t unpub­
lis h e d , I would place the complex represented in the P o st-c o n tac t
Goalescent Horizon on the b a sis of i t s being described as p ro to -h is­
toric®
fa b le 25o A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis S ite ,
Provenience
Species
178
m , ?5, l o t 131
populus
558
XU2, P25, Lot 155
populus
791
XU5(A), PH2, Lot 222
populus
792A & B
XU5(A)S P3j Lot 223
populus
793
185(4), P7, Lot 225
populus
798
XUh(A), P13," Lot 225
populus
799
XU5(A)S P17, Lot 226
populus
800
XU5(A), Hear P26, Lot 227
populus
802
XU5, P35, Lot 228
populus
803
XU5(A); P38 , Lot 229
populus
805
XU5, P261, Lot 230
populus
807
XU5(A), P271, Lot 231
populus
809
XU5(A), P282, Lot 232
populus
818
BJ5(A), P327, Lot 233
populus
819
XU5(A), P332, Lot 235
populus
820
XU5(A), P355, Lot 235
populus
899
XU5(B), P72, Lot 215
populus
Dates
P lo tted
GOII4
Remarks
130
Specimen
Humber
39
fa b le 25>o A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis S ite , 39G01h—Continued
Specimen
lumber
Provenience
Species
900
XUlt(B), P88, Dot 215
populus
901
XUk(B), P132, Dot 216
populus
902
im k(B), P li|l, Dot 217
populus
90lt
M C b ) , P155, Dot 218
populus
913
XDk(B}? P182, Dot 219
populus
91k
XUk(B), P231, Dot 220
populus
915
XUk," 823k, Dot" 221
populus
Dates
■ P lo tted
Remarks
= cache p it
131
Table 26,
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crazy Bull S ite , 39231220
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
202
F I, P2, outer post
ju n ip er
205
P I, Pi;, random post
populus
213
P i, P2k) random post
oak
FI == c irc u la r lodge
Dates
P lo tted
P
Remarks
133
fhere. are llj. specimens in th e s i t e c o lle c tio n .
Of these lij.5
four are ju n ip e r, two are ash, one i s willow, and seven a re populus
(Table 27)<.
Because of a general lac k of inform ation on th e specimens
and the stru c tu re of t h i s study, f i n a l a n aly sis of the Larson s i t e
m aterial has not been done.
No dates have been determined fo r these
specimens,
The Red Horse Hawk B ite , 39C03U
This s i t e i s s itu a te d on the south bank of the Grand River
near i t s confluence with the M issouri River in Corson County*
I t has
been described as a, "m oderately la rg e , f o r t if i e d v illa g e of the l a t e
period and probably dates w ithin the 18th century" (Bowers 1963 : 118),
This d e sc rip tio n would probably f i t the complex in to th e P o st-co n tact
C oalescent Horizon*
There are kO p ieces of wood and charcoal in th e s i t e c o lle c tio n
rep resen tin g a t l e a s t lj? d is c re te specimens*
Of th e se , one specimen
is ju n ip e r, th re e a re ash , nine are populus, one i s oak, and one i s a
fragment o f bark from ah u n id en tifie d species (Table 28)*
F in a l
a n aly sis and p lo ttin g of t h is m a teria l has not been accomplished*
No
dates have been determined fo r these specimens*
Summary
On the b a sis of the above d a ta , I would assign a time range
beginning A*D* 1673 and ending near JWD* I8ij.0 fo r the complex of
s i t e s assigned to the P o st-co n tact Coalescent Horizon in South Dakota#
The 28 tr e e - rin g dates from th ese s i t e s and the one carbon-lit date
Table
27o
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Larson S ite , 39W2
Specimen
"
Number
Provenience
Species
i486
House 1, P lh, Wall (?)
ju n ip e r
-
921A/1
House 1 , support post
ju n ip e r
921A/2
House 1, support post
ju n ip er
hOSgA
House 23,
B urial 122
ju n ip er
hoS^B
House 23, Pit, B urial 122
populus
U0850
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
ash
h08$D
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
ash
ho8$i
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
s a lix
ho85F
House 23, Fit, -Burial 122
populus
k 08$G
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
populus
it085H
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
populus
U085J
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
populus
h085K
House 23, Fit, B urial 122
populus
6886
south side
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 280 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Red Horse Hawk S ite , 39C03A
Specimen
Sumber
Provenience
Species
House 1 , Lot 6 , P ile on f lo o r
ash
96A-B
House 1 3 Lot 366 , Roof cover
populus
96G-G
House 1, Lot 366 , Roof cover
ash
133
House 2 , Lot 36I1
populus
153
House 2 , Lot 36UC
populus
$ 2 $ k /l-lk
House 8, Lot 221
populus
523A/13
House 8, Lot 221
bark (Spp0)
323A/16
House 8, Lot 221
ash
627
House 11, Lot 3U2
oak
736A-D
House 12, Lot 333A, Tutish
post
populus
786A
House 13, Lot 113, 113A
Ju n ip e r
786B~0
House 13, Lot 113, 113A
populus
896A-B
House lij., Lot 230B
populus
897A-l
House lit. Lot 2300
populus
1082A-B
House 19, Lot 132
populus
Dates
,
P lo tted
,
, •
Remarks
.........
Table 28*
Archae o lo g ical Tree-Bing Specimens from th e Bed Horse Hawk S ite , 39C03U—--Continued
House 1
=c irc u la r lodge
House 2
- c irc u la r lodge,- entrance to th e southeast
House 8
« c irc u la r lodge, entrance to the south
House 10
=c irc u la r lodge
House 11
=c irc u la r lodge, entrance to the southeast
House 12
==c ir c u la r lodge, entrance to th e southwest
House 13
=c ir c u la r lodge, entrance to the n o rth east
House lU
=c irc u la r lodge
House Ip
=c irc u la r lodge
137
a l l f a l l between iUD® 166? and AJQ* 17760 The documented abandonment
of one of the s i t e s , 39009, in
1832 allows fo r the end date of
A.Do I81t0e The choice of AJ3,, 1675 fo r a beginning date i s governed
by the f a c t th a t none of the tre e -rin g dates are c u ttin g dates and
in p o in t of f a c t are a l l a t l e a s t se v e ra l years sh o rt o f a c tu a l c u t­
tin g or use d a te s.
F in a l determ ination as to the tim e of use ha,s to
be done in conjunction with other archaeological interpretation®
Since most of these s i t e s have not been reported in published form
such co n sid eratio n s can not now be discu ssed .
The Extended Coalescent Horizon
This horizon as defined by Lehmer and Caldwell ( 1966 ) includes
th e general category of phases and s i t e s re fe rre d to as La Roche®
It
would include various defined fo c i as w ell as a t l e a s t one defined
a sp ect, the Chouteau,
The authors of t h is organization have suggested
a time period of JUD, 1550 to A»D0 1700 f o r i t s d uration (Lehmer and
Caldwell 1966 )®
I have examined specimens from 11 s ite s with components of
th is horizon®
Of th e s e } tre e -rin g dates have been determined fo r
m a te ria l from one and te n ta tiv e dates have been assigned to specimens
from another.
Seven dates apply to wood c o lle c te d from the S ully
s i t e , 39SLl|.«> The date range fo r t h i s m a te ria l is from A,D„ 1663 to
AeD* I 69U0 Three te n ta tiv e dates have been assigned to specimens
from one of the Medicine Creek V illage s i t e s , 391M2,
dates f a l l between A.De 157L and A.D, 1593o
These te n ta tiv e
Four specimens from th e La Roche s i t e , 39ST232, were dated by
tr e e - r in g methods by the l a t e George F„ W ill (Meleen 19i|8 s 31 j W ill
19l|8: 69)0
He assigned fo u r dates ranging from A0D0 lh.38 to A«D* ll^ ? *
These dates cannot be accepted p rim arily because of the distan ce in ­
volved between the m aster chronologies and the lo c a tio n of the s i t e s
This d istan ce i s over 2f?0 m iles and as I have shown th e r e l i a b i l i t y
of c ro ss-d a tin g specimens over £0 m iles d is ta n t from each other is
not adequate*
I did not have access to the specimens W ill dated and
th e one piece of populus a v a ila b le to me from th is s i t e could not be
dated*
A nalysis was a lso done on m a te ria l from e ig h t other site s *
These include the Ho H eart Greek V illa g e , 39AR2 «, one of the Medicine
Greek V illa g e s, 39LM222, the S trie k e r V illa g e s, 39IM1A, 39LM1B, and
39LELC, the Bice s i t e , 39LM31, the Gable s i t e , 39LM22l>, and s i t e
39SL202®
Two of th e s e , 39LM10 and 39SL202 , contained no datable
species*
I have been unable to determine dates fo r any of the mate­
r i a l from the remainder of t h is group pf site s*
The Sully S ite , 39SLh
The S ully s i t e is a larg e v illa g e s i t e lo cated
approxim ately
25 m iles n o rth of the Oahe Dam on th e e a s t sid e of the M issouritR iver
in S u lly County* I t has not been form ally reported on in d e ta il but
probably d ates in the l a t t e r p a rt of th e 17 th and e a rly p a rt of the
l 8th cen tu ries*
I t i s my understanding th a t the m a te ria l from th is
s i t e would be p a rt of the Extended Goalescent Horizon*
139
There are 103 pieces of wood and charcoal in th e c o lle c tio n
from 39SLh. rep resen tin g 95 d is c re te specimens.
Of t h is l a t t e r number,,
te n are ju n ip e r, four a re ash, seven are willow, th re e are oak, one i s
p in e, 69 are populus, and one i s a piece of bark from an u n id en tifie d
species (Table 29)*
Seven d a te s, two of which are te n ta tiv e , have
been determined fo r t h i s m a te ria l.
The d ates.ran g e from AoD, 1663 to
A,Do I 69I1, but none of them i s a c u ttin g d a te .
The M edicine C reek T i lla g e S i t e s , 39LM2 and 39EM222
S ite 39I<M2 is situ a te d near the mouth o f Medicine Creek in
Lyman County0 I t i s a multi-component s i t e , one component of which
We ¥» Caldwell has te n ta tiv e ly assigned to the Chouteau phase0 This
would place i t in the Extended Coalescent Horizon,
Two o th er com­
ponents are p re se n t, one o f which is o ld er and one i s dated in the
19 th century*
There are 22 specimens in th e c o lle c tio n from 39LM2, seven are
ju n ip e r, one i s ash, and lU populus (Table 30),
have been obtained fo r t h i s m a te ria l.
Three te n ta tiv e dates
One of A,D0 1593 i s based on
wood from a c ir c u la r stru c tu re and two, A*D« 157U and A0DC l5 8 l, are
from a rec tan g u lar stru c tu re *
S i t e 39LM222 i s s e p a ra te d from 39LM2 by a sh a llo w draw*
two s i t e s p ro b a b ly have a common boundary*
T his s i t e i s a l s o m u lti-
component c o n ta in in g th e same com plexes as 39LM2,
T here a re t e n
p ie c e s o f wood and c h a rc o a l in th e c o l l e c t i o n from 39LM222*
Of th e s e
te n specim ens, s i x a re p o p u lu s, th r e e a r e a sh , and one i s ju n ip e r
(T ab le 31)*
These
Wo d a te s c o u ld be determ in ed f o r t h i s m aterial®
Table 29o
Specimen
Number
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Bully S ite , 39SLU
Species
Provenience
1U68
P11/G2, 12 to 18 inches,
cache in t e s t square, north
edge of v illa g e
ash
1535
F20P, 15 inches below surface
w all post
populus
1600
F23P, 33 inches below surface
w all post
populus
1831
F28H, f i l l of 2 superimposed
lodges, F28 and Fill).
populus
20lt6
F38 , 0 to 6 in ch es, t e s t in
lodge, w all post
populus
2096
F38 , 01, cache p i t
populus
22U6
(? )
populus
2256
FU6, Cl, w all
'
post fromlodge populus
2b36
F53, 12 to 18 inches, midden
near p laza, northwest edge of
s ite
populus
2515
F55, 18 to 2h inches, drying
rack p o st, or from old occu­
p ation lodge
populus
2580
F62, C l, e x te r io r, unassociated cache p it
populus
Bates
P lo tted
Remarks
fa b le 296 A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S ully S ite , 39S1I),—Continued
Specimen
lumber •
Provenience
Species
3531
F102, HI, entrance post
ju n ip er
3873
FlOl*, HI, Post 27, 1 s t entrance post on in sid e of lodge
doorway
PlOl*, HI, Post 31, entrance
populus
3886
FlOl*, HI, Post 36, main w all
populus
, 6 to 12 inches
P lo tted
(I6l8p-l67l*w )
populus
3882
3910
Dates
populus
U068
$108, HI, w all post of e a rly
lodge of 3 superimposed
populus
10-26
$108, HI, 12 to 18 inches,
e a r l ie s t of 3 superimposed
lodges
ju n ip er
1289
$109, 6 to 12 inches, f i l l
above f lo o r , ceremonial lodge
s a lix
1*388
$109, HI, entrance p o st,
ceremonial lodge
populus
1*683
$109, HI, post 258, w all post
ceremonial lodge
populus
1*701
FI 09
populus
1*753
$113, HI, w all post
populus
I6l3p»l680vv
P
Remarks
Table 29«,
Specimen.
Number
um
5081
5l2k
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully S ite , 39SLij.—Continued
Provenience
m 3 , HI, 02, cache p i t
beneath lodge flo o r
b u ria l
F115, b u ria l 3A, aquare N l¥9, covering b u ria l
Species
populus
populus
ju n ip e r
5213
‘P ll6 , b u ria l 1, square Sl-¥3
ash
32U7A/1-3
P117
oak
52U7B
F117
populus
5592
5662
Pl27, 12 to 18 inches, flo o r
f i l l of ceremonial lodge
(?)
pine
populus
populus
5670
F218, B urial 2B3 square S I¥7 & 8 ,
5678
'F 218 , B urial 2H, square S2-W8 populus
5697
F218, B urial 3, square Si &
2 -m i
populus
5711
F218, B urial 6B. square 81m.2
populus
5717
' P218, B urial 6F, square 31¥12
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
fa b le 29e A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S ully S ite , 39S1U—Oontinued
Specimen
Number
5722
5759
5762
Provenience
•Species
F2l8, B urial 6, Squares Si
&.2, m 2
' F2l8„ B urial 18, Square N2- .
mo
' m s,
B19 ,
S10-W9
P lo tted
populus
populus
populus
5767
F218, B21
5773
1218 , B21
bark (%>p»)
58036
F218, B29B, S8-W19
s a lix
58030
P218, B29
populus
58o6
m s,
B29(7), 57 & 8-m9
s a lix
5809
B30, '88 & 9->jk
s a lix
5810
m s,
m s,
B30 , 88 & 9~Wk
s a lix
5830
m s,
B370
s a lix
583k
F218 (?)
populus
58386 & B
B37
ju n ip e r
(l625fp-l676vv)
P
58396 & B
m s,
m s,
B37
ju n ip er
l607p~l663w
P
58ko
F218, B37
ju n ip er
l6o8p-l69kvv
P
58kl
m s,
ju n ip er
l6okp-l673w
P
587k
P219, B3 (?)
B37
'
Dates
populus
ju n ip e r
P
Remarks
Table 290 A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the S ully S ite , 39SLU—Continued
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
5891
F219, B8, S3 & b-HL
populus
populus
590b
F219, B8, S3 & b -m
F219, S3-W3, p o st in b u ria l
area
5922
P219s unassociated wood in
b u ria l area
ash
5923
F219« unassociated wood in
b u ria l area
populus
5892
ash
5989
F220, HL2, Sl-¥8 & 9
oak
6005
602b
F220, B15B, S2-¥9 & 10
populus
F220, B19, SI & 2-¥3
populus
6067
P220, B28
populus
6073
6 ll6
F220, B29
populus
F220, H2-¥5s unassociated
populus
6lb3
F220, S1-W9, unassociated
oak
6817
F202, Post 68, entrance post
populus
6820
F202, Post 91 3 main o u ter
w all post
populus
7573
F205; Post 26, main wall post
populus
757b
F205, Post 37) main wall post
populus
Dates
B lotted
Remarks
Table 29=
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from th e Sully S ite , 39&Lh—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
7575
F205, Post 39) main wall post
populus
7750
F206 , 18 to 2k inches, flo o r
of lodge
populus
8022
F206, CIO, cache p i t outside
lodge flo o r
populus
8076
F206, Post 215, post outside
lodge in cache p i t area
oak
8379A & B
F208 , Post 63, o u ter wall ju n ip er
post
9381
(?)
populus
938I4.
Flil6, B1A
populus
9386
Flt.16, B1A & B
populus
9388
Fitl6, BIG
s a lix
9631
Fi^Pl, B28C
9699A & B
Fl|.21, B51A
97lilA
Fl|21, B63B
populus
9811
Flj.21, B90A
populus
9965
Fii.21, B129
100ii.8
Fli-53, Post 129, entrance post
populus
100ij.9
Fi|52, Post 1U3, entrance post
populus
Species
'
Dates
l60Up-l667vv
P lo tted
P
populus
ju n ip e r
-
populus
P
Remarks
Table 290 .Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully S ite , 39SLlj.—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Misco 1
P127, HI, Post 132, main wall
p o st, ceremonial lodge
populus
Misc 0 2
F127, H I, Post 9, main w all
p o st, ceremonial lodge, outer
lin e
populus
Misco 3
F127, HI, Post 13l|., west wall
ceremonial lodge, o uter lin e
populus
Misc0 ii
F127, HI, Post 125, south
w all, ceremonial lodge, inner
lin e
populus
Misco 5
F127, EL, Post 122 , south
w all, ceremonial lodge, in n er
lin e
populus
Misco 6
F127, HI, Posts IOI4 & 106 ,
west w all, ceremonial lodge
o uter lin e
populus
Misco 7
F127, HI, ceremonial lodge
populus
Misco 8
FL27, HI, main w all p o st,
west w all, outer l in e , cere­
monial lodge
populus
Misce 9 .
F127, HI, Post 123, wall p o st, populus
west w all, inner l in e , cere ­
monial lodge
Misco 10
(?)
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 30o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek V illa g e ? 39LM2
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
h)
Juniper
f2 '
populus
I4.62
F2
populus
U68A
F2
Juniper
U68B
F2
populus
560
F2
populus
577
F2 s n o rth east quadrant
populus
581
F2, n o rth east quadrant
populus
632
F2g northwest quadrant
populus
669
F2
ju n ip e r
F
683A
F2
ju n ip e r
F
683B
F2
populus
7it3
F2S upper flo o r
populus
788
F2j top house3 outer post
Post 1
ju n ip er
789
F2. top house * outer p o st.
Post 5
populus
795
F2» top house, entrance p o st.
Post 37
populus
h3k
.
Dates
P lo tted
F
P
(I539np-l593v)
P
Remarks
Table 300 A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek V illag es 390^2—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
796
F2. top house, entrance p o st.
Post 38
populus
801
F2, top house, outer p o st,
Post h9
populus
same as 802
(7)
802
F2, top house, outer p o st.
Post k9
populus
same as 801
(7)
1077
F l6, 0e2 f e e t above flo o r
ju n ip er
(l3 lU fp -l9 8 lw )
P
1168
P l6, Post 38, entrance post
a t step
ju n ip e r
(lg33p-1^7W )
P
1170
F16, Post 5>6, Wall p o st,
back w all
ash
Feature 2 = two c irc u la r houses superimposed
Feature 16 = rectan g u lar house
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 31»
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek V illag e, 39LM222
Specimen
Ifumber
Provenience
Species
21k
F l, f i l l , southeast quadrant
populus
2$k
PL, f i l l
populus
2^8
S i, P15, random post
populus
262
P I, P25, random post
populus
152
f 10, f i l l
ash
155
F10, flo o r
populus
U56A
F10, flo o r
ash
156B
HO, flo o r
populus
257A
P10, f lo o r near f i r e p i t
ju n ip e r
157B
HO, flo o r near f i r e p i t
ash
PL ® c ir c u la r lodge, trenched
P10 = c ir c u la r lodge
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
1$0
The La Roche S ite , 39$T232
S ite 39ST232 l i e s on the west bank of the M issouri River near
P 0 L» Greek 5 a sm all w estern tr ib u ta r y in Stanley County.
The s i t e
was excavated and described as a n c e s tra l A rikara with a probable date
near A.D. lU50 by Meleen ( 19 I48) e This dating was based on tr e e - rin g
dates obtained by the l a t e George F e W ill ( I 9I4.8 )*
W ill’s dates fo r
m a te ria l from South Dakota cannot be accepted and the four specimens
with which he worked have not been a v a ila b le to th is study.
The La
Roche s i t e has given i t s name to a group of re la te d phases which
lehmer and Caldwell include in t h e i r Extended Goalesoent Horizon
( 1966 s 5>l5)o
Only one specimen of populus was a v aila b le from 39ST232;
i t could n o t be dated (Table 32).
The No H eart Greek V illa g e a 39AR2
This s i t e i s lo cated on the M issouri R iver near th e mouth of
Ho Heart Creek in what i s now p a rt of Dewey County.
The c u ltu ra l
m ateria l has been placed in the No H eart Creek complex or Le Compte
phase of the Chouteau Aspect (Johnston and Hoffman 1966 ) .
be placed in th e Extended Coalescent Horizon.
I t would
There are th ree sp eci­
mens, two of populus and one of ju n ip e r, av aila b le from t h i s s ite
(Table 33)*
No dates could be obtained fo r th is m aterial*
The S trie k e r V illa g e s, 39LHLA, 39LM1 B, and 39LM1 C
The th ree contiguous lo c a tio n s included in the S trie k e r V il­
lag es have been te n ta tiv e ly assigned to the Chouteau Aspect according
to W. W. Caldw ell.
The s i t e s are lo cated on the north bank of Medicine
Table 32=
Specimen
Number
kk3
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the l a Roche Site* 39ST232
Provenience
Species
XU2 j, P i t p o s t from ramada
stru c tu re
pop til us
Dates
P lo tte d
Remarks
Table 33»
Specimen
Number
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimen's from the No Heart Greek V illage s 39M 2
Provenience
Species
1
House 1, Feature 7 •>
C entral support post
populus •
2
F o rtific a tio n u n it 2
U-shaped b a stio n
populus
3
LaRoche D (?)
ju n ip e r
Dates
Feature 7 = c e n tra l support p o st in House 1
F o r tif ic a tio n Unit 2 = U-shaped b astio n in th e NW corner of the s i t e
P lo tted
P
Remarks
Greek n ear i t s mouth in Lyman County6 They probably would be included
in th e Extended Coalescent Horigon.
There are 30 pieces of wood and charcoal in th e c o lle c tio n
from 39LM1A* A ll are derived from excavations asso ciated with two
houses and re p re se n t 20 in d iv id u a l specimens„ No dates could be ob­
tain ed f o r the m ateria l which c o n sists of s ix specimens of ju n ip e r#
th ir te e n of populus and one of ash (Table 31*)«
From 39LM1B th ere are two specimens derived from two houses*
One of th e pieces is ju n ip e r and one i s populus (Table 35)«
No dates
could be determined fo r t h is m aterial*
One specimen of populus i s a v a ila b le from a t e s t excavation in
s i t e 39LM1C0 This piece of wood could n o t be dated (Table 36)«
The Bice S ite , 39LM31
The Bice s i t e i s s itu a te d near the M issouri R iver in Lyman
County south o f the town of Oacoma*
The m a teria l from the s i t e has
te n ta tiv e ly been assigned by Caldwell to the Chouteau Aspect*
This
assignment would make i t a p a rt of the Extended Coalescent Horizon*
Three p ieces of one specimen of ash from the s i t e were examined*
specimen was obtained from a re c ta n g u la r house (Table 37)=
The
No date
could be determined fo r t h is piece®
The Cable S ite , 39LM221*
This s i t e i s lo cated south of Medicine Creek near the M issouri
River in Lyman County*
According to Caldwell the c u ltu r a l m ateria l
i s e v id e n tly a v a ria n t of the a r t i f a c t inventory described fo r the
Table 3ho
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S trie k e r V illage, 39IHLA
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
16
F lj House 1, f i l l and flo o r
ju n ip er
17
36
F I, House 1, f i l l and flo o r
populus
F l, House 1 , f i l l and flo o r
populus
ill
F I, House 1, f i l l and flo o r
populus
138
House 1 , northw est quadrant,
0 to 8 inches below surface
populus
l 68A
F l, House 1, southeast quad­
r a n t, 8 to 16 inches below
surface
ju n ip er
168B
F l, House 1, southeast quad­
r a n t, 8 to 16 inches below
surface
populus
172A-G
F l, House 1, h o riz o n ta l log
ju n ip e r
p
200A •
F l, House 1 , 0 to 8 inches
below surface
ju n ip er
p
200B
F l, House 1 , 0 to 8 inches
below surface
populus
206
House 1 , 8 to 16 inches
below surface
ju n ip e r
213
House 1, outer w all, n orth­
west quadrant
ash
282
F l, House 1, n o rth ea st
quadrant, flo o r
populus
Dates
P lo tted
p
Remarks
fab le
Specimen
Humber
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S trie k e r V illag e, 39 IM1A—-Continued
Provenience
Species
28k
House 1 , n o rth ea st quadrant,
below flo o r
populus
288
House 1 , northw est quadrant,
l 6 inches to flo o r
populus
312
P I, House 1 , northwest
quadrant, outer w all
populus
313
House 1, h o rizo n tal lo g ,
northw est quadrant, ou ter
w all
populus
326A—
J
House 1 , h o rizo n tal lo g s,
flo o r
ju n ip er
hkz
m
House 2, t e s t trench
populus
House 1 , F3
populus
. P i = House 1
c irc u la r lodge
F3 = fire p la c e in House 1
Dates
•
P lo tted
Remarks
Table 35>o A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S trie k e r V illag e, 39MLB
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
11
513, Test in House 7
populus
w
Prom road cut in House 3 ,
p o ssib ly a fence post
ju n ip er
House 7 = c ir c u la r lodge
House 3 = c irc u la r lodge
Dates
P lo tted
P
Remarks
Table
36
= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the S trie k e r V illag es 3911110
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
81
T est in a house rin g
populus
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
fa b le 37»
Specimen
lumber
87A-0
A rehaeologlcal free-S in g Specimens from the Blee Site* 39LM31
Provenience
Species
House 2 * south end* perip h er­
a l post
ash
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
House 2 = rec tan g u lar house
&
03
Chouteau Aspect*
This d e sc rip tio n would make i t a member of the Ex­
tended Goalescent Horizon®
There are 6I4 pieces of wood and charcoal in th e c o lle c tio n
from 39EM221},* At l e a s t 3k d is c re te specimens are included in the
samples
Of the 3h specimenss 18 are ju n ip e r, 12 are populus, th ree
are a sh , and one is Hackberry (Table 38)„
nates from the excavation o f one house*
f o r any of th ese specimens*
A ll of th e m a te ria l o r ig i­
Ho dates could be obtained
E ight of them have been subm itted fo r
radiocarbon d atin g (Table 38)*
S ite 3980202
This s i t e i s lo cated in the l i t t l e Bend area of the M issouri
R iver in S u lly County*
No re p o rt i s a v a ila b le on the m a teria l from
the s i t e , but Caldwell in d ic a te s th a t i t i s gen erally re la te d to La
Roche*
Horizon*
The La Roche complex i s p a rt o f the Extended Goalescent
Two specimens of populus from a t e s t in one house are a v a il­
able fo r t h is site *
No d ates could be obtained fo r these pieces
(Table 39).
Summary
The dates from the S ully s i t e and the te n ta tiv e ones from
39LM2 suggest a range fo r th e Extended Goalescent Horizon from AJ3*
157k to'A*P* I 69I4.6 Allowing f o r a t l e a s t some l o s t rin g s from the
outsides of th e specimens, a period from AeD* lf >80 to A»D» 1700 appears
to be q u ite reasonable fo r t h is complex and agrees q u ite c lo se ly with
the suggested time range (Lehmer and Caldwell 1966 )»
The term inal
Table 38*
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from th e Cable S ite , 39IM22U
Specimen
Number
Provenience
134 & B
P I, Test 1, Square
fill
populus
G-lh
ISA
$1, Test 1, Square $ s f i l l
ju n ip er
C-lh
1SB
F I, Test 1 , Square 5? f i l l
populus
204
S I, Test 1, Square 9, f i l l
ju n ip er
SOB
F I, Test 1 , Square 9, f i l l
populus
2l|4
F l, Test 1, Square 10, f i l l -
ju n ip er
2ltB
P i, Test 1, Square 10, f i l l
populus
SSA-I
S I, northwest quadrant, f i l l
ju n ip er
?S
F l, doorway
populus
8U
f 3 in SI
populus
101
P i, P38, o u ter post
populus
Q-lk
0—
ll|.
lOljA-G
f l , P70, outer post
ju n ip er
C—
llj.
lOSA-H
A , fill
ju n ip e r
io SJ
F l, f i l l
ash
10SK
F l, f i l l
populus
lOSL
F l, f i l l
hackberry
106
Fl
populus
10?
Fl
populus
'
Species
Bates
P lo tted
P
Remarks
=
c -ih
P
O-lh.
P
c -iu
p
160
Table 38*
Specimen
Number
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gable S ite , 391M22k—Continued
Provenience
Species
-
PI
SI
ash
populus
populus
1UA-D
PI
El
ju n ip e r
P
112A-0
51
ju n ip e r
P
113A -
PI
ju n ip er
P
113B
PI
a s h ..
111+
PI
ju n ip er
115
El
ju n ip er
P
116
PI
ju n ip er
?
117A-D
PI
ju n ip er
P
118
Pi
ju n ip er
P
119
FI
ju n ip er
P
120
FI
ju n ip er
P
121
Pi
ju n ip e r
P
122
Pi
Juniper
108A-C
109
110
'
SI « c ir c u la r lodge
Dates
P lo tted
P
Remarks
Table 39*
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL202
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
m
F3, P7, o u ter post
populus
k9
F3? PIO, outer p o st
populus
F3 = c irc u la r house
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
163
date overlaps by 2$ years the range assigned to the P o st-c o n tac t
Ooalescent Horizon*
The I n i t i a l C oalesG ent H orizon
M aterial from two s i t e s studied has been assigned to t h is h o ri­
zon*
The specimens involved come from th e Wolfe Greek Component of
th e Grow Greek site * 39BZL1* and from th e e a r l ie r components of the
Black P a rtiz a n site * 39111218*
This l a t t e r s i t e a lso has components
assignable to the P o st-co n tact Ooalescent Horizon*
I t is* however*
my understanding th a t most of th e wood remains come from the e a r l ie r
components*
Ho dates could be determined f o r the Black P a rtiz a n
specimens*
Three specimens from the Crow Greek s i t e are d e fin ite ly assig n ­
able to th e I n i t i a l Ooalescent component®
te n ta tiv e ly dated a t A»D* ii|.35>*
Of these three* one has been
This i s not a c u ttin g date*
In addi­
tion* 11 specimens th a t could not be assigned s p e c if ic a lly to th is or
the e a r l ie r component a t the s i t e have been te n ta tiv e ly dated between
A,B* 1508 and AeD* 1385®
A ll but two of them date in sid e A„Be IhUO*
I t i s my fe e lin g th a t these dates probably apply to the Wolfe Greek
component in view of t h e i r d is tr ib u tio n abound the one assignable
date*
In ad d itio n to the te n ta tiv e tr e e - rin g dates* a oarbon-lij. date
of ADo lls.00 * 1£>0 years i s a v a ila b le f o r m a teria l from the Wolfe
Greek component's
On th e b a sis of the a v aila b le d ating from t h is one site *
39BFU* 1 would assig n a range from AD* lltUO to AD® 1520 to the
I n i t i a l Ooalescent Horizon,
E ith e r t h i s range w ill be extended to
16k
a t l e a s t A,D« 1$$0 or components of the Extended C oalescent w ill be
found to be somewhat e a r l i e r than the p resen t A»D0 lf>80 th a t I have
used as i t s beginning date*
The Grow Greek S ite , 39EF11
This s i t e i s lo cated on a high te rra c e near the confluence of
Grow Greek and th e M issouri River in Buffalo Countye There are 132
pieces of wood from the s i t e rep re se n tin g 33 in d iv id u a l specimens in ­
cluding 25 of ju n ip e r, th re e of ash, and fiv e of populus (Table hO)*
T entative dates have been obtained fo r 12 of the ju n ip e r specimens,
only one of which i s d e f in ite ly assignable to one of the two occu­
p a tio n a l components®
The c u ltu r a l m a te ria l from the upper le v e l in the s i t e has
been designated as th e Wolfe Greek component of the Campbell Greek
phase (K iv ett I 960 ; U)* Three of the specimens, two ash and one ju n i­
p e r, are derived from th is component0 The t e n t a t i v e l y 'dated ju n ip e r
piece f i t s between A„D0 13U0 and A*D* lh3$ with the l a t t e r not being
a c u ttin g date*
A Garbon-llj. date is a v a ila b le fo r th is component
which places i t a t A0D0 lUOO ± 150 years and a date of A,D* 1500 has
also been suggested fo r the occupation (K iv ett 1960; h)®
The c u ltu r a l m a teria l from th e lower occupational le v e l of
the s i t e has been id e n tifie d as th e Grow Greek component and re la te d
to the Over phase of th e I n i t i a l Middle M issouri Horizon (K iv ett
I960; hi Lehmer and Caldwell 1966; 5l5)=
Only one piece of ju n ip e r,
not dated , can d e f in ite ly be asso ciated with the Grow Greek component
of th is site *
fab le
IlO o
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Grow Creek S ite , 39BF11
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
517PA-B
F2 , specimen from outside
ju n ip er
5978A-Q
F25 posthole 127, Outer post
southeast quadrant
populus
one specimen
5979A-1
F2 , posthole 129, Outer post
southeast quadrant
„ ....
ash
one specimen
5980A-K
F2 , posthole 13b, Entrance
post ( 7 ) south side of house
populus
one specimen
10015A-H
FT?, e x te rio r storage p i t
populus
one (?)
specimen
107WA-0
F21 , e x te rio r storage p i t
southeast of Fib
ash
one specimen
11350A-Q
F22 , Area e a st o f Fib
ash
one (?)
specimen
17298A-H
F37, storage p i t e a st of Fib
ju n ip er
17299
#37, storage p i t e a st of Fib
populus
3881b
FI 89 , small storage p i t
39311A-0
Dates
(I3b0p~lb35w)
P lo tted
Remarks
P
one specimen
P
96 rin g s
ju n ip er
P
68 rin g s
P2, south side
ju n ip er
P
56 rin g s
b0795A-G
(?)
juniper
P
one specimen
1j,0796A-F
F82 , Test trench
ju n ip er
P
one specimen
W797A-0
F82, l e s t trench
juniper
P
one specimen
(1365np-l508w)
(1359p-lb26L)
Table W*
Specimen •
Number
A rchaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from th e Grow Greek S ite , 39BKL1—Continued
Provenience
Species
F82, Test trench
ju n ip e r
W799A-G
(?)
HOSOOA-B
Dates
P lo tted
Remarks
(1373P-1H7W)
P
one specimen
ju n ip e r
(1319np-lllOvv)
t
one specimen
(?')
ju n ip er
(1313p=lH2vv)
P
one specimen
10801
(?)
ju n ip er
10802A-B
0)
ju n ip e r
(1335p-1112w)
P
one specimen
10803A-0
(?)
ju n ip er
(1263p-l507w)
P
one specimen
10801A-B
(?)
ju n ip er
P
one specimen
10805
(?)
ju n ip er
P
10806
(?)
ju n ip e r
10807
(?)
ju n ip er
P'
10809
(?)
ju n ip er
P
10810A-0
(?)
ju n ip er
P
10811A-B
(?)
ju n ip er ,
P
10812
(?)
ju n ip er
10813
(?)
ju n ip er
P
10811A-B
(?)
ju n ip e r
P
Misco ll- E
(?)
populus
'
P
(13lO p-ll35w )
(1353p-ll33w )
P
P
166
(?) one
specimen
Table IiOe A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Grow Greek S ite , 39BF11—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
Misc* 2
30W90N
ju n ip e r
Misc * 3
50W90N
ju n ip er
Dates
(1322p-lW vv)
(I338p-1385vv)
P lo tted
Remarks
P
P
Feature 2 = House flo o r with associated fe a tu re s
Feature 17
= E x te rio r storage p i t
Feature 21
==Storage p it southeast of Feature lit in Feature 22
Feature lit
= House flo o r
Feature 22
==Area e a st of Feature lit
Feature 37
- Storage p i t e a st of Feature lit in Feature 22
Feature 82
= Ten fo o t t e s t se ctio n in a shallow depression* Upper se ctio n contained camp
d e b ris , lower contained house remains*
Feature 189 - Small storage p i t in Midden area
168
The rem aining 28 specimens, 23 of ju n ip e r, one of ash, and
fo u r
of populus, cannot be assigned to e ith e r component on the b asis
of a v ailab le inform ation0 Of the ju n ip e r specimens, 11 have te n ta tiv e
dates f a llin g between A0Da 1385 and AoBs 1508 (Table UO)» A ll but two
of these a re dated in the e a r l i e r p a rt of the period p rio r to AeD6
IhUOo
The Black P a rtlz a n S ite , 39IM218
This two-component s i t e i s lo cated in the Big Bend of th e
M issouri R iver in Lyman County,
The e a r l i e r le v e l. Component B, is
re la te d to the Wolfe Creek Component a t the Crow Creek S ite , 39BF11^
Components C and D a t the Talking Grow s i t e , 39BF3, and to m ateria l
from the Lynch s i t e , 2j?BDl, in Hebraska,
This le v e l would be included
in th e I n i t i a l Coalescent horizon (Caldw ell I 960 , 1966c; Lehmer and
Caldwell 1966)»
F e lic ia
The l a t e r le v e l. Component A, is id e n tifie d with the
phase of the P o st-co n tact Coalescent Horizon.
There are 56 pieces of wood from the s i t e rep re se n tin g 52
in d iv id u a l specimens.
Of the 52, eleven are ju n ip e r, fiv e are ash,
3k are populus, one i s hackberry and one i s not id e n tifie d (Table 1|1).
No dates could be obtained fo r the m a te ria l in the c o lle c tio n from
39LM218,
The Extended Middle M issouri Horizon
The Extended Middle M issouri Horizon i s the next o ld est
grouping fo r which I have m a te ria l.
The intervening Terminal Middle
M issouri Horizon is not represented in the South Dakota s i t e s from
sTable id*
A rchaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Slack P a rtisa n S ite , 39EM218
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
?86
1100
F9 in F2, w all post
F5 in F5S b u ria l 1
populus
populus
.1102
F5 in F£, b u ria l 1
populus
1519
F?A in F6, p i t
-
populus
l8l©
.2332
2362
F7 in F8, cache p i t
F6 in FlOj cache p i t
F6 in F10, cache p i t
populus
populus
ju n ip e r
2369
F7 in F10, cache p i t
populus
2370
F10, F l l , random post
populus
2388
2389
$10, P8l, pointed post
F10, F 8 l,. pointed p o st
populus
populus
2399
F10, P12U, random post
populus
2h00
F10, P125, random post
populus
2i|01
F10, P135j, random po st
populus
2l(.03
F10, Plh3, random po st
populus
2lj.09A & S
F10, P l^ l, random post
ju n ip e r ■
2i|.09B
$10, P l5 l, random post
populus
21*22"
F10, PI 60 , random post
populus
21*29
$10, P168, random p o st
populus
-
S ates
P lo tted
Remarks
fa b le Ulo
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black B artizan Site# 391M218—Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
2lt30
F10 # P170 # random post
2h32
HO# P177# random post
populus
populus
2k33
F10# P180# random post
populus
2703
2989
P6 # in i l l # cache p i t
ju n ip e r
$16 in $1 1 # cache p i t
3101
$19 in $1 1 # cache p i t
ju n ip er
ju n ip e r
3196A
3196B
$11# P10# random post
populus
$11# P10# random p o st
haekberry
320U
$11# P6l# random post
populus
39li8A-C
FI* in' Fill# cache p i t
ju n ip e r
itOU3A ll.0li.3B
F6 in Fll*# cache p i t
F6 in Fll*# cache p i t
ij.0lf.3C
F6 in Fll*# cache p i t
ju n ip e r
ash
populus
U0ij3D
F6 in ill*# cache p i t
1*079”
F l in F ll# cache p i t
(?)
populus
1*080
$1 in Fll# cache p i t
ju n ip e r
1*081
F3 in Fll*# cache p i t
ash
1*082
F3 in Fll*# cache p i t
ash
1*083
F3 in Fll*# cache p i t
ash
Bates
..
P lo tted
. Remarks
$Table Ijlo
Specimen
Number
Archaeologieal Tree-ling Specimens from the Black Partisan Site, 3%M2l8~~0ontinaed
Provenience
Species
UoSit = Mis Co 1 through 12B below
Misco 1
FI in Fll, cache pit
populus
Misco 2A
F20 in Fll, cache pit
juniper
Misco 2B
F20 in FU, cache pit
juniper
Misc0 3
$12 in $11, post
populus
Misco h
Fl8 in Fll, cache pit
populus
Misco 5
F2 in FlU, cache pit
populus
Misco 6
F? in Fll, cache pit
populus
Misco 7
Fl in Fll, cache pit
populus
Misco 8
Fll|., fortification ditch
juniper
Misco 9
F7 in Fll, cache pit
populus
Misco 10
F12 in Fll, post
populus
Misco 11
F10
populus
Mise0 12A
F3 in Flit, cache pit
ash
Misco 12B
F3 in FlU, cache pit..
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table llU
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black Partisan Site, 39 LM218 — Continued
F2 = circular lodge
= pit area, basin and bell shaped cache pits
F6 = pit area, basin and bell shaped cache pits
F8 = circular lodge
#10 » circular lodge with associated rectangular structure, F12
Fll « circular lodge
F12 * rectangular structure associated with F10
FlU *» test trench
Fl in Fll » cache pit
P2 in FlU = cache pit
F3 in FlU = cache pit
PU in FlU = cache pit
F5 in F5 » burial 1
F6 in RIO = cache pit
F6 in Fll = cache pit
F6 in FlU = cache pit
F7 in F8 = cache pit
F 7 in F10 = pit
F7 in Fll = cache pit
F7A in F8 = cache pit
172
F9 in F2 = wall post
Table ijl.
ArchaeologicalTree-Ring
512 in 511 = outer posts near entry
518 in 511 = oache pit
520 in 511 = cache pit
from the Black Bartizan Site9 39BM2l8--£ontinued
nk
which I have specimens,,
Most of the components of the terminal horizon
come from North Dakota some distance to the north of the area this
study has centered on*
For purposes of this investigation I accept
the suggestion that the terminal horizon is "*...contemporary with
the development of the Coaleseent Tradition'* (Caldwell 1966as 155)«
I do, however, feel that the Terminal Middle Missouri Horizon is quite
late and for the most part post dates A 0D* 1500 if not A*D* 1600 be­
cause of the dating I have obtained for components of both the Initial
and Extended Middle Missouri Horizons*
Specimens from 11 sites and components of sites assigned to
the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon have been examined*
Tentative
dates have been assigned to specimens from four of these sites*
One
piece from the McKensey site, 39AR201, has tentatively been dated at
A*D« 1501*
A group of 15 specimens from the Thomas Riggs site, 39HU1,
have been tentatively dated between A*D* lij.66 and A*D* 1539*
From the
Cheyenne River site, 39ST1, one tentative date of A*D* liihS has been
assigned*
Seven specimens from the Ketchin site, 39ST223, have been
.tentatively dated between A«D„ lii.33 and A»D* ll|,6oe
Of the remaining seven sites no dates could be obtained for
the material from two of them, the Hickey Brothers site, 39BMlj., and
the King site, 39IM55*
Final analysis could not be completed on the
other five sites and no dates have been obtained for them*
These five
sites are the Calamity Village site, 39DW231, the Sully School site,
39SL7, the 0* B* Smith site, 398129, the Cattle Oiler site, 39ST22lt,
and the Durkin site, 39ST238*
175
The McKensey Site, 39M201
This site is on the Missouri River five miles south and east
of the mouth of No Heart Creek in what is now part of Dewey County*
The cultural complex has been related to the “general Thomas Riggs
pattern11 (Caldwell 1966bs h) and assigned to the Extended Middle
Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)»
Eleven specimens were available from this site for study*
ill of them were derived from one rectangular house and an exterior
cache pit*
Included in the collection are six pieces of junipers
three of populus, and one each of ash and hackberry*
One of the
juniper specimens from the house has been tentatively assigned an
outside date of A eD 0 1501 (Table i|2)»
The Thomas Riggs Cite, 39HU1
This site is located in Hughes County approximately 10 miles
northwest of Oahe Dam on the east side of the Missouri River*
The
Thomas Riggs phase is defined for the cultural remains from this site
(Hurt 1953)o
The complex has recently been made a part of the Ex­
tended Middle Missouri Horizon (lehmer and Caldwell 1966)*
There are I4.2 pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection
from the Thomas Riggs site representing 36 discrete specimens*
for two specimens of pine, all are juniper*
have been assigned*
and AJ)® 1539=
Except
Fifteen tentative dates
The dates encompass the period between A 0D 0 H 1.66
Unfortunately, in-site provenience of a limited nature
is available for only five of the specimens (Table U3)«
Table k2o
Specimen
Number
Archaeological Tree-Sing Specimens from the McKensey Site, 39AE201
Provenience
Species
12
Feature 1 , Wall post, center
of northeast wall opposite
ramp
juniper
153
Feature 1, floor of southeast
quadrant
juniper
178A
Feature 1, southwest quadrant
near base of ramp
juniper
178B
Feature 1 , southwest quadrant
near base of ramp
populus
1780
Feature 1, southwest quadrant
near base of ramp
hackberry
311A
Feature 12, cache pit fill
juniper
311B
Feature 12, cache pit fill
populus
326A
Feature 12, bottom of cache
juniper
326B
Feature 12, bottom of cache
ash
3260
Feature 12, bottom of cache
populus
361-
Feature 1
juniper
Dates
Feature 1 - Long rectangular house with entrance ramp in southwest wall
Feature 12 = Cache pit 0«,5 feet west of east wall of house
Plotted
Remarks
P
52 rings
Table U3«. Archaeological Tree-Sing Specimens from the Thomas Higgs Site, 3PHU1
Specimen
Number
'
Provenience
Species
1
(7)
juniper
2
(f)
juniper
(Ih29p-l337vv)
P
same as It
3
(f)
juniper
(li|.31p»lf?03w)
P
same as 10
h
(f)
juniper
(1U29p ™1338v v )
P
same as 2
I
6
Cf)
juniper
(1331p~lk96vv)
P
(7)
juniper
P
7
(7)
pine
P
8
(?)
juniper
P
9.
(?)
juniper
P
10
(?)
juniper
Dates
Plotted
P
(lU3jinp-lU93vv)
,
P
11
(?)
juniper
12
(?)
juniper
P
13A-G
(?)
juniper
P
1)4
(?)
juniper
P
lg'
(?)
juniper
P
16
(?)
juniper
P
17
(?)
Juniper
.P
'•
Remarks
P
same as 311
0, B
same as 3
Table It3* Arehaeologleal Tree-ling Specimens from the Thomas Riggs Site, 39HU1— Continued
Number
Provenience
Species
18
(?)
juniper
P
19
(?)
juniper
P
20
(?)
juniper
21
(?)
juniper
22
(?)
juniper
(lij.61i.np-1529w)
P
same as 26
(?)
juniper
(lliit9fp”l?lhvv)
P
same as 2k
2k
(?)
juniper
(Iii56fp»l5l6vv)
P
same as 23
25
(?)
juniper
26
(?)
juniper
(Ik63np-lg29w)
P
27
(?)
juniper
(Iit6lp-l323vv)
P
28
(?)
juniper
(1387np-l539w)
P
29
(?)
juniper
(1386np-l?38vv)
P
30
(?)
juniper
31A
(?)
juniper
31B-S
(?)
pine...
P
31E-P
(?)
juniper
P
32
House 2
juniper
P
House 2
juniper
P
23
33
.
'
Dates
(lii50p»l5Q6w)
Plotted
Remarks
P
P
■P
P
(l38iiP"lii66vv)
P
same as 22
Table h3e
Specimen
Member
Arehaeologieal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Thomas Riggs Site, 39HUl--Gontinned
Provenience
Species
3k
House 1
juniper
3$
House 1
juniper
MisCo 1A-B
House 2
juniper
Dates
Plotted
P
.
(lii37p-10l£vv)
P
P
Remarks
180
.Hurt (195>3) has suggested a date near AoD. 15-00 for thisrmterlale
A Garbon-li|. date of A6D 8 1228 ± 200 years is also available for
material from the site#
Additionally, George F e 'Will dated seven
specimens from 39H"U1 using tree-ring methods.
tween AoDo li|.80 and A eDe
He assigned dates be­
to these pieces (Will ipUSs 69)#
Al­
though Will’s dates are within the range of the ones obtained by this
study, they cannot be accepted because of the distance involved be­
tween the location of the site and the master chronology,
1 have not
had access to the specimens Will worked«, Some of his specimens may
have been duplicated in my material.
The Cheyenne River Site, 39S11
The Cheyenne River site is on the west bank of the Missouri
River near the confluence of the Cheyenne River in Stanley County,
It is a multi-component site at least one component of which has been
assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase (Hurt 1958)#
This assignment
would place it in the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon®
One juniper specimen representing a center post in a house is
available from the site (Table UU)®
1 do not have a specific component
assignment for this house or specimen but based on a tentative date
for the wood, A«D® liiU8, it corresponds with others for material
associated with the Thomas Riggs phase®
Several radiocarbon determinations are also available for
material from 39ST1#
These dates range from A»D® 920 * -60 years to
A 6D» 1600 ± 85 years®- Dates were twice obtained on each of two
fable hhn
Specimen
Humber -
■Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gheyenne River Site, 39ST1
Provenience
Species
F102 in ,F3lt
juniper
F 3U - house
F102 « center post
Dates
(1280fp-l)4U8vv)
Plotted
f
Remarks
182
specimens from Feature 3k for which 1 have a tentative tree-ring date®
One of these was dated at A.D„ 920 + 60 years and AeD» 1175 * 125
years and the other was placed at A 0B 0 1077 ± 60 years and A»De 1300
t, 200 yearso
Both of the later dates are within the range of the
tree-ring series and are probably closer to being accuratec Another
Carbon-lit date for material from Feature 2k at the site is AeD* U p Q
+ 60 years.
This date also comes quite close to being in the range
of the tree-ring series.
Considering the probable loss of rings from
specimens submitted for radiocarbon analysis and other types of pos­
sible error in combination with the tentative tree-ring dates, it
seems probable that the Thomas Biggs phase at this site dates to the
first half of the 15th century.
The Ketchin Site, 39ST223
The Ketchin site is situated a few miles downstream from
Antelope Greek on the west bank of the Missouri River in Stanley
County,
A final report on the analysis of the cultural remains has
not been published.
The material has been assigned to the Extended
Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a),
There are lU specimens in the site collection.
Of these lit,
ten are juniper and four are populus (Table 1)5)=> Tentative dates for
seven of the specimens have been determined.
The terminal dates fall
between A,D, llj.33 and A,D, 3.U60, but none of them are cutting dates.
The Hickey Brothers Site, 39IMliSite 39LMl|. is approximately 7 miles north of the town of
lower Brule in the area of the Big Bend of the Missouri River,
Mo
Table lt5s
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ketchin Bite, 39ST223
Specimen
Number
Provenience
120
F3, fill
121
F3, roof fill
populus
122
F3 , P7, wall post
juniper
123
.13, P9,. wall post
populus
12U
F3, P10, wall post
125
Species
Dates
Plotted
- populus
Cl393fp-lk36vv)
P
juniper
(l3U7p-lU3kvv)
P
13, P10, wall post
juniper
(13A?p -1U33v v )
P
126
1*3, P12, wall post
juniper
P
127
F39 P13, wall post
juniper
F
128
F3, PlU, wall post
juniper
(I387p-lli39vv)
P
129
#3, Plit, wall post
juniper
(l388np-ll|.60vv)
P '
130
F3, P25, entrance
juniper .
131
F3,. fill
populus
157A
EU16, wall post
juniper
(l391p”lU50w)
P
157B
XU16, wall post
juniper
Cl352p-lA52vv)
P
F3 = long rectangular house
XU16 = long rectangular house
P
Remarks
18U
definite assignment of the cultural remains has been made for the mate­
rial from the site*
Two components are presente The material from one
has been tentatively assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase and the other
is representative of material associated with the Anderson phase
(Madison, Caldwell, and Golden 196o)0 The material has tentatively
been assigned to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon*
The Anderson
phase is placed in the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell
1966a; lehmer and Caldwell 1966)
There are 3k pieces of wood from 39EMl|. representing 1£> indi­
vidual specimens*
Six of the specimens are juniper, five are populus,
and four are hackberry*
Eight of the specimens are derived from
excavations in the site fortifications and seven come from two houses*
Ho dates could be obtained for the material from the Hickey Brothers
site (Table li.6)0
The King Site, 39005
This site is located near the Missouri River in Lyman County
north of the town of Oacoma*
It has been described as containing
elements of both the Initial and Extended Middle Missouri Horizons
(Caldwell 1966a)*
There are 23 pieces of wood and charcoal from the site repre­
senting at least five separate specimens*
from a cache pit and a house entrance*
The material is derived
It includes two specimens of
populus and at least one each of juniper, ash, and oak (Table U?)=
Ho dates could be obtained for this material*
Table lt6»
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey Brothers Site, 391Mb
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
82A-S
Fb, Post 10
•juniper
P
83
Fb, Post 22
juniper
P
8b
Rb, Post 39
juniper
P
85A-D
Fb, Post
juniper
P
86
Fb, Post 61
populus
87
Fb, Post 66
juniper
88
Fb, Post 7b
populus
96
"
'
.
Post 5
Dates
Plotted
P
hackberry
99
F10, Post 1, outer post
hackberry
100
F10, Post 2, in trench
between Posts 1 and 5>
hackberry
101
FlO, Post 3j) in trench
between Posts 1 and 5
hackberry
102
F10, Post b<> in trench
between Posts 1 and-5
populus
103
F10, Post 5, outer post
populus
173
F39, Post 10, random post
juniper
177
F39, Post 12, random post
populus
P
Remarks
Table i|6e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey Brothers Site, 3 9 5 % — Continued
Fk - Bastion, southern part of fortification
F$ - North, South transverse trench across fortification ditch
F10 = Bast, West test trench through circular lodge
P39 = circular lodge
Table ij.7c Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the King Site, 39LMf>5
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
3lt
FI, Test Trench 1, Square 6
populus
Fl, Test Trench 1, Square 6R1
populus
111A & B
F5, Test Trench 3
ash
P
131A-T
F5, Test Trench 3
juniper
P
131B '
F5
oak
85
.
'
FI = Cache pit
F5 - Entrance House 1
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
188
The Calamity Village Site, 390W231
This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri Erven a
few miles north of the confluence of the Moreau River in Dewey County,
The analysis of the cultural remains recovered has not been published,
Caldwell has assigned the material to the Extended Middle Missouri
Horizon (1966a),
There are ii.2 pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec­
tion representing 37 discrete specimens.
Of this latter number, five
are juniper, six are ash, and 25 are populus (Table 1*8)*
Detailed
analysis and plotting of this material could not be completed.
No
dates have been determined for the collection from 39DW231«
The Sully School Site, 39507
This site is on the east bank of the Missouri River approxi­
mately 20 miles north of the Oahe Dam in Sully County,
The cultural
material from the site has been assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase
(Hurt 1958),
It would, on the basis of this association, be a com­
ponent of the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon,
There are 3k pieces in the collection representing 32 indi­
vidual specimens*
The material includes 21 pieces of populus, ten of
juniper, and one of ash (Table 1*95,
this material has not been completed*
39S17,
Detailed plotting and study of
No dates have been obtained for
Table ij.8. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the
C a l a m i t y
Village, 395*231
T
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
769 & 770
Fil, P20
ash
771
FU, P37
ash
772
F10, P150
populus
773A & B
510, P153
populus
77U
F10, Pl59
populus
775
F10, P166
populus
776
no, P170
ash
777 ,
no, P178
populus
778
F13
populus
789A-0
F13, P205
populus
one specimen
907
fl0, Wall, South end
populus
G/lii
Fli.3, P28, Entrance Post
juniper
Entrance Post
.juniper
'
1000
1005A & B
'
1062
F55, P70
populus
1063
f55, PI80
populus
106U
F55, P130
populus
1065
F55, P190
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
one specimen
one specimen
one specimen
Table U80 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Calamity Village, 39DW231-— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
"
Species
1078
F£6, P10E
populus
1079
Fg6, P20E
populus
1080
F56, P76¥
populus
1081
F56, P76A
populus
1082
F56, P93W
populus
1083
F36, P130W
populus
1081|.
F56, P150W
populus
1085
F56, P169W
juniper
1086A & B
F56> P189W
ash
1087
F56, P302W
ash
1088
Fg6, P312W
ash
1089
F57, P20
populus
1090
F57, P25
populus
1091
F57, P25
populus
1092
F58, P328W
populus
1093
F58, P3I4II'
juniper
llijj.
F6l in Fii.3
populus
1115
F6l in FU3
juniper
Dates
Plotted
'
Remarks
one specimen
Table U8«
Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Calamity Village, 39DM231— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
H W
F6l in Fl3
populus
111?
F6l in Fl3
Juniper
FU = Bastion on inner palisade
F10 = Bastion on outer palisade
F13 “ Bastion on inner palisade
Fi|_3 “ rectangular house
F 0 « outer palisade
F56 - inner palisade
¥$7 ~ West bastion, outer palisade
F5& = Southwest bastion, inner palisade
F6l = cache pit in Flj.3
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table U9=
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully School Site, 39SL7
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
227
(?)
populus
319
(?)
populus
387
Pit
ash
li.21
(?)
juniper
M3
(?)
juniper
Ml
(?)
populus
h97
(?)
populus
6o6
(?)
populus
607
(?)
populus
698
(?)
populus
720
(?)
populus
729
(?)
populus
771B
(?)
937
Ff
juniper
938
F7
juniper
939
F7
juniper
1018
ELI
populus
1021
Fll
populus
•
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
fTable k $ 0
Archaeological Tree-Eing Specimens from the Sully School Site, 3981— Continued
Specimen
Number,
Provenience
Species
1022
ill
populus
1099
F13
populus
1107
F13
populus
1100
F13
populus
118U
F13
populus
1263
CD
populus
1271
' F1'3
populus
Plotted
Remarks
populus
1377
H3
1390A~O
F10, stockade post
juniper
139k
Fl0g stockade post
juniper
1390
F10, stockade post
juniper
lkl9
F17
populus
1087
F23, leaner post
juniper
1088
F23, leaner post
juniper
. . . . . . .
Dates
S
The Co D, Smith Site, 39SL29
This site is located on the east bank of the Missouri River
approximately 20 miles upstream from the Oahe Dam in Sully County and
is quite close to site 39SL7« The cultural remains have been assigned
to the Thomas Riggs phase (Hurt 195>8)5which would make it a part of
the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon., .
There are 17 pieces of wood and charcoal from the site repre­
senting 11 specimens (Table 50), of which two are juniper, two ash,
and seven populus.
Final detailed plotting and study on all of the
specimens could not be completed» No dates have been obtained for the
material from 39SL294
The Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST221
This site is situated on the west bank of the Missouri River
a few miles south of the confluence of Antelope Creek in Stanley
County#
The analysis of the cultural remains has not been published«
There are apparently at least two components in the site because the
material has been assigned to both the Initial and Extended Middle
Missouri Horizons (Caldwell 1966a)*
There are Ifi pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection
from 39ST22ii,s These h7 pieces represent 33 discrete specimens of
which lit are juniper, four ash, and 1$populus (Table 5l)«
Final
analysis and plotting could not be completedon this material and no
dates have been determined»
Table 50°
Specimen
Number
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the 0* B, Smith Site, 39SL29
Provenience
Species
U9A
F7, test in undefines
structure
juniper
113
F9, 12 to 18 inches below
surface
ash
235A
$11 , 12 to 18 inches below
surface
populus
291
$1301, exterior cache pit
populus
Flli.05, cache pit
populus
k57A-G
Fill., fill, 0 to Ik inches
populus
k93
Ilk, southern entry test
15 inches below surface
juniper
501
Flk, 13 to lk inches below
surface
populus
567
Flk, north end, 22 inches
populus
572
Flk, 16 inches and below
populus
592
Flk, 0 to 19 inches below
surface
ash
388
'
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
fable 50o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the CoB0 Smith Site, 39SL29~~Gontinued
F7 = bastion (?)
F9 = house (?)
Fll = house (?)
F13 = house (?)
Flit = circular house
F1301 = cache associated with F13
FlltG5 ■ cache pit associated with Flit
Table 5l<>
Specimen
Number
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from, the Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST22U
Provenience
Species
560
F8, P182, central roof
support
juniper
603
F5, cache fill, upper house
populus
1130
$13, P9, entrance post,
ppper house
juniper
1661
1*39, house fill
juniper
197h
#39, house floor
populus
215*6
#39, house fill
populus
2259
#39, fill in house entrance
populus
226k
#39, house floor
populus
2266 .
#39 (?) post
populus
23U:A/l & 2: #83, house fill
juniper
23I4I4B
# 85, house fill
ash
23ltU0
#85, house fill
populus
23U6A
#85, house fill ■
ash
2346B
#85, house fill.
populus
2351
#85, #22, wall post
populus
2352
#85, fill
populus
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table f>l0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST22lj.-— Continued
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
2353A-D
F83
ash
2369
F88, pit fill
populus
2370
F88, pit fill
populus
2371
F88, pit fill
populus
2k0$
F96, pit fill
ash
2li06
F97, pit fill
populus
2137
F99, outside cache pit
populus
2U71A-D
Flj.0, P8, wall post
juniper
2U72A-E
Fi;0, P19, wall post
juniper
2U75
F12l(.p' king post
juniper
2li!6/l-k
F12lf.? wall post
juniper
2k n
F130, king post
juniper
2ti!8
F130, wall post
juniper
2k79
FI30, interior entrance post
juniper
2it80
F13O 5 entrance post, super­
imposed house
juniper
2i|8l
F130, interior entrance post
juniper
2U82
F130, entrance post, super­
imposed house
juniper
-
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table■51*
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gattle Oiler Site, 39ST22li— Continued
F3 • excavation unit containing 3 houses
F5 = cache pit in upper house of F3
F8 = long rectangular house in F3
F13 - long rectangular house
F39 = long rectangular house
FitO = long rectangular house
F85 = long rectangular house
F88 = cache pit in F85
F96 = straight sided pit in F85
F97 = outside cache pit with F39
F99 * outside cache pit with F39
F12h = long rectangular house
F130 ® long rectangular house
M
xo
VO
200
The Durkin Site, 39SI238
This site is on the west hank of the Missouri River approxi­
mately 25 miles downstream from Pierre in Stanley County®
The cul­
tural complex has been described as being most like that at the Thomas
Riggs site (Jensen 1967)® This assignment would place the material in
the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon#
Six juniper specimens are available for study from 3981238
(Table 32)®
Final analysis and plotting could not be completed for_
this materials,
No dates have been obtained for the Durkin site#
Summary
The tentative tree-ring dates based on 2h specimens from four
components of the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon range from
II4.33 to AoDo 1539o On the basis of these dates, I would assign the
period from at least A0Do lijli.0 to
1530 to this horizon#
There
are# however# a number of radiocarbon determinations for material
from these components that range from A*D» 920 ± 60 years to A0D«
1600 + 83 years#
Other radiocarbon dates fall in the 11th# 12th
and lipfch centuries#
In view of the fact that at least some of these
dates are in the range of the tree-ring series, especially when their
allowance for error is considered, I am inclined to question the very
early ones outside of the dated range#
Admittedly the tree-ring dates
are as yet only tentative, -.but I doubt that any major change in their '
placement will be made as more work is done in this time range.
Addi­
tionally, if the beginning date for this complex is moved back nearer
to A„DS lii.00 some of the other radiocarbon determinations come within
Table 52,
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Durkin Site, 39ST238
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
1
XD3, king post
juniper
2
XU35 wall post
juniper
3
XU3, South, interior end of
entrance ramp
juniper
U
XU!?, wall post
juniper
5
XD6, King post
juniper
6
XU6, lintel post at entrance
juniper
XU3 = long rectangular house
= long rectangular house
XU6 = long rectangular house
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
range0 For these reasons then, I would place the Extended Middle
Missouri Horizon between A JX II4.OO and A«D* 1^0,
These limits can
only be definitely determined through additional research*
They do,
however,, contrast sharply with the A*D„ 1100 to A*D« 1550 limits pro­
posed by Lehmer and Caldwell (1966; $!$)<,
The Initial Middle Missouri Horizon
Lehmer and Caldwell (I966: $1$) have characterized this hori­
zon as lasting from A„D* 800 to A*D* 1100*
It is the earliest mani­
festation of the semi-sedentary agricultural peoples in theSouth
Dakota area and marks the beginning of what
has been calledthe Plains
Village pattern (Lehmer 19$ki 139-itO)*
I have examined specimens from nine
sites assigned to this horizon*
sites or components of
Tentative dates have been determined
for material from two of these sites*
Fourteen tentative dates have
been determined for specimens from the Sommers site, 39ST’?60 These
dates range from A*D* lU65> to A»D0 1631*
Four of them are in the
second half of the l5th century, two in the first half and five in
the second half of the 16th century, and three are in the first half
of the 17th century*
That there is an almost 200 yea.r span between
the earliest and latest dates from the site is well supported by the
cross-dating between the specimens.
The assigned dates are, however,
highly inconsistent with the proposed placement of the horizon in
time*
Several possible explanations are available for this phenome­
non*
One is that the dates are correct and the placement of.the hori­
zon is incorrect, but because of the tentative nature of the dates,
203
this, cannot now be demonstrateds Second is that the tentative dates
are incorrect which is also a possibility but cannot be demonstrated
for the same reasonsa A third possibility is that more than one com­
ponent ^ previously unrecognized, is present in the site and the tenta­
tive tree-ring dates come from a later occupation,
A fourth inter­
esting point to be considered is the 200 year span between the earliest
and latest dates.
This is inconsistent with the generally recognized
short period of occupancy for sites in the area.
If the tree-ring dates are correct or nearly so, then the
problem is with the archaeological interpretation.
My opinion is
that this site and the complex it represents is much later in time
than has been thought.
It probably results from occupation between
at least A,D, lUOO and A,D, 1600 and is more closely related to the
Extended Middle Missouri Horizon than has previously been thought.
One other tentative date from the H,P, Thomas site, 39ST12, gives
further support to the dating.
This date, A,D, lij.09, also falls with­
in the proposed period,
■A site chronology 166 years in length has been established
for one other group of specimens from the Dinehart Village, 39LM33,
I have been unable to cross-date this chronology with the dated ones.
The material from two sites, the Pretty Bull site, 39BF12, and the
Jiggs Thompson site, 39LM208, did not contain any datable specimens.
Final analysis and dating could not be completed on three sites in­
cluding the Swanson site, 39BR16, the langdeau site, 39LM2Q9, and the
Jandreau site, 39£M225#
2 0h
She Sommers Site, 39315)6
She Sommers site is on the west bank of the Missouri River
nearly opposite the confluence of Chapelle Creek in Stanley Countye
No formal report has been published on the excavations at this site.
It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell
1966a)*
There are 6k pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection
from 39SI5>6 that represent 5l different specimens*
the specimens are juniper and eight are populus*
have been obtained for ll$ of the pieces*
Forty-three of
Tentative dates
The dates range from AaD*
II4.65 to AeB s 1631) but none of them are cutting dates (Table 53)®
George F, Will obtained dates between &*D. U 4.8O and
for three specimens from this site (‘
Mill IphSr 69)0
150?
Iven though his
dates are within the range of the one obtained by this study, they can­
not be used because of the distance involved between the site and the
master chronology*
I did not have access to 'Will’s specimens although
they may have been duplicated in the material 1 workede
The H* P; Thomas Site, 39ST12
This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri River
approximately 10 miles downstream from the confluence of the Cheyenne
River in Stanley County,
It is a multi-component site, but no report
of the analysis of the cultural material has been published.
At least
one component of this site has been assigned to the Initial Middle
Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a),
Table 5>3e
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers Site} 39STj?6
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
1
(?)
juniper
2
(?)
.juniper
P
3
(?)
juniper
P
h
(?)
juniper
(I331fp-l465w)
P
sa
Xtil7, PI, wall post
juniper
(I426p~l529w)
P
3bS
xra.7, P2, wall post.
juniper
3h6
1017? P35 entrance post
juniper
(I371p-l586w)
P
3k7
10175 P4? wall post
juniper
(I508p-l602w)
P
3h8
1017, P5, wall post
juniper
(I5l8p-l583w)
P
3U9A-0
1017, P6, king post
juniper
(I405p»l631w)
P
350
1017, P7, wall post
juniper
P
351
1017, P8, wall post
juniper
P
352
1IH7, P9, central roof
support
juniper
P
353
2017, P122
juniper
P
33%
1017, P124
juniper
450
1018, fill
juniper
472
1018, floor
juniper
537
1018, east midden
juniper
Dates
(1322np-l465w)
Plotted
Remarks
P
same as 4
P
(15o 4p -i 587w )
P
P
(I407np-l578w)
P
same as 1
Table 53o Archaeological Tree-Ring Speeimens from the Sommers Site, 39ST56— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
809A
3018, floor
populus
809B
XU18, floor
populus
8090
m S , floor
populus
918
IU18
juniper
(1290p-l5o5w )
P1
919
XU18
juniper
( l 3| 8p - l56ovv)
P
920
1018
juniper
P
921A & B
1018
juniper
P
922
1018
juniper
923
1018
juniper
(I290p-l609w)
P
92h
1018
juniper
(1288p-li|87vv)
I
925
1018.
juniper
( 1391p - l l 96vv)
P
1353
1021, F33, cache pit
populus
liio i
1021, PliO, rear wall
populus
1992
1070, 197, exterior cache
populus
2022
1070, F98, exterior cache
populus
2033
1070, wall post North corner
of house
juniper
- P
203U
X070, wall post North corner
of house
juniper
P
.....
Oates
Plotted
-
.
-
P
Remarks
Table 5>3o
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers Site, 39ST56— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
2035A & B./I
XU70, wall post North corner
of house
juniper
P
2036
SJ70, wall post
juniper
p
2037
2038
XU70, wall post
juniper
P
BJ70, wall post
juniper
P
2039
20UO
,
10170, wall post
juniper
P
XU70, wall post
juniper
P
2051A-J
XU70, king post, center of
rear wall
juniper
P
2221
XU?5, wall post
juniper
P
2220B
XU75, wall post
juniper
P
2222k
XU?5# wall post
juniper
P
2222B
XU?5j king post
juniper
F
3005
XU85, square 10, palisade
juniper
3006
XU85, PlUO, exterior cache
juniper
3018
XU85
populus
927
XU75
juniper
P
Misc0 1
House (?) previously
excavated
juniper
P
.
'
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 53#
i-rehaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Sommers Site# 39ST56--Oontinued
XU17 - long rectangular house
XU18 = long rectangular house
XU21 = long rectangular house
XU70 = long rectangular house
XU?5 = long rectangular house
'XU85 = fortification test
209
There are 117 pieces of wood and charcoal In the collection
from 39ST12 representing 33 discrete specimens*
Of this latter number,
U6 are populus,, five are ash, one is pine, and one is a piece of bark
from an unidentified species (Table 3Wo
determined for a specimen of ash*
One tentative date has been
It has a terminal, but not a cut­
ting date of A.D* 1U09®
The Dlnehart Village, 39IM33
The Dlnehart Tillage site is located on the Missouri River in
Lyman County two and one-half miles north of Highway 16*
The cultural
remains from the site most closely resemble the material from the
Thomas Riggs phase and the Over phase*
They have been assigned to
the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a),
There are 60 pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec­
tion representing 22 Individual specimens*
Nineteen of the specimens
are juniper, one is populus, and two are not identified (Table 33)»
A. site chronology 166 years in length has been constructed using four
specimens that cross date with each other,
I have not been able to
date the site chronology*
The Pretty Bull Site, 39BF12
This site is situated just above the Big Bend Dam on the east
bank of the Missouri River in Buffalo County*
It has been assigned
to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a),
A final re­
port on the material from the site has not, as yet, been published.
Table
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H„ P0 Thomas Site, 39ST12
Provenience
Species
78
Area 2, 101, ?3
populus
llh
Area 2, XD1
'
populus
10
Area 2, Z131, Fh
populus
172
Area 2, SOI, F7 & 8
populus
180
Area 2, XU1, F? & 8
populus
600A-B
ZU1, FI *■:-
populus
633A-E
BJ1, FI, west half
populus
63k
XtO., 51, northeast quadrant,
fence post .
populus
637
XU, FI, south edge, east
member of fallen timbers
populus
61a
XOl, FI, southeast quadrant,
north.side of F33
populus
666
XEL, F23
populus
686A-G
201, F25 ...
populus
70
201, P35 and F36
populus
770
201, FI, fill
ash
791
201, FI, fill
populus
819
XU1, FI, floor
populus
823
XU2, F2, southwest quadrant
populus
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
210
Specimen
Number
Table $k»
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H e P0 Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
875
HJ2, F2, F32, fill
populus "
930
1U2, F2, F47> fill
bark (Spp„)
952A-J
XU2, F2, fill
populus
976A-M
XD2, F2, fill
populus
977A-D
XU2, F2, fill
populus
998A-M
X02, F2, fill.
populus
1048 •
XD3, F3, entrance post
north ..side of entrance.
populus
1049
XU3, F3, northeast quadrant,
fence post
populus
1052
XU3, F3, northwest quadrant
populus
1060
ZU3, F3, southeast quadrant
populus
1061
XU3, F3, southeast quadrant,
northeast of F£l, fence post
populus
1062
XU3, F3, southeast quadrant,
peripheral post
populus
1063
XU3? F3, southeast quadrant
peripheral post
populus
1067
XU3, F3, southwest quadrant,
center post
populus
1068
XU3, F3, southwest quadrant,
west of F19, peripheral post
ash
Bates
(I365p™lit09w)
(
Plotted
Remarks
Table
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H e P„ Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued
Specimen
Number
'
Provenience
1069
BJ3, ^3# southwest quadrant,
fallen timber
ash
1099
XU3, F3, west side of
vestibule trench
populus
1102
203, F3, P2
ash.
llltf
XU3, .?57 •
populus
1238
XU3, P3, refuse
populus
1239A-C
XU3, F3, refuse
populus
1269A & B
XU3, F3, refuse
populus
1303
m 3, F3, fill
populus
1318A-S
#3, F3, fill
populus
1318T
m 3, F3, fill
ash,
13k0'
m3, F3, fill
populus
1356A & B
m 6, F6, midden over parts
of #6
populus
15U8
mil, Fli, northwest quadrant,
fill
populus
1556
mil. Fit, northwest quadrant,
fallen timber
populus
1669
mu, FU, fill
populus
1730A-E
m5, F5, fill
populus
Species
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table $k«
Specimen
Number
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H„ P, Thomas Site? 39ST12— Continued
Provenience
Species
17U9
XU55 P5j northwest quadrant
fill
populus
1767
XUS? F5s southeast quadrant
squared post
populus
1768
F5s southwest edge,
roof timber
populus
1791
XD3,
southwest quadrant
square post
pine
1931
xmu, H77, bull-dozed fill
populus
■'
Area 1, X01, PI -.House 1
Area 1, XU2, F2 = House 2
Area 1? XU3, P3 = House 3
Area I, 203, F19 - (?)
Area 1, XU2, F32 = (?)
Area 1, XU2, PU7 = (?)
Area 1, XU3, F51 = (?)
Area 1, XU3, F37 = (?)
Area 2. 201 = test trench
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 5Us
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the BU 'f0 Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued
Area 2, lUl, F3 - cache pit
Area 2, Xtil, Fij. = post hole associated with F7 and F8
Area 2, XUit, Fij. = House 62
Area 2, Stt# = House 73
Area 2, XU1, F7 = soil level in section
Area 2, XU1, P8 = soil level in section
Area 2, ML, P23 = (7)
Area 2, XU1, F25 = (?)
Area 2, XU1, F35 = (?)
Area 2, XttL, F36 = (?)
XXJ6, F6 =" midden
XUlit « House 77
Table 55 «> Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dinehart Village, 39LM33
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
37A & B
XUF2/PH1
juniper
381 & B
XUF2, PH2
juniper
39
XUP2, PH3
juniper
401-0
XUF2, FH4
juniper
411-0
XUF2, PH5
juniper
P
631-D
XBF2, PH15
juniper
p
651-0
XUF2, PH16
Cf> .
661 & B
XUF2, PHI?
juniper
731 & B
XIF2, PH20
juniper
74
XUF2, PH21
juniper
75
XDF2, PH24
juniper
76
XUF2, PH25
(?)
771 & B
XUF2, PH27
juniper
78
XUF2, PH28
juniper
791-0
XUF2, PH29
juniper
80
XUF2, PH30
juniper
Bates •
Plotted
Remarks
P
64p-l66w
P
X-dates
W/66,77,79
5lp-l46w
P
X-dates
W/39,77r79
26p-l46w
P
X-dates
W/39,66,79
lfp-88vv
P
X-dates
W/39,66,77
P
Table 5.5o
Arehaeologloal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dlnehart Village# 39M33— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
81
XUF2? PH31
juniper
82A-E
XUF2? PH32
juniper
83A-F
IUF25 PH33
juniper
8It '
XUF2, PH39
juniper
85A-F
XUF2, Pfflil
juniper
196
XUF2, F19 in F3
populus
XUF2 - long rectangular house
F3 - (?) in X0F2
P19 = fill of F3
Dates
Plotted
P
Remarks
217
There are 1? pieces of wood from the site*
Fourteen of the
specimens are populuSj one is ash and two could not be identified as
to species (Table 56)o The one piece of ash could not be dated*
The Grandle-Jones Site, 39HU60
The Grandle-Jones site is on the east bank of the Missouri
River near the confluence of Chapelle Creek in Hughes County*
No
formal published report is available on the cultural remains at this
site*
It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon
(Caldwell 1966a)* There are five pieces of populus in the collection
from 39HU60 (Table 57)*
Because of the nature of the material, no
dates'could be obtained*
The Jiggs Thompson Site, 39LM208
This site is on the west bank of the Missouri River in the
Big Bend in Lyman County*
Analysis of the cultural material from
the site has not been published*
It has been assigned to the Initial
Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)» Two radiocarbon determina­
tions are available for material from the site*
Both of these pro­
vided dates of A*D, 1280 * 120 years*
There are 3h pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec­
tion accounting for 21 individual specimens*
per and eight are populus (Table 58)*
Of these, 13 are juni­
Final plotting and analysis
of the material from 39LM208 could not be completed and no dates have
been obtained*
fable £60 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Pretty Bull Site, 39EF12
Specimen
Sumher
Provenience
300
21, backdirt
h32
XL, H80B75, 6 to 12 inches
populus
$01
XL
N90BU5, 6 to 12 inches
populus
■ XL, N95B!j5, 6 to 12 inches
populus
$72
Species
...
populus
$77
XI, H95BU5, 12 to 18 inches
populus
$88
XL, 195E50, 12 to 18 inches
ash
610
XL, 195®1l5, posthole
. ...
populus
70$
.XL, 1105B70, 12 to 18 inches
populus
76?
XL, 1110165, 12 to 18 inches
populus
769
XL, EL10E65, 18 to 2k inches
populus
788
XI, 1115135, 6 to 12 inches
populus
88U
XI, 6 to 12 inches
populus
896
XI, 12 to 18 inches
populus
927
XI, 121, cache pit
populus
928
XI, 121, cache pit
SEP. ?
938
XI, 122, cache pit
populus
939
XI, 122, cache pit
SEP, ?
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 57=
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the G-randle-Jones Site, 39HU60
Specimen
Mumber
Provenience
Species
86U
House 3, Post 5
populus
1106
Feature 2, Post 75», Outer
post
populus
2062
Feature 13, Post 80, Leaner
post
populus
2063
Feature-13, Post 103, .Outer
post
populus
2066
Feature 13,' Post 128, Outer
post
populus
House 3 = circular lodge
Feature 2 = circular lodge
Feature 13 = circular lodge
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 58„
Specimen
Number
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs Thompson Site$ 39EM208
Provenience
Species
- -■
76A-1
P2, fill.
juniper
88
F2, house fill
populus
108
f29 floorj base of north
wall, 1**3 feet from east wall
populus
136
F7 in F2
juniper
196
F10 in F2
juniper
203A-0
F2, PH7, outer post
juniper
20lj.
F2S PH8, outer post
juniper
207
F2, PB23, outer post
juniper
219
P2, PH37, outer post
juniper
223
F2, fill
juniper
238
FI*, fill
populus
367
F16 in Fl*
populus
3881. & B
F17 in Fl*
populus
1*93
F21 in Fit
populus
331*
F23 in Fl*
populus
3761 & B
Fl*, PH30
juniper
377
Fl*, PH32, outer post
juniper
Plotted
Remarks
Table £8*
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs Thompson Site, 39RM208— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
380
Fh, PH3h, outer post
juniper
382A - 0
Fh, PH33, outer post
juniper
390
Fh, PH101, random post
juniper
638
F28 in Fh
populus
Dates
F2 = rectangular house entrance to the south
Flj. = rectangular house entrance to the southwest
F? = cache pit, southeast quadrant of F2
F10 = cache pit, below house floor, northwest quadrant F2
F16 = cache pit, southwest corner of FI4
FI? = cache pit, southeast quadrant of Fh
F21 = cache pit in Fh
F23 = cache pit in northeast quadrant of Fh
F28 « cache pit in northeast quadrant of Fit
Plotted
Remarks
222
The Swanson Sitea 39EB16
This site is situated near the east bank of the Missouri River
a few miles north of the town of Chamberlain in Brule County„ The
cultural remains described for the site (Hurt 1951) and other indica­
tors have suggested that it was probably occupied between JLD® lUOO
and JLBe lh50 (Hurt 1953) o Caldwell (1966a) has placed the complex
in the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon*,
There are 35 pieces of juniper from the site representing 19
discrete specimens (Table 59)«
rial has not been completed*
Final detailed analysis of the mate­
Ho dates have been obtained for 39BRl6„
The langdeau Bite, 39IM209
Site 39LM2Q9 is located in the Big Bend on the west bank of
the Missouri River in lyman County*
The analysis of the recovered
material has not been publishede The cultural assemblage has been
identified with the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)*
Two radiocarbon determinationss ASD 6 1000 * 65 years and A «,!)<, 1100 *
55 years5 are available for material from this site*
Ten pieces of wood and charcoal representative of seven speci­
mens are in the site collection*
The material consists of six juniper
specimens and one of populus (Table So)
Final analysis of the col­
lection has not been completed and no dates have been obtained*
The Jandreau Site, 39KM22g
This site is located near the neck of the Big Bend on the
west bank of the Missouri River in Lyman Countye A formal report of
Table 5>9»
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swanson Site, 39BR16
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
1/1
West wall. Test Trench one
juniper
1/2 & 3
West wall. Test Trench one
juniper
one specimen
1/h & 5
West wall, Test Trench one
■ juniper
one specimen
1/6 & 7
West wall. Test Trench one
juniper
one specimen
2/1 & 2
Test Trench 1
juniper
one specimen
3/1 & 2
Post 1, House 1
juniper
one specimen
li/l & 2
House 2, right side
juniper
one specimen
h/3 & It.
House 2, right side
juniper
one specimen
U/5 & 6
House 2, right side
juniper
one specimen
V? & 8
House 2, right side
juniper
one specimen
k/9 & 10
House 2, right side
juniper
one specimen
U/il
House 2, right side
juniper
5/1 & 2
House 2, right wall
juniper
one specimen
6A & 2
House 2, left side
juniper
one specimen
7/1 & 2
House 2, Post A
juniper
one specimen
8/1 & 2
House 2, Post P
juniper
one specimen
9/1 & 2
House 2, Post D
juniper
one specimen
10/1 & 2
House 2
juniper
one specimen
■
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 59„
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swanson Site, 39BR16— Continued
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
11
House 2, Post G
juniper
Bates
Plotted
Remarks
Table 60e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Langdeau Site, 39M209
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
8^9
F7? PH3G, outer post
juniper
863
P7, PH60, outer post
juniper
1260
Fll, house fill
juniper
1338
F?6 in Fll
populus
1361
Fll, PH19, outer post
juniper
1373A-D
FU, PH38 and PH39, outer
posts.
... -
juniper
1379
Fll, PH70, outer post
juniper
F7 = long rectangular lodge entrance to the southwest
Fll = long rectangular lodge entrance to the south
F76 = small pit in southwest quadrant of Fll
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
226
the cultural content of the site has not been published<= The material
has been aligned with the Initial Middle Missouri.Horizon (Caldwell
1966a)O
There are Ik specimens in the site collection of which ten are
juniper and four are populus (Table 61)„
Detailed analysis and plot­
ting of the pieces has not been completed0 Ho dates have been obtained
for 39IM225»
Summary
The available tentative tree-ring dates for the Initial Middle
Missouri Horizon range from A 0D0 lliOp to A eD s 1631a
The proposed
dating of the horizon between A sDa 800 and A 0D 0 1300 is completely in­
consistent with these tree-ring dates0
On the basis of the tree-ring
dates, I would give maximum limits to this complex between A*D* 1300
and AoD0 l350e The later dates from 39ST56 probably represent a com­
ponent related to some other horizon*
This dating raises some major
questions concerning the reconstruction of the prehistory of the area*
Some of these problems are dealt with in detail in the final section
of this chapter*
The St* John's Site, 39HU213
This site is located on the east bank of the Missouri River
in the southeastern corner of Hughes County*
B»
Jensen has ex- -
plained to me that the site has produced artifacts most similar to
those from the Great Oasis sites in southwestern Minnesota, and that
Table.61,
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jandreau Site, 391M22J?
Specimen
Humber
Provenience
Species
385>
F9 , floor between wall and
populus
397
F9, Pit, random post
juniper
398
F9, P6, random post
juniper
W7
F9, P25, outer post
populus
lt08
F9, P29, outer post
juniper
k09
F9, P30s outer post
juniper
ia o
F9, P3f), outer post
juniper
hl6
F9, Ph3, outer post
juniper
U17
F9, Plj.6, outer post
juniper
Itl9
F9, Pi|.9, random post
juniper
h22
■F9, P72, random post
populus
ml
1^3
F9, (?)
juniper
767
F5, cache in east wall of
square 7 of F3
populus
768
F^, P2, square 7
juniper
F3 = excavation unit
P? = cache pit in F3
F9 = rectangular house
Flit, = cache pit (?) in F9
Dates
Plotted
Remarks
228
radiocarbon and ^guess’* dates for Great Oasis range from 1000 BeG0 to
proto-historic Omaha*
Fifteen pieces of one specimen of juniper were provided from
39HU213 (Table 62)„
A tentative date of A0D e lU32s which is not a
cutting date, has been determined®
This date would place a component
of a third complex or horizon in the Middle Missouri Region during
the period in which the Extended Middle Missouri and Initial Opales­
cent horizons are placed by the dating presented in this report®
The Dating and Proposed Chronological Reconstructions
Until the recently proposed systemization of Middle Missouri
prehistory in the framework of traditions and horizons (lehmer and
Caldwell 1966$ Caldwell 1966a) most reconstructions for the area have
been couched in terms of the Mid-Western or McKern Taxonomic System®
This latter system utilized concepts of component, focus, aspect,
phase, and basic culture to exemplify succeedingly higher level of
relationship between the archaeologically recovered cultural remains*
As originally defined these units did not necessarily include space
and time coordinates, but were based on the number of elements various
cultural entities held in common®
consistent®
Use of these concepts has been in­
Any survey of the literature dealing with the Great
Plains describing the numerous foci, aspects, and phases will quickly
demonstrate the inconsistencies of definition and application of the
terminology®
Some researchers have insisted on sticking to the
original definitions®
Others have defined !ftheir foeus66 on the basis
of space, time, shared characteristics, or any combination of these
fable 62a
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the St» John’s Site, 39HU213
Specimen
Number
Provenience
Species
.Dates
Plotted
516A-Q
ira.8
juniper
(1365p-lii32vv)
P
XD18 = Test pit at southern edge of the site
Remarks
230
factors.
The result has been confusion especially for the non-
specialist and in some instances for the specialist as well*
The first major attempt to bring reason to the developing
chaos was by Stephenson (I9$hs 15-21)*
He reported a proposed organi­
zation of the Central Plains and Middle Missouri cultural manifesta­
tions in the framework of the Mid-Western Taxonomic System with the
addition of a relative chronological framework.
In his reconstruction
he equates in terms of relative time the developments in the Central
Plains and the Middle Missouri from the earliest to the most recent of
the village dwelling groups*
Following this early presentation, other
investigators modified the scheme or introduced their own concepts to
the organization of the Middle Missouri material (Lehmer 195k)s but in
general Stephenson's outline was followed,
Stephenson's organization stood more or less intact with
various investigators shifting the relative position of one or another
groupings as their own research applied until 1961,
At this time,
Wedel (1961) offered a new and complete synthesis of the prehistory
not only of the Central Plains and Middle Missouri, but of the entire
Great Plains area*
He also equates the developments between, the Cen­
tral Plains and the Middle Missouri especially during the period after
A,D, 1000*
Essentially he equates the chronology for the period in
which agriculture was successfully practiced by semi-sedentary groups
living in villages for the two areas*
Most recently, a new system of organization based on the
terminology of Willey and Phillips (1962) has been suggested for the
231
area by Lebmer and Caldwell (1966s 311-16)„
They follow an initial
limited approach of this kind for the area by Deetz (19635*
Their
original statement has sinoe been supplemented by additional defini­
tive ones on the Middle Missouri Tradition (Caldwell 1966a) and Cen­
tral Plains Tradition (Brown 1966)»
These reconstructions again
equate the chronological developments for the nVillage Indian" period.
In view of the dating presented in this report, I believe
that the underlying chronology for all of the foregoing reconstruc­
tions must be critically examined especially for the earlier horizons
with which they deal*
One of the first factors to be looked at is
that the earliest available tree-ring dates from the Central Plains
(Champe 19^6) place the occupation of the western part of this area
by semi-sedentary groups as early as the beginning of the lljth century.
That the sites from which these dates are derived represent a well
established pattern would indicate a much earlier date for their in­
troduction to the Central Plains probably being as early as A.D. 1200
or even A.D. 1100.
In contrast, the earliest dates I have been able to obtain
for similar early horizons in the Middle Missouri Region would place
the development there in the first part of the 13th century or 100
years later than comparable tree-ring dates from the Central Plains.
Again, however, the dating should be pushed back probably as much as
100 to 200 years to allow for the establishment of the pattern.
Even
this would still leave roughly a 100 year period between the earliest
possible dates in the Central Plains and those for the Middle Missouri.
232
It has to be recognized that the dating for neither area is
as yet adequate, but given the available data, the contemporaneity of
the developments in the two areas is open to question*
For these
reasons, 1 think the developments in the Middle Missouri should be
seen as being somewhat later and drawing their impetus from the logi­
cal source to the south in the Central Plains.
Or in other terms,
the Middle Missouri Region is an extension of the Central Plains and
was penetrated more slowly by the developing agricultural economy
that was taking place- in the latter area.
The next problem to be dealt with in the Middle Missouri is
concerned with the period in which both the Extended Middle Missouri
and Initial Coalescent horizons make their appearance.
This period
from approximately &.D. IZ4.OQ to A.D* 1550 sees the continuation of
the Middle Missouri Tradition in the area and essentially contempor­
aneous with it the.introduction of the Coalescent Tradition.
Inter­
estingly enough, many of the sites from both traditions are fortified
during this period, although, this is not an entirely new trait for
the area.
Another point of interest is the date I have obtained for
the St. John's site, which represents yet another tradition, that
would place it in the same time span.
In other words the period from
A.D. lij.00 to A.D. l350 was one of major shifts either of population
or cultural influences into the Middle Missouri area.
Generally the
Coalescent Tradition sites have been associated with the movement
into the area of Central Plains peoples who ultimately are identified
with the Arikara.
In similar manner, the sites of the Middle Missouri
233
Tradition have been associated with groups who ultimately became known
as the Mandan or Hidatsa,
Neither of these identifications have been
adequately demonstrated for the earlier portions of the chronology*
If <, however, a truly outside group, such as the Coalescent, did move
into the area, the emphasis on fortifications is easily explainable.
In like manner one can explain the contemporaneous northward movement
of both traditions through time in terms of the dating*
A last impor­
tant result of this interpretation, that the Coalescent is truly in­
trusive and probably from the Central Plains area, adds more weight
to the conclusion that the Middle Missouri is in point of fact peri­
pheral to the Central Plains»
The period A.D* l5?5 to A«D* 1700 sees the final elimination
of the Middle Missouri Tradition in the South Dakota portion of the
area and its removal to an extreme northerly location*
By the same
token, the Coalescent Tradition sites come to dominate the entire
South Dakota area.
This same northward trending movement of the tra­
ditions continues into the final period, A.D* 1700 to A.D* 1830, and
by the end of this period both traditions cease to be found in South
Dakota*
It is my contention, then, that as future analysis of the
■Middle Missouri data is carried out more emphasis and attention
should be given to the unity with and relationships between these
■gomplexes and those recognized for the Central Plains proper*
Instead
of viewing the Middle Missouri region as a separate entity, or almost
separate, it should be regarded as a slender northward extension of
23h
the Central Plains and the pattern that exists there#
This is not to
say that influences and even peoples may not have penetrated the
Middle Missouri from other directions nor that the region did not
develop its own characteristics.
It is certain that the two major
traditions in the Middle Missouri did interact and that they are
archaeologically distinguishable is well demonstrated.
It is simply
that they should be looked at more closely in terms of their surround­
ing cultural environment.
Unfortunately as yet these ideas can neither be proven nor
disproven.
Even the chronological data on which 1 base my reconstruc­
tions is still very tentative, especially for the earlier periods,
and a great deal of work remains to be done in this area.
In addi­
tion, there is the problem of some of the very early dates obtained
by the radiocarbon process.
At present their unreliability is obvious
simply by comparing the disparate determinations obtained for the
same piece of wood.
Should further verification of these dates be
obtained or should the tentative tree-ring dates be shown to be in­
accurate, my interpretations would similarly have to be altered.
Also involved in the problems in the Middle Missouri is the mass of
unanalyzed data and the lack of published reports.
These factors
along with the totally inadequate provenience data for many of the
specimens reported on here add further problems for my interpretations.
CHAPTER 5
HOM-CHROHOEOGICAL INFORMATION
Other kinds of information may be derived from the study of
tree-rings besides that of a strictly chronological nature dealt with
in the proceeding chapters*
Some of these other kinds of informa­
tion, such as changes in relationships through time, are associated
with chronology*
There is also information of an ecological and
cultural nature that may be obtained*
This chapter deals with the
non-chronological results of the South Dakota study*
is presented under two main headings*
The material
The first section is concerned
with those conclusions of an ecological nature that have been derived
or may be expected from future studies in the area*
The second sec­
tion presents conclusions concerning cultural usages and relation­
ships*
Ecological Information
Information of an ecological nature pertaining to the avail­
ability of species and their use by the prehistoric populations in
South Dakota is one of the main results of the study*
Of the large
number of locally available plants listed by Wedel (1961: l60-l) as
being native to the area, seven have been identified in the collec­
tions,
These seven, juniper, ash, cottonwood, willow, pine, oak, and
hackberry, are all well represented as being utilized by the
.235
prehistoric populationse In addition a few pieces could not be iden­
tified as to speciese The collections also contain sufficient numbers
of pieces of bark to indicate that this material was utilized*
All of
the identified species have been found to come from both structural
and non-structural contexts*
The majority of the wood studied from
all of the sites where there has been adequate provenience has come
from house remains*
No exact figure can be arrived at on these re­
lationships because of inadequate provenience data on all but one or
two sitesa
There is some evidence of a change in the preferential use of
two of the kinds of wood, juniper and cottonwood, through time, and
of an increased appearance of both in non-structural contexts through
time.
Again, however, this cannot be clearly demonstrated with the
available information.
The most striking example of changes in the ecological re­
lationships of the area afforded by this study results from the evi­
dence for the percentage of wood used.
There is a major decrease in
the percentage of juniper specimens in the site's from early to late
(Fig, 8),
In the earliest group of sites juniper accounts for 58$
of the recovered wood and in the latest group only 9$,
Exactly the
opposite trend is evident in the amount of cottonwood recovered with
the earliest group of sites containing 3h$ in their collections and
the latest group having 75$®
There is also a major increase in the
percentage of other kinds of wood in the collections from the latest
period.
At this time 26$ of the recovered wood is of species other
237
90
80
*
z
/
V
\
\
N
70
z
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
✓
60
50
40
< o ^ S
30
20
10
US*, •"
--other
0
INITIAL
MIDDLE
MI SS OU RI
........
.......... :
EXTENDEDIN ITIAL
EXTENDED
MIDDLE
COALESCENT COALESCENT
MISSOURI
POSTC ON T AC T
COALESCENT
H O RIZ ON
ig. 8.
Pe r c en t a g es
of species in the
col lect i ons through t i m e .
238
than juniper or populus.
Prior.to this period these other species had
never accounted for more than 3% of the collection at any period
(Fig* 8)*
Several explanations for these changes are possible®
One is
that the juniper was simply logged out through time and as it became
less available other woods had.to be used in its place®
Since juni­
per is a relatively slow growing tree and probably never was a major
component of the available timber, this explanation seems the most
reasonable®
Other possible factors in the observed changes could be
either differential preservation or recovery®
The first, preservation,
does not apply to the juniper because not only does the percentage in
the sites decrease but the actual number recovered decreases sharply®
The rise in the percentage of cottonwood in the collections may be
partially due to preservation since it .decomposes relatively rapidly,
although a fairly large number of specimens have been recovered from
the early sites®
It is probable that the factor of differential re­
covery is also negligent®
This would imply selective sampling of the
wood remains in the field®
Such selective sampling is probably not
the case because most of the archaeologists working in the area are
not familiar with wood identification®
in the cultural preference for the wood.
k last possibility is a change
At this time there is no
evidence for such a change and there is actually some for a continued
preference for juniper for building (Wedel 196l; 160)„
For- these
reasons, then, the best explanation is that through time juniper be­
came less available as a result.of its exploitation and other kinds
of wood had to be used in its place®
239
One probable effect of this change in the kind of wood avail­
able and used would be on house size and construction*
If, as the
data indicates, juniper was replaced primarily by cottonwood, I would
expect smaller structures to be built.
Cottonwood, is not nearly as
strong a wood as juniper and would not support the same amount of
weight.
It is probable then that at least.one of the factors affecting
the observed decrease in house size, especially in more recent periods
(Deetz 1965? 31-32)
is this change in available construction material.
One other area of interest
to the prehistorianthat tree-ring
studies have been able to provide information on is climatology,
I
have not been able to analyze the ring series studied with reference
to climatic relationships but can draw at least some tentative con­
clusions®
Throughout the area under study, the climate today closely
resembles that described by Wedel for the northern part in the vicinity
of Mobridge (Wedel 1955s 75)»
Generally the temperature extremes vary
from well below 0° to over 100° degrees, and the frost-free growing
season averages 100
to 120 days in length*
The annualprecipitation
would average close
to 16 inches® Harry 1® Weakly has demonstrated
a high degree of correlation between annual tree growth and precipi­
tation for juniper from an area with similar climatic conditions in
Nebraska (HSB® Weakly 19^0: 18-19, 19h3° 816-9),
If one assumes that
the same relationships apply in South Dakota, an examination of the
chronologies presented in Figures Ij. and 5 shows several periods of
below normal growth.
Further analysis of the assumed relationships
is required because if these periods do actually represent drought
2U0
conditions3 they would be periods in which one would expect consider­
able difficulty for the village dwelling agriculturalists in the area.
Site Occupation and Construction
On the basis of the dating presented for material from 17 sites
it is possible to make a preliminary statement on the length of the
site occupation.
The time span for the 13 sites from which more than
one date is available varies,from seven years for 39ST6 to 166 years
for 39Sf56o
The average length of time for all of the sites if allow­
ance is made for more than one component at those sites where appli­
cable is 1|5<.2 years.
The average for each of the five horizons is
variable, but this is probably more related to the available sample
than actual differences in the duration of site occupation®
The
average for the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon for data from six
sites representing eight components is 30.9 years.
The average for
the Extended Goalescent for two sites is 2$ years and for the Initial
Goalescent for one site with two components is 61,5 years.
The two
horizons of the Middle Missouri Tradition for which data are available
are the Extended Middle Missouri, with the average for two sites of
50 years, and the Initial Middle Missouri, with the average for a
probable three components ffom two sites being 81.3 years.
The sample from the Post-contact Goalescent is the most ade­
quate.
The average of 30.5 years for the occupation of these sites
is comparable to the generally accepted time span of 20 to 30 yea,rs
given to the occupation of sites in the Middle Missouri Region,
The
data for the earlier horizons indicate a longer period of occupancy
210.
for their sites.
Although this may generally be true, the samples are
inadequate for these earlier horizons.
Information is available from 11 of the sites that makes pos­
sible a statement as to probable time of house construction and repair
at them.
At site 39BF2, two dates, A»D, 1705 and 1717, come from one
house. Feature 50Uo
Since neither of these dates represent cutting
dates but the latter one appears to be closer to being one, this
house was probably built in the 1720's.
in Component B of the site.
This dating would place it
One date each of A,D, 1776 from Feature
506 and A,D* 1768 from Feature 512 would indicate these houses were
probably built in the 1770’s and 1780*s respectively, thus placing
them both in Component A (Deetz 196$s 39)«
The dates for 39BF3 suggest that one house. Feature 15, with
dates of A,B, 1671 and A*D* 1678 was probably built about 1680,
The
information from two other houses, Feature 68A with a date, of A*D*
I687 and Feature 9 with one of A»D„ 1707 would indicate these were
built near 1690 and 1710 respectively.
In addition dates of A,D0 1678
and A,D, 1687 from cache pits, when looked at in combination with the
dates from two of the houses, would indicate a concentration of
activity at the site between A,B» 1680 and 1690,
Dates have been obtained from four of the houses at 39B426
that indicate most of the activity at that site took place after A,D,
1700,
From the house in Feature 50 seven dates, A„D, 1686, 1696,
170l|., 1711, 1712, 1715, and 1732, have been derived.
Because these
dates cluster in the second decade of the 18th century, the house
2h2
was probably built during that decade in 1715 or later.
The two much
earlier dates may represent reused timbers or be the result of a high
loss of outside rings from the specimens.
The late date of A.B. 1732
probably comes from a repair timber, and would indicate use of the
structure for at least 15 years.
There are two dates from Feature 11,
A.D, 1681 and 1699, that point to the house having been constructed
near A.D* 1700.
In addition, a date of A.D. 1669 from Feature 90 and
A.D* 1736 from Feature 80 supports use of these two houses in at least
the 1670's and 1730's respectively.
Of the four houses represented,
three were in use after A.D. 1700 and two of them after 1715*
A group of three dates from posts in the fortifications at
39ST17, A.D. I667, 1668 and 1681;, indicate that the site was fortified
in the 1670's or 1680's.
In addition, two dates of A.D. 166? and 1723
from Feature 9 indicate that this house was probably built after 1670
and was in use in the 1720's.
One specimen with a date of A.D. 1699
from a cache pit in another house supports the use of that house
near or after 1700.
The site was probably first occupied in the
l670's and was in' use for i;0 to 50 years*
By contrast, the range of dates in the site chronology from
39ST6 for material from the fortifications and two houses spans only
seven years.
This short time range probably indicates a very short
period for the construction of this.site.
The majority of dates from 39811; are for material associated
with burials.
These dates, A.D. 1663, 1667, 1673, 1676, and. 169)4,
span 30 years and suggest that the site was in use during at least
2h3
the last three decades of the 17th century*
Two other dates from
Feature I0I4, A.D. I67U and 1680, indicate construction of this house
in the IdSO’s*
At 391M2 there are two dates from Feature l6t A*D* 137k and
1581e They support construction of this house in the l^SO’s*
One
date of AeDe 1^93 from Feature 2 relates the occupation of this struc­
ture to the last decade of the 16th century.
In combination these
dates indicate occupation of the site during at least the last two
decades of the 15>0Q’s«
The dates from one house at 39ST223 show a distinctive cluster
in the lii.30’s and suggest that the house. Feature 3, was built near
A,D, lUUO and occupied until at least II4.6O,
The dates from this
structure are A»D* lU33? lh3k} 1U36, 1U39, and llj.60* Two dates of
A,B, 1U50 and lh$2 from the house in XU16 indicate construction in
the ll4.
5>0 !s and further support occupation of the site from at least
A.B0 II4I4.O to 1U60,
The range from the two houses for which I have dates at 39ST56
is somewhat confusing because of the long time span of over 100 years
for both.
Those from the house in 3CIH7 cluster in the 1580 *s and
probably indicate construction at that time.
1529? 1583) 1586, 1587, 1602, and 1631,
The dates are A„De
The very early date at 1529
is probably explainable as ring loss or reuse of timber and the two
late ones may be repair timbers.
This would indicate use of the
structure over approximately a 50 year period.
The dates from the
house in XU18 do not exhibit any pronounced clustering.
These dates
2kh
are i.JD0 lij.87, lk96t l505s 15»60, 1^7B, and 1609=
Unless two periods
of construction and occupation are represented and separated by the
break between 1505 and 1560, the house was probably built in the late
16th or early 17th century.
At 39M33 four dates from one house have a span of 78 years
in the site chronology.
Three of the dates are separated by only 20
years and probably represent the relative time of construction.
The
very early date is probably the result of ring loss or reused timber®
Datep have been determined for material from six other sites
but no estimates of the time of house construction or site occupation
can be, made for these sites®
available from the site®
In four of the cases only one date is
The other two lack adequate provenience
data to establish the relationship of the dated specimens from the
site to each other or to specific structural features®
On the basis of the foregoing discussion of nonchronological
findings* one item is to be especially noted®
of detailed provenience data®
This is the importance
'Where such information has been avail­
able* interpretation of the dates beyond the purely chronological
meanings becomes possible®
As a result of having this information*
it has been possible in 11 cases to make some judgment as to the date
of construction or use of various features®
It has also been possible
to make suggestions concerning the possible reuse of timber in a few
instances* but no final conclusions can be reached until a detailed
description of the features concerned is reported®
In addition to
these considerations, it has been possible to arrive at some tentative
estimates'for the length of site occupancy in the areaQ
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In the spring of I96I1. the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research,
University of Arizona, in cooperation with the Midwest Regional Office
of the National Park Service and the River Basin Surveys program of
the Smithsonian Institution, undertook a project to determine the
feasibility of applying the methods of tree-ring analysis to material
from South Dakota.
It was planned that if these techniques could be
applied and tree-ring chronologies constructed, the study would be
expanded to include archaeologically recovered specimens in the hope
of lengthening and strengthening the chronologies and of obtaining
dates for the prehistoric material.
This report is based on the re­
sults of the study of tree-ring specimens both modern and archaeolo­
gical from the Middle Missouri Region in South Dakota.
The project
had demonstrated the feasibility of constructing chronologies based
on wood, especially juniper and ash, from the area.
Chronologies have
been constructed for five areas based on modern specimens and three
of these have been lengthened and strengthened by the inclusion of
records from archaeologically derived specimens.
For archaeologists, one important product of the research has
been the determination of dates for material from 15 sites in South
Dakota.
Undated chronologies have also been constructed for an
2I4.6
2k7
additional two sites0 Although some of the dates presented for this
material are still tentatives they provide the most solid basis avail­
able for chronological reconstruction of the prehistory of the area*
1 have outlined such a reconstruction in light of these dates*
Five horisons of the two primary traditions in the area have
been assigned temporal limits*
In the Middle Missouri tradition, the
Initial Middle Missouri Horizon has been dated between at least A 0B 0
1350 and A 0B 0 l$0Qo
The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon is dated
between A<,B0 li^OQ and A 0D 0 1550*
fhe three Ooalescent Tradition
horizons have also been assigned temporal limits*
The earliest of
this traditions horizons, the Initial Ooalescent, falls between A*D*
lUhO and A 0D* 1^20* The Extended Ooalescent Horizon fits between
AoB* 1580 and A*D* 1700 and the final expression of this tradition,
the Post-contact Ooalescent Horizon dates from A*B* 1675 to A 01* I8I4.O*
The study has also provided information of a nonehronologieal
nature*
Ghanges in the availability and use of the wood by the area's
prehistoric inhabitants have been demonstrated*
Through time Juniper
became less available and cottonwood was increasingly utilized by the
peoples in the area*
This change has been further related to a de­
crease in house size because of the lesser strength of the cottonwood*
The change has been shown to be a result of the interaction of the
human element and the ecological environment*
The decreased avail­
ability of juniper is related to its slow growth and heavy exploitation
by the local population*
It has also been possible to arrive at estimates of the length
of site occupation*
The most adequate of these estimates, that which
applies to the most recent period, is 30op years.
There is, however,
evidence that sites were occupied for somewhat longer periods in the
earlier portions of the chronology.
Still other applications of the
data have, where adequate, made possible estimates of the time of
construction of excavated features and their relationship to each
other.
The examination of the over 2000 specimens incorporated in
the study has established the feasibility of applying the methods of
tree-ring analysis to material from South Dakota.
Chronologies have
been built and dates have been determined for archaeological material.
In addition, much of nonchronological interest has been derived.
As with all preliminary investigations of this, nature, the
results must be considered tentative to a degree.
Although the work
has achieved its primary goals, the material studied has involved
problems and some areas have yet to be investigated.
One of the pri­
mary areas to be looked into is the relationship of tree growth in
South Dakota to environmental conditions, especially those of climate.
Much additional work needs to be done before the early portions, in­
side A.D® 1500, of the chronology are secure and before the dating of
the pertinent specimens can be definitely demonstrated.
The species of wood with which I have worked contain problems
that need additional investigation.
The wood is much more difficult
to work with than that normally used for chronological purposes in
other areas, especially in the Southwest.
Almost all examination
has to be done under high magnification and even then the distinction
2 k9
of double or false rings is extremely difficult in the young growth
of the junipers on which most of the South Dakota chronologies are
based®
Other problems still exist concerning the area of applica­
bility for the chronologies*
At the present time, this area cannot
be extended over $0 to 100 miles with any degree of confidence, and
the shorter distance is to be preferred®
For the foregoing reasons, the results that have been pre­
sented here must be considered tentative„ It will only be with the
completion of further studies on these various problems that a final
conclusion on the validity of the results can be judged.
Until such
investigations can be made, not only the results presented here but
those reported for other areas of the Great Plains must be considered
tentative.
The only area for which anywhere near adequate informa­
tion is available now outside of South Dakota is western Nebraska,
Several of the questions and problems raised here have been investi­
gated in some of the work done in that area.
Even there, however,
additional research is needed,
A. final problem of great significance does not directly apply
to the construction of chronologies or the application of tree-ring
methods in the area*
It has to do with the interpretation of the
results obtained by these techniques.
The problem is that of inade­
quate provenience supplied for this study.
This has been true not
only for the. archaeological material but the modern collection as
well*
In only a very few instances is a photographic record available
2£0
for the modern collections*
The detailed in-site provenience neces­
sary for dealing with the archaeological specimens runs the gamut
from excellent to nonexistent*
In general where the specimens have
been more recently obtained, the records are somewhat better, but
none is as yet truly adequate*
The first place to start in attempting
to improve the possible results of any future tree-ring research in
South Dakota is with the collection of the .specimens*
It is mandatory
that not only adequate collection records be made, but that the tech­
niques of recovery, preservation, and stqrage of the material be im­
proved*
Recommendations for Future Research
The results of this study warrant additional tree-ring anal­
ysis in the Middle Missouri Region and the Great Plains in general*
Such studies should be oriented toward verification of the findings
presented here and expanding the usefulness of the information*
This
latter should include; investigations of tree-growth and its rela­
tionship .to environmental conditions, the area over which the chronoc
logies are applicable, construction of new chronologies covering other
portions of the area, and analysis of the available material from
sites and locations not included in this study*
I believe, that a long range program of tree-ring research
should be initiated in the Great Plains*
A laboratory for this kind
of research should be established and staffed with qualified personnel
for this purpose*
The planning and organization of such a laboratory
251
should look toward problems other than those that are purely chrono­
logical, although this may be its initial orientation.
It could be
primarily directed toward obtaining information of an archaeological
nature, but should ultimately include investigations related to other
disciplines such as botany and forestry.
For these reasons, it should
ultimately be associated with an academic institution and should defi­
nitely cooperate with all organizations and institutions interested
in applying tree-ring research to their problems.
Essentially a
regionally oriented organization similar to the Laboratory of TreeRing Research at the University of Arizona should be the goal.
Such
a laboratory should be associated with and have a close working re­
lationship with the Tucson organization.
This would allow the Great
Plains laboratory to keep abreast of the Southwestern developments
and help to avoid possible errors*
The reasoning behind this suggestion is that by having such
a regionally oriented laboratory there is a much better chance of
having both continuity and uniformity in the research*
Establishment
of a laboratory in an academic institution would allow continuity by
having the advantage of being able to train students in this kind of
work*. It would also provide a centralized depository for the speci­
mens and a standardized set of procedures and records could be de­
veloped*
This standardization should be attempted no matter what the
location or orientation of the research facility*
A systematic set
of records should be organized and the specimens from all cooperating
institutions should be centrally located in order to be available for
study.
252
The organization of the proposed laboratory should initially
involve at least one and preferably two people trained in tree-ring
research plus clerical assistance*
In this way a system of con­
tinuous checking of specimen work and the other phases of chronology
building and dating could be maintained» Also adequate records could
be established and kept up*
It is preferable that those doing the
specimen work have had at least minimal training at the Eaboratory of
Tree-Ring Research and.ideally that they be experienced in working
with Great Plains species*
Under no circumstances should totally in-*
experienced personnel undertake such a project without close super­
vision*
The physical requirements for a laboratory are minimal.
First
is space in which to work and to meet the storage requirements for
the collections on hand*
Such space should be large enough to accomo­
date more storage than is immediately required so that additional
collections may be handled as they arrive,
A minimum of equipment
consisting of tools for preparing the specimens for study, optical
equipment, especially microscopes, a measuring machine, and clerical
items would be needed.
Access to a computer should also be con­
sidered so that pertinent analyses of the data may be accomplished*
The initial outlay for a minimum of equipment would be the major
expense in establishing a laboratory*
These recommendations should be considered as the ideal for
future undertakings in tree-ring research in the Great Plains,
There
are, however, certain more immediate and basic problems that deserve
253
attention.
These have to do with suggestions for the improvement of
collection procedures and with the ultimate amount and value of the
information that can be retrieved.
One first step that should be immediately taken is a program
to make those working in the Great Plains more aware of the possibil­
ities and requirements of tree-ring research#
This program should
emphasize not only the chronological information that can be derived,
but also the none hr onological data that can be ascertained#
tion, the limitations of the methods should be made clear#
In-, addi­
The basic
requirement for getting at nonchronological information is recognition
of the fact that wood recovered from archaeological sites is in every
sense a cultural artifact and must be treated as such*
The wood does
not represent just a post or wood from house fill as most have been
described in the records I have worked with*
The specimen is wood,
but it has been altered and used by people and as such is an artifact*
Therefore, it deserves the accurate, careful, and complete documen­
tation that would be given to any other artifact.
This documentation
must include complete provenience, description of associations, struc­
tural unit represented if applicable, and a photographic record*
Description of the artifact as a post or a beam is not adequate*
Coincident with documentation, excavators must become aware
of the importance of proper methods of recovery and preservation of
their wood artifacts#
A piece of charcoal or charred wood should be
properly wrapped and tied so that it will not disintegrate into dust.
Methods of recovery- and preservation have been extensively dealt with
2$h
in the literature and cannot be too strongly emphasized®
There is
currently being prepared at the laboratory a manual describing its
minimum requirements for accepting specimens®
This manual deals
primarily with the kind of information that should accompany material
submitted for analysis6 I would recommend that as soon as it becomes
available its requirements should be adopted as the standard for re­
cording all wood excavated in the Great Plains,'
In order to make sure that the people involved in archaeolo­
gical exploration and research in the Great Plains are aware of the
importance of proper techniques for handling wood artifacts, a state­
ment concerning these procedures should be prepared and made available
to all cooperating institutions in the area.
This statement should
cover all aspects of the information that should accompany specimens.
It should include suggestions on the proper methods of handling,
preparation, and storage of the material.
For example, no attempt
should be made to clean the wood by heavy brushing because this will
likely remove outer portions containing minimally present rings or
evidence of bark.
All charcoal and charred specimens should be
wrapped in cotton in the field, securely tied, sacked, and clearly
labeled with all pertinent information®
When necessary charred mate­
rial should be treated with paraffin and gasoline to prevent deteri­
oration,
Decayed wood and even relatively solid specimens should be
adequately wrapped and tied to prevent the loss of minimally present
rings and further decomposition.
In addition to a statement de­
tailing this kind of information, it would also be advisable to hdve
255
a qualified person visit excavations in progress to demonstrate the
techniqueso
It also seems advisable to organize some'kind of program
to help keep cooperating groups aware of new techniques for the re­
covery of information.
This could either be done through a publica­
tion such as the Plains Anthropologist or some similar outlet that
would have wide distribution*
If these recommendations concerning the treatment and recovery
of wood artifacts are followed, a major increase in the amount and
value of the information obtained should result with little or no
additional cost*
Continued and expanded research that follows the
accepted methods of tree-ring investigations elsewhere should add
considerable to the interpretive information deriving from archaeolo­
gical investigations in the Middle Missouri and the Great Plains in
general*
Another area in which immediate steps are possible is an expanded and more intensive collection of modern specimens®
Here again,
the emphasis should be on obtaining accurately documented samplese
The efforts in this direction should be oriented toward strengthening
the chronologies presented in this report and developing new ones
for other areas of interest.
The approach should be aimed at obtaining
statistically valid samples that can be utilized not only for the con­
struction of chronologies but also to determine the parameters of
tree-growth, the relationship of these to environmental factors, and
ecological data that might help to explain certain related cultural
problems.
Along with such a program, an attempt should be made to
256
collect a representative sample of the woody plants in the area for
comparative purposes and for species identification.
This kind of
collection should include all available species and be comprehensive
enough so that both the aylem and the phloem tissue can be identified
both in natural and charred condition.
Such a collection would be of
great value in identifying the material in the archaeological col­
lections.
Most of the above recommendations can be instituted within
the framework, of already existing research programs.
They are pri­
marily concerned with the application of more acceptable methods of
recovery and handling of wood artifacts®
As along range goal I am
recommending the establishment of a regional center for tree-ring
research in the Great Plains and a greatly expanded program of col­
lection and study*
The value of these recommendations lies in the more complete
interpretive data that would result from continued tree-ring studies.
The feasibility of this kind of research in the Great Plains has been
established and an example of the kinds of information that can be '
obtained has been presented in this report.
It is my opinion that
any investment in tree-ring analysis in the Great Plains would be
more than repaid by the resultant increase in chronological control
alone.
The derived nonchronological data would also be a major asset
in our attempts to understand the prehistory of the area.
REFERENCES
ALBERTSON, F* W,
1938
Studies of a 189-^ear-Old American Elm Tree in West-Central
Kansas, Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science,
V o le l i l j , p * S fe ” T o p e k a e '"
™
19l|0 Studies of Native Red Cedars in West Central Kansasc
Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol* hj,
pp0 "83-93% Wichita*
ANOHMOUS
1962
Missouri Basin Chronology Program, Statement lumber 3*
Smithsonian Institution, Missouri Basin Project, Lincoln®
BILL, ROBERT E.
I9I1.8 Review of Tree Ring Studies in North Dakota, by George F«
Will0 American Anthropologist, Vol* 50, No* 1, pp6 103108 « Menas ha.*
1932
Dendrochronology in the"Mississippi Valley, In Archeology
of Eastern United States, edited by James■B, Griffin,
pp« 3U3-55T* The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
BOWERS, ALFRED W*
1963
Investigations in the Mobridge Area, South Dakota,
Anthropologist, Vol, 8, No, 20, p, 118, Lincoln,
Plains
1967 Field Reports 196U Excavations of the Davis and Larson
Sites, Near Mobridge, South Dakota, Plains Anthropologist,
Vol, 12, No, 36, pp, 20H-205, Lincoln*
BROWN, LIONEL A.
1966
Temporal and Spatial Order in the Central Plains, Plains
Anthropologist, Vol, 11, No, 3k$ pp, 294-301* Lincoln,
CALDWELL, WARREN W,
i960
The Black Partisan Site (39LM218), Big Bend Reservoir,
South Dakota: A Preliminary Report* Plains Anthropologist,
Vol* 3, No* 10, pp* 33-37* Norman*
237
258
CALDWELL, mSRSN ¥„
1966a The Middle Missouri. Tradition Reappraised„ Plains Anthro­
pologist, 7ol« 11, No« 32, ppe lj?2~l$7* lincoln0
1966b Archeological Investigations at the McKehsey Village
(39AR201) Oahe Reservoire Plains Anthropologist, Vol„ 11,
lo» 31, PPo 2-38, Memoir Mo* 3® Lincoln®
1966c The Black Bartizan Site® liver Basin Surveys, Office of
Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Publications in
Salvage Archeology, No* 20 Lincoln,
CHAMPS, JOHM 1*
i9U6
Ash Hollow Cave| A Study of S'tratigraphic Sequence in the
Central Great Plainse University of Nebraska.Studies,
Mew Series No, 1* Lineoln0
COLE, M I COOPS!, and ROBERT BELL, JOHN BENNETT, JOSEPH CALDWELL,
NOEMAN .EMERSON, RICHARD MacMEISH, KENNETH OER, .ROGER IHLLIS
• 1951
Kincaid, A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis® The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago®
DEBT2, JAMES
1965
The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics«
Illinois Studies in Anthropology, No® He The University
Of Illinois Press, Urbana.
DOUGLASS, ANDREW S®
1919
Climatic
Rings of
Carnegie
Vol., 1=
Cycles and Tree-Growth Is A Study of the Annual
Trees in Relation to Climate and Solar Activity®
Institution of Washington, Publication No® 289,
Washington,
1929
The Secret of the Southwest Solved by Talkative [email protected]
The National Geographic Magazine, Vol, 56, No, 6, PP. 736770. Washington,
19H3
Notes on the Technique of Tree-Ring Analysis. IV; Prac­
tical Instruments, Tree-Ring Bulletin, Vol. 10, No, 1,
pp. 2-8. Tucson,
'
DRIVER, HAROLD S., and WILLIAM C. MASSE!
1957
Comparative Studies of North American Indians, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series,
Vol. H7, Pt, 2, *"pp© 165-H55,' Philadelphia^
259
m m T Z s WENDELL
1962
O r a z y Bull Site (39111220)5 Big Bend Reservoir? South Dakota.
Plains. Anthropologist^ Vple.7j, No®
pp. 36~it20 Lincoln®
EEETTS, HAROLD 0."
1963
Computer Programs for Tree-Ring Research® Tree-Ring
Bulletin^ Vol® 25» Nos®
pp. 2-7® Tucspn
FRITTSj, HAROLD 0os DAVID G. SKHH, CARL A. BUDELSKY, and JOHN ¥.
CARDIS .
..
... .. ,
. ...
. .
,
.....
1965a The Variability of Ring Characteristics within Trees as
Shown by a Reanalysis of four Ponderosa Pine® Tree-Ring
Bulletin, Vql® 27# Nos® 1-2# pp® 3-18® Tucson®.
FRITTS# HAROLD 0®, DAVID Qa SMITH# JOHN V® CARDIS#* and CARL
BUDELSKY. ,
. .
.. ..
.... „
........ ,.
A®
1965b Tree-Ring Characteristics along a Vegetation Gradient in
Northern Arizona® Ecology, Vol® ii.6s No® U# pp® 393-UlO®
Durham®
CLOCK# WALDO S®
1937
Principles and Methods of Tree-Ring Analysis® Carnegie
Institution of Washington#.Publication No® U86® Washington®
GREY# DON ’
1963
Big Horn Medicine Wheel Site# h8BH302® Plains Anthro­
pologist, Vol® 8# No® 19# pp® 27-liO© Lincoln®
HAWLSI# FLORENCE
19hl
Tree-Ring Analysis and Dating in the Mississippi Drainage®
The University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology,
Occasional Papers, No® 2® Chicago®
HILL# A© T»# and GEORGE METCALF
1914.2 A Site of the Dismal River Aspect in Chase County# Nebraska®
Nebraska History# Vol® 22# No® 2# pp® 155-226® Lincoln®
HOFFMAN, J„ J0
1965
Excavation of Fort George Village (39ST17) in the Big Bend
Reservoir of South. Dakota® Plains.Anthropologist^ Vol®
10, No® 27# pp® kS-U7 ® Lincoln®
HOSEMAN, Jo Jo
1967
Molstad Villageo River Basia Surveys s Office of Anthro­
pology, Smithsonian Institution^ Publications In Salvage
ikrelaeelogyjy Mo0 ko LinGolno ~
1URT3 HSSI1X
R = s
J R o
1951
Report of the Investigation of the Swanson Site5. 3 9 HRl6 s
Brule Gountys South lakota0 fhe South Dakota Archeological
Commission, Areheologleal Studies9 Circular No0 3o Pierre*
1952
Report of the Investigation of the Bealp Greek Site,, 3 9 GR1 ,
and the Bills Greek Site, 39GR2s South Dakota, 19hl, 1951o
The South Dakota Areheologleal Gommlssion. Archeological
Studies, Circular Mo0 ho Plere?
1953
Report of the Investigation of the Thomas Riggs Site, 3 9 HU1 ,
Hughes County,.South Dakota, 1952* .The South Dakota
Areheologleal Commission, Areheologleal Studies, Circular
Noo 5% Pierre<>
1957
Report of the Investigation of the Swan Greek Site, 3 9 ^W,
Walworth County, South Dakota, 195h"1956o The South Dakota
Areheologleal Commission, Areheologleal Studies, Clreular
No* 7o Pierre,
1958
Thomas Riggs Focuss Additional Data, Paper presented at
the Sixteenth Plains Conference for Archeology, 1958*
Lincoln,
HURT, WESLEY R,, JR., WILLIM G, BUCKLES, BUGS® FUGLE and GEORGE A,
AG0GBJO . .
.
'
...
1962
Report of the Investigations of the Four Bear Site, 39DW2,
Dewey County, South Dakota, 1958-1959* The W, H, Over
Museum, State University of South Dakota, Archaeologicai
Studies, Circular No* 10* Vermillion* . .
JENSEN, RICHARD 1*
1967
Ixeavations at the Durkin Site (3 9 ST2 3 8 ), South Dakota*
Plains Anthropologist, Vol* 12, No*.36,..p* 205* Lincoln*
JOHNSTON, RICHARD B*, and JOHN J. HOFBIAN "
1966
An Analysis of Four Survey Collections from Armstrong
County, South Dakota, 39A12. (No Heart Creek Site), 39ARk,
39AR5 and 39AR7* Plains.Anthropologist, Vol* 1 1 , No* 31,
pp* 39=75, Memoir No* 3* Lincoln
261
KI'TSTT, MARVIN F*
1952
The Oacoma Sites5, 39LM26 arid 39LM27j, Lyman Countys South
Dakota® Manuscript,, on file at the Smithsonian Institution^
River Basin Surveys, Lincoln®
i960 " Wolfe Greek Gomponent .of Grow Greek Site, 39BF11® Pro­
ceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences., p® lw. Lincoln®
KROEBSR, ALFRED L®
1939
Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America® Uni­
versity of Galifornia Press® Berkeley®
LEBMBR, DONALD J®
19$k Archeological Investigations in the Oahe Dam Area, South
Dakota, 1950-51o Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
158, River Basin Surveys Papers, No® 7® Washington®
LSHMBE, DONALD J*, and WARREN W® GALDWELL
1966 Horison and Tradition In the Northern Plains® American
Antiquity, Vol6 31, No® h, PP» 5ll-5l6® Salt Lake City®
MADISON, LEE: 0,, WARREN ¥® GALDWELL, and B® GOLDEN
i960 Archeological investigations at the Hickey Brothers Site,
39LMh, Lyman Gounty. South Dakota® Manuscript, on file
at the Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys®
Lincoln®
MATTES, MERRILL J®
I960
Historic Sites Archeology on the Upper Missouri® Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 176, River Basin Surveys
Papers» No® l5® Washington J
MBLESN, ELMER E®
I9I4.8 A Report on the Investigation of the La Roche Site, Stanley
County, South Dakota® University of South Dakota Museum,
Vermillion®
MUNSON, PATRICK J®
1966 Midwestern Dendrochronology and Archaeological Dating®
Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science9
Vol® 59l~No® 3, ppT ^2llD2l[5^I '"Urbana™
262
SCffiHMdN, EDMUND
1956
Dendroclimatic Changes in Semiarid Amerioa« University
of Arizona Press® Tuoson6
s mi th 5 c a r e h e s .
195?
The Fort Thompson Focusa The Shannon Foeus, and The
Campbell Focus® Paper presented at the Fifteenth Plains
Conference, for Archeology$ 195?® Lincoln®
SMITH) Ge HUBERT
I960
Fort Pierre II (39ST21?)9 A Historic Trading Post in the
Oahe Bam Area, South Dakota®. Bureau of American Ethnology*
Bulletin 176, Biver Basin Surveys Paperss Moe lSQ
Washington®
STEPHENSON^ BOBERT Le
195b
Taxonomy and Chronology in the Central Plains-Middle
Missouri River Area® Plains Anthropologists No® 1,
pps 15-21® Lincoln®
STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN
1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology® Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections* ¥ol® 93# No® 10® Washington®
WEAKLY) HARRY B®
19b0
Tree-Rings as a Record of Precipitation in Western Nebraska®
Tree-Ring Bulletin, 7ol® 6, No® 3, pp® 18-19® Tucson®
19U3
A Tree-Ring Record of Precipitation in Western Nebraska®
The Journal of Forestry, Pol® hi. No® 11, pp® 82.6-819®
Washington®
I9I4.6 A Preliminary Report on the Ash Hollow Charcoal® In “Ash
Hollow Gave; A Study of Stratigraphic Sequence in the.
Central Great Plains)“ by John L® Champe, Appendix 1,
University of Nebraska Studies* New Series No® 1® Lincoln®
195c 'Dendrochronology and Its Implications in the Central
Plains® In “Proceedings of the Sixth Plains Archeological
Conference (I9h8))“ edited by Jesse D®. Jennings, University
of Utah Anthropological Papers9 No® 3,1, pp® 90-9b# Salt
Lake City®
mSKLT, HARRI Eo
1962
Bendrochrdnology and Archeology in Nebraska*
Anthropologist 3 ?ol0 7$ No* 16, pp6 138-iit6o
Plains
Mnoelzio
iSAKLI, WARD Fo
1961
free-Hings and Archeology in the Central Plains0 Master’s
Thesis, University of Nebraska, Dineolno
I96I1. Dendrochronology in the Central Plains0 Kansas Anthro­
pological Association Newsletter , 7ol, 9,. Mo 0 2G0 Topeka0
196
$
Final Progress Report First Year, National Park Service
Contract Number lh"10”0232"903<i
-
1966 Progress Report on a Bendroehronologieal Study of the
Missouri River Basin Project* Plains Anthropologist, ¥ol0
11, No* 32, p 0 171» Lincoln*
W1DEL, WALDO R 0
19)4.0 Culture Sequences in the Central Great Plains* Smith­
sonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 100, pp* 291-3^4*
Washington*
1955 Archeological Materials from the Vicinity of Mobridge,
South Dakota* Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin lj?7.
Anthropological Papers^ No* h5o Washington* .
1961
Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains* University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman*
1967
Salvage Archeology in the Missouri liver Basin*
Volo 156, No* 3775» pp* 589-597* Washington*
Science,
WILL, GEORGE F*
19h6
Tree-Ring Studies in North Dakota* Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 338, North Dakota Agricultural College*
go o ....
.
19A8 Additional Notes on Dendrochronology in the Dakotas*
Plains Archeological ..Conference Newsletter , Vol* 1 , No* h,
pp* .68-70* Lincoln*
~~ "
19A9
Dendrochronology in the Dakotas* In ’’Proceedings of the
Fifth Plains Conference for Archeology,11 edited by John
1* Champe, University, of Nebraska, Laboratory of Anthro­
pology, Notebook Number 1* Lincoln*
WILLEY, GORDON R., and PHILIP PHILLIPS
1962
Method and Theory in American Archaeology^ The University
of Ghicago Press, Chicago*
WISSLER, CLARK
1938
The American Indian, An Introduction to the Anthropology
of the New Worlds 3rd ed0 Oxford University Press, New
York.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement