Yellowstone Ecosystem

WickiupsWickW kiupsk p of the greatert yellowstone ecosystem

Conical Timber Lodges within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, Shoshone National Forest, and Yellowstone National Park REPORT CERTIFICATION

I certifli that archeological report Wickiups of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Conical Timber Lodges within Bridger-Teton J{ational Forest, Grand Teton National Park, Shoshone \Vational Forest, and Yellowstone It{ational Park by David R.M. White and Katherine L. White, 2012, has been reviewed against the criteria containedrn43 CFR Part 7 (a) (1) and upon recommendation of the park Archeologist has been classified as- AVAILABLE (deletions). uf;f Date ' Yellowstone National Park

Classifi cation Key Words :

Available - Making the report available to the public meets the criteria of 43 CFR 7.lB (a) (1). Available (deletions) - Making the report available with selected information on site locations andlor site characteristics deleted meets the criteria of 43 CFR 7.18 (a) (1). A list of pages, maps, paragraphs, etc., that must be deleted for each report in this category is attached.

Not Available - Making the report available does not meet the criteri a for 43 CFR (a) (1). Deletions:

Chapter 4 Pages 39-57: various paragraphs, figures, and tables containing archeological resource locational information.

Chapter 5 Pages 59-81: various paragraphs containing information recorded during interviews of tribal members.

Appendix B Tribal coordination information. Wickiups of the greater yellowstone ecosystem Conical Timber Lodges within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, Shoshone National Forest, and Yellowstone National Park

David R.M. White, Ph.D. Katharine L. White

January 2012 Contract number P158040592 RM-CESU Agreements H1200040001 and H1200090004 Submitted to Contracting Officer’s Representative, Tobin Roop Yellowstone National Park table of Contents

List of Figures iv List of Tables v Acknowledgements vii Executive Summary viii Abstract ix

Chapter One: Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology Background / Deliverables / Methodology / Research Design Refinement / Data Analysis / 1 Personnel and Organizational Qualifications Chapter Two: Natural Setting 2 Definition of the Study Area / Geology / Flora and Fauna / Archaeology / History Chapter Three: Previous Research on “Wickiups” (Conical Timber Lodges) What is a Wickiup? / Possible Historical Relations Between Conical Timber Lodges and Similar 3 Structures Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Yellowstone National Park / Grand Teton National Park / Bridger-Teton National Forest / Shoshone 4 National Forest / Other Jurisdictions Outside of Study Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Tribes Consulted by the Sponsoring Jurisdictions / Other Tribes / Summary of Tribal Distribution 5 of Conical Timber Lodges Suggested citation: White, David R.M. and Katharine L. White. 2012. Wickiups of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Chapter Six: Discussion Conical Timber Lodges within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, Shoshone National Forest, and Yellowstone National Park. National Park Service, Yellowstone Interpretation of Conical Timber Lodge Sites / Threats to Conical Timber Lodges / Research Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 6 Potential

Photographs on cover: Chapter Seven: Management Recommendations From left to right: 48TE939. White Canyon War Lodge, Bridger-Teton National Forest; 48YE2, one Document and Monitor / Interpretation / Protection / Further Tribal Relations of the Lava Creek Wickiups, Yellowstone National Park; 48PA868. Sheep Point Lodge I, Shoshone 7 National Forest. References Appendices All photographs in this report were taken by staff in the corresponding jurisdiction. A. Final Scopes of Work for Report Phases 1-3 B. Report Phase Two Materials C. Conical Timber Lodge Feature Component Site Form List of Figures List of Tables

1-1. Katharine White and Bell Boyer in front of wickiup project display at the annual Bannock Gathering in 2009 1-1. Native American Tribes and Bands Consulted with the in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 2-1. Map of the Study Area 2-1. Map of Study Area 3-1. Wigwam from Underhill (1971:58) 3-1. Schoolcraft’s Vocabulary of House Terms 3-2. Conical wigwam from Nobokov and Easton (1986:63) 3-2. Tribes Utilizing Three- and Four-Pole Foundations 3-3. Ojibwa Tipi from Driver (1969:119) 3-3. Architectural Terminology among Widely Separated Athapaskan Speakers 3-4. From Topping’s Chronicles of the Yellowstone Murray (1968) 4-1. Characteristics of Timber Structures in the GYE (Authentic and Questionable) 3-5. Traditional Apache dwelling (Curtis 1903) 5-1. Shoshone Linguistic Terms for Conical and Domed Structures 3-6. Paiute dwellings (Nobokov and Easton 1989:303) 3-7. Paiute wickiup (Watkins 1945) 4-1. 24YE301. Wickiup Creek 4-2. 24YE301. Wickiup Creek 4-3. 48YE2. Lava Creek 4-4. 48YE2. Lava Creek 4-5. 48YE345. Rainbow Lake 4-6. 48YE506. Parker Peak 4-7. 48YE688. Ski Hill Wickiup 4-8. 48YE688. Ski Hill Wickiup 4-9. Old Gardiner Road 4-10. The Promontory 4-11. Sepulcher Foothills 4-12. Lamar Valley 4-13. 48TE939, White Canyon War Lodge 4-14. 48TE1440, Crystal Creek Structure 4-15. 48SU5241, Big Piney Structure 4-16. Buffalo Valley Log Structure 4-17. 48FR5347, Lower Dinwoodie Wickiup 4-18. 48FR5927, Alkali Creek Lodge 4-19. 48PA868, Sheep Point Lodge I 4-20. 48PA1085, Paint Creek Wickiup 4-21. 48PA2642, Boulder Ridge Conical Lodge 4-22. Kendall Wickiup Site 4-23. Toy Wickiup Site 5-1. Washoe galesdangle (from Tuohy 1969:8

iv v Acknowledgements

This study would have been impossible without the support and continuing encouragement of Rosemary Sučec, cultural anthropologist with Yellowstone National Park and the project’s initial Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR). She, with comments received by Ann Johnson, Elaine Hale, Merry Haydon, Jamie Schoen, and Jacquelin St. Clair, wrote the original Scope of Work. She closely oversaw the development of the draft report in order to ensure that it followed the vision of what it should be. Furthermore, she gave close attention to the draft report, once it was completed, and her comments and guidance resulted in the final report being a greatly improved product. Rosemary not only worked closely with the authors of the study; she also guided the team of specialists from the other jurisdictions, making certain that their input was taken into account, at all stages, in production of the study.

Specialists with the other participating jurisdictions provided copies of archaeological site forms and copies of unpublished studies. They also contributed to research design modifications, and provided useful comments on the draft report. These include Ann Johnson and Elaine Hale (Yellowstone National Park), Merry Haydon and Jamie Schoen (Bridger Teton National Forest), and Jacquelin St. Clair (Grand Teton National Park). Allen Madril facilitated the addition of the Shoshone National Forest to the study team. They are specifically mentioned in footnotes throughout the study, but special thanks must go to Larry Loendorf for lending David White a number of manuscripts from his library. Rich Adams and Dan Eakin of the Office of the Wyoming State Archeologist provided information about sites in the Shoshone National Forest, and provided useful comments on the draft report. Yellowstone interns Hannah Larkin (anthropology major, Stanford University) and Kathryn Byerly (anthropology graduate, Ohio University) were our eyes in the field, visiting and photo-documenting as many “wickiup” sites as possible. Amy Johnson, Yellowstone volunteer (anthropology major, Columbia University) provided a review of this report. Useful information was received from a number of researchers unaffiliated with the participating jurisdictions. Special thanks are also extended to Patty Oestrich, Contracting Specialist with Yellowstone National Park; Robin Park, Archaeologist with Yellowstone National Park; and Bridgette Guild, Registrar for Yellowstone National Park.

We also wish to thank Tobin Roop, COTR for Yellowstone National Park; Tami Blackford and Janine Waller (Yellowstone National Park) for their continued support throughout the entire report process, and especially during the last two phases. This report would not have been possible without their efforts. At the Rocky Mountain Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (RM-CESU), Christine Whitacre, Kathy Tonnesson, and Pei-Lin Yu also proved invaluable to the completion of this report through their regular communication, cooperation, assistance, and information. Institutional thanks are extended to the libraries where research was conducted for this study. The Zimmerman Library, Centennial Science Library, and Center for Southwest Research, at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, provided basic ethnographic and historic literature. Laura Holt and Mara Yarbrough, with the library of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe, were helpful and generous in securing difficult-to-find material through interlibrary loan. Additional research was conducted at the Allen and Suzzalo Libraries of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Personal acknowledgements from David White: Finally, I wish to thank my partner, Susan Guyette, for her patience as I worked on this study. Few anthropologists are blessed to have another anthropologist, who can understand our passion for our studies.

Personal acknowledgements from Katharine L. White: I wish to thank my mother, Stephanie White, for her unwavering support as I worked on this report. vi vii Executive Summary Abstract A variety of wooden shelters exist in the northern Plains; among these are conical timber structures pop- “Wickiups” are a poorly understood, fragile, non-renewable protohistoric/prehistoric resource. Numerous ularly referred to as “wickiups”. A study focusing on lands administered by Bridger-Teton National Forest tribes constructed these shelters, but there is no clear understanding of whether specific structures can be at- (BRTE), Grand Teton National Park (GRTE), Shoshone National Forest (SHOS), and Yellowstone National tributed to certain tribes. This study undertakes to clarify these and other questions, based on existing pub- Park (YELL), shows the term “wickiup” to be imprecisely used in reference to a variety of structures, so lished and unpublished literature, on opinions of regional experts in archaeology and ethnography, and on in- the study uses the architecturally descriptive term “conical timber lodge” (CTL) instead. Known CTLs in terviews with Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) traditionally associated tribal and band representatives. BRTE, SHOS, and YELL are discussed in detail, and illustrations are provided when available. Historical The study focuses specifically on lands administered by Bridger- Teton National Forest (BRTE), Grand Teton and ethnographic information is reviewed for each of the 29 tribes currently consulted by BRTE, GRTE, National Park (GRTE), Shoshone National Forest (SHOS), and Yellowstone National Park (YELL), but it takes SHOS, and YELL, as well as for nine other tribes that used similar structures. The report includes cul- a broader view, with attention to similar structures both nearby and throughout the western United States. tural information and management recommendations for CTLs in the Greater Yelowstone Ecosystem (GYE) gathered from eighteen interviews representing eleven traditionally associated tribes and bands. The term “wickiup” is shown to be imprecisely used in reference to a variety of structures. Attention is given to Characteristics that could potentially distinguish CTLs built by certain tribes are often indistinguish- “wigwams” and “tipis” as well as “wickiups.” These terms were originally used for tribally- or regionally-specific shel- able on extant CTLs, and indeed it is often difficult to tell whether a given timber structure site is a ter types. Due to overlapping use of the terms it is suggested that the term “wickiup” is misleading; for the structures CTL or another similar sort of shelter. Development of a predictive model that would suggest where that are the concern of this study, the architecturally descriptive term “conical timber lodge” (CTL) is used instead. additional CTL sites might be found in the subject jurisdictions proved to be impossible, as a result of a small sample of sites and because data relevant to a predictive model are often missing from site forms. Numerous CTLs are known to occur in BRTE, SHOS, and YELL; those for which sufficient information has been A variety of management recommendations are provided, including continued documenta- recorded are discussed in detail, and illustrations are provided when available. Then, historical and ethnographic tion and monitoring; confidentiality of CTL site locations; and off-site interpretation of the information is reviewed for each of the 29 tribes and bands currently consulted with by BRTE, GRTE, SHOS, and structures to the public. A new documentation site form for CTLs in the GYE is included. YELL. The report includes cultural information and management recommendations gathered from interviews with eighteen individuals representing eleven traditionally associated tribes and bands. Interviewees provided contextual information about CTLs in the GYE such as how, why, when, where, and by whom CTLs were known to be used (completed information provided in Chapter 5, page 47). Although not considered sacred, these structures remain culturally important to tribes and bands as they represent a continued native presence on the landscape.

Many tribes built CTLs, and there are a few characteristics that could potentially distinguish CTLs built by certain tribes. These characteristics are often indistinguishable on extant CTLs, and indeed it is often difficult to tell whether a given timber structure site is a CTL or another similar sort of shelter. Some timber structures have been attributed to natural forest thinning rather than human activity, but this hypothesis is poorly developed and, along with the process of natural deterioration of timber structures, needs closer attention.

One of the initial goals of this study was the development of a predictive model that would suggest where additional CTL sites might be found. This proved to be impossible, as a result of a rather small sample of sites and because data relevant to a predictive model are often missing from site forms.

Various management recommendations are provided. Key among these is the continued documentation and monitoring of known CTL sites. A new documentation site form for CTLs in the GYE is included in the report (Appendix C) to facilitate these efforts. An additional important recommendation is that CTL site locations be kept confidential from the public at large to ensure their protection from non-natural deterioration and vandalism. Detailed information about CTL site locations is contained within this report. Finally, off-site interpretation of the structures to the general public is suggested to convey the cultural context of these unique and ephemeral structures on the GYE landscape.

viii ix Chapter One Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology

Backgroundg The proposal upon which this Scope of Work is based A National Park Service (NPS) Solicitation dated addressed the subject Request for Quote (RFQ), with July 12, 2004 (RFQ-Q1580040592) reflected a goal subsequent modifications as suggested by an NPS letter to produce a study on wickiups (conical timber (Patty Oestreich to David White, August 11, 2004). The lodges or CTLs), both known and potentiall y occur- modified proposal/Scope of Work, presented three ring, within Bridger-Teton National Forest (BRTE), alternatives: (A) a scope and bud get to conduct a lit- Grand Teton Nationa l Park (GRTE) and Ye llowstone erature search only, and prepare a report thereon; (B) National Park (YELL). The Shoshone National Forest a scope and budget to conduct a literature search and (SHOS) joined in the study project later, early in 2005. consult with three Tribes only, and prepare a report The intended report would facilitate park and forest thereon; and (C) a scope and budget to conduct a lit- planning, environmental assessments, and other re- erature search and consult with five Tribes only, and source-related management decisions, and would prepare a report thereon. The final Proposal/ Scope of contribute substantially toward agency obligations to Work (see Appendix A) was based on Alternative A, the consult with American Indian tribes having known literature search only, and this report is accordingly so affiliation with lands administered by these agencies.

11 limited. The literature search will include attention to uses of wickiups and evaluation of their significance TableTable 1-1.1-1. the full range of Tribes currently being consulted by both in terms of the National Register of Historic parks/forests in order to more reliably identify those Places (i.e., through provision of a historic context) and NativeNative AmericanAmerican TrTribesibes andand BandsBands ConsultedConsulted tribes with the greatest potential connection to wickiups. broader general criteria as may be culturally meaningful withwith inin thethe GreaterGreater YellowstoneYellowstone EcosystemEcosystem The report will guide future consultations to determine to the associated tribes. their significance to tribes, and management actions. 6. Interview all able and willing tribal and band rep - The second phase of the report seeks to incor- resentatives and members regarding their knowledge porate information gathered from knowledge - about and relationships with wickiups in the GYE. YYeelllowo ststonone Naatitionnalal Para k anand GrG anand TeT ton NaNatit ono all Para k currently consulu t with the able traditionaly associated tribal and band mem- Include preferred management options for CTLs in the ffoolll owwining bbaanndds ana d trt iibbese : bers and representatives. The third and final phase GYE. of the report constitutes a report review pro- AssAsA siniiinnin boiboinen &&S Siouio x Tribrir es KKioKiiowaw TriTTr beb off Oklahohoma yout and printing. 7. Discuss findings as well as management options cess as well as professional la BBlaBllaackfc feett TrTribeibib LLowowwerer BruB le Sioux TriTrT bbee from both federal agency and Tribal perspectives. CCheChheh yyenene nene RivRiverer SioSi uxu TriTTrr be NeNezez PPeerrcrcece Triibebe CCoeoeo urr d’Alenlleene eeT Tribibbe NNorNoorthehernr Arapahahaho Tribe The study achieved broad results through cost - CComomancnche TriTrT beb ofo OklOklahoahhomama NNororthetht rnn CheCh yennnen TriTTr be Deliverables effective research methodology. Consultation with CCononnffedeedderaatetedted TrT iibeibbbeesso offt thhee CoColCololvivillllee ResRRe erver ationn OOglOgglaalala SiS ouxouu Tribe This report includes the followin g stipulated agency personnel and knowledgeable EuroAmerican CConononfedfeederatedt d TrT ibeibbbees of theh UmaUmatillala ResRRee ervatiionon RRososebue d Sioux Tribe deliverables: individuals was by means of telephone conversa - CConCoonfedderaeraratedted SaSalisliisshh& & KoK otenai TrT ibees SShoShhooshoshh ne-n Bannock Tribes tions, email, surface mail, and several trips to res - CroCrrow Tribibi e SSisisssetsseeton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 1. Write a report on wickiups within the study area ervations. Pertinent information was sought for all CCrorow Creeek SiouiioouuxxT Tribbe SpSpipiiritrit Lake Sioux Tribbee lands of BRTE, GRTE, SHOS and YELL), to include areas within the GYE, although in-depth study was ( EasEEa ternnS Shhoshoosshhonhoono e Triribr be SStatanndndiddiingg RocockkS SiouioouxxT Triribbe results of investigations further detailed below; limited to the study area as identified in the RFP FlaFFll ndreauauu SaSantentt eeS Siouiouo x Tribibe TTururrttlele MoMountununtain BaB nndd ooff tthehhee CChhiippippppewawa Innddiaiansns (with the addition of the Shoshone National Forest). GGroros Ventre anandndd AsAssinsiiniiboibboineinnee TrT iibeibbes YYanYaankktoktton Siououx Triribbe 2. Consult with agency cultural resource management personnel, as identified in the Request for Proposal Published and unpublished information (RFP) and as further suggested through contact with was sought through locally-available resources SShhosshoh nen Nattioonan l FoF reestt currer ntntlyly cononsusultl s wiwithth theh folllowiing tribees (elel veen off whihichch ovever- those individuals; (Zimmerman Library, the Southwest Research Center and the Clark Field Archive of the Universit y of New llaap wiwithh the cononsusultl ining trtribibes of YEY LLLL andnd GRTTE)E : 3. Consult with a number of knowled geable Mexico, Albuquerque, and the nationally-known library Euroamerican individuals, as identified in the RFP of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe), through AAsssssiniinnniiboiboo nene andd SSiiouxoouuxx TrTribeibbeb s NNorNoortheththernr UUteUtte TrT ibeib and as further suggested through contact with those interlibrary loan (the Laboratory of Anthropology has CCheChheyyenyeennne RivR err Sioiiouxux TriTTr bee NNorNoorrthwhwesternn BaB nd off SShohoshoh nii TriT ibebe individuals; exceptional success in securing obscure materials in this CCroCrrow Triribibbe OglOOggglaalllaa SiSiouxoouu TrT ibeibb manner), from the knowledgeable Euroamerican indi- EEasastertte n Shosh honne Tribibbe RRososebububud Siouiouux Tribe 4. Review various existing published and unpub- viduals consulted by telephone, and from agency per- NeNezNezz PPeerrcecece TrT iibibebeb ShoSShhoshohoone-nnee-e BanBaBana nocn kkT Tribibeess lished information, as identified in the RFP and sonnel who provided copies of ‘gray literature’ docu- NNororthethh rnn Ararapahp o Tribriribe SSiSisisissetsetton-n-WahWahhpetpepeton Sioouxx Tribe as further identified by searching appropriate data ments. Later during the study process, the libraries of NNororthehehernrn CheCChheyenyyeennee TriTrr be UppUpperer SioSSi uxx TriTTribeb repositories; the University of Washington (Seattle) were also utilized.

5. Provide an inventory of known wickiups within The literature search included attention to the full BBrridgeger-Tetoon NaN tional Foro est currently consults with the folllowo ing tribi es (both of whhicich and near BRTE, GRTE, SHOS and YELL, with maps, range of Native American tribes currently being consult- oovverllaap witthh YELE L,L GRTRTE,E anndd SHOH S): photographs discovered during research, site forms and ed by GRTE, YELL, SHOS, and BRTE on archaeological other written descriptions, environmental contextual and ethnographic concerns, in order to reliably identify EEasasterteternnS Shhososhhonone Triribbe information, names for wickiups in English and native those tribes with the greatest potential connection to SShohooshohoone-n BanBaa nocn k Tribeess languages, Tribal affiliation with wickiups and criteria the CTLs. Jurisdictions within the GYE consult with a for evaluating tribal affiliation, assessment of traditional

12 Chapter One: Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology Deliverables 13 of trappers, mountain men, and later government Oklahoma, Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, Sisseton- exploration parties (e.g., for railroad development). Wahpeton Sioux, and Standing Rock Sioux). In these endeavors, Yellowstone National Park provided logis- After the first phase, Katharine White took on tical as well as material support to ensure that all ap- the role of lead researcher to complete the remain - propriate and pertinent information was gathered . ing phases for the project. Phase 2 of the study was completed by 2010. The second phase focused on Katharine White completed the final and consulting with the associated tribes of the GYE and third phase of the study in 2011. Phase 3 con- incorporating their perspectives, comments, and in - sisted of the report’s finalization, circulation formation into the report, management recommenda- for review, and dissemination to the GYE juris- tions, and a CTL site form. Ultimately, consultation dictional partners as well as associated tribes. Figure 1-1. sought to determine the actual and potential loc a- Katharine White and tions of CTLs within the study area; their significance Bell Boyer in front to tribal people, their functions, meanin g, and likely Research Designg Refinement of wickiup project affiliation; as well as recommendations for manage- display at the annual ment. From this report, the four jurisdictions can make Research Design Refinement incorporated new data Bannock Gathering conscious and culturally-informed decisions based developed during Phase 1 of Data Collection. A refined in 2009. on input from the tribes about CTL management, in- Research Design was provided to the COTR following cluding determining their National Register eligibility. the initial conference call, and further refinement continued as appropriate. In February, 2005, the Shoshone During the second phase, consultation with tribes in- National Forest (SHOS) was added to the study area cluded contacting tribal governments and tribal cultural upon learning they have the highest number of wick- total of twenty-nine Native American tribes. Broken Investigator (PI) secured pertinent data from park and resource staff as well as elder contacts by letter, phone iup sites recorded in the Greater Yellowstone Area. down by jurisdiction, they are as follows in Table 1-1. forest files, beginning at the time of the first meeting. calls, and interviews. All appropriate tribal contacts (as Much of the initial literature review was conducted at determined by Rosemary Sucec, NPS) were sent a draft the Laboratory of Anthropology library in Santa Fe, copy of David White’s preliminary research report as Methodologygy and the Zimmerman Library and associated libraries well as several DVDs of professionally edited footage of Data Analysisy Work was organized on the basis of what Finan and in Albuquerque NM. Interlibrary loans through the all CTLs in the GYE. Because many of the GYE CTLs David White conducted data analysis for the project. van Willigen (1991) call “stepwise research.” Simpl y Laboratory of Anthropology were used to eliminate are situated in isolated and often difficult terrain, DVDs This involved organizing information (e.g., references, stated, related components of work were carried out the need for travel to distant repositories. Subsequent were produced in order to convey a sense of each struc- library notes and interview notes) from data colle c- in discrete increments in order to avoid duplication research was also performed at the University of ture within their respective landscape contexts for those tion. Information was compiled and assessed for valid- of effort. Work was begun in September, 2004; due to Washington libraries (primarily the Suzzalo and Allen tribal members who are unable to see them in person. ity. Data pertaining to wickiups and related resources in changes in scope as well as various unavoidable delays, libraries) in Seattle, Washington. Interviews with non- And while it was intended and expected that representa- BRTE, GRTE, SHOS, and YELL was assessed in terms of the first phase was completed in September 2006. Indian researchers and other individuals knowledgeable tives from several tribes would make site visits to GYE regulatory criteria for potential eligibility to the National about “wickiup” sites in and around the stud y area CTLs, due to continuing tribal scheduling conflicts, no Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as “Traditional Research began upon authorization. A telephone were conducted by various means—in person, by tele- field visits were actually made. During this phase over Cultural Properties” or another appropriate qualify- consultation (conference call) was held involvin g phone and email, and through written correspondence. 326 letters, draft reports, and DVDs were mailed to asso- ing status. The absence of consultation with know l- key personnel at BRTE, GRTE and YELL, includin g ciated tribal contacts for review, comment, and critique. edgeable Tribal members hindered this goal, however, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative No visits were made to BRTE, GRTE, or SHOS for In addition, over 534 phone calls were made to tribal leaving NRHP assessment addressed largely in terms (COTR) and as many of the cultural resource manage- examination of their files on sites; federal person- representatives to ascertain information, comments, of archaeological considerations only. The only pho- ment personnel as were available. This consultation nel provided pertinent information directly to the and interviews. Several strategic trips were also made to tographs acquired came from the sponsoring agencies; was conducted to resolve details on the scope of work contractor. Particular attention was devoted to his- tribal reservations to inform tribal members of the study representative examples of these have been incorporated and to secure appropriate documentation from the torical literature pertaining to exploration of the (Figure 1-1) In total, eighteen individual interviews into the report. Maps of wickiup sites are not provided. parks and national forests. Phase 1 of data collection Upper Missouri River Valley, including journals were conducted representing eleven tribes (Blackfeet, consisted of literature and archival work. The Principle from early exploration, beginning with the Lewis Comanche, Cheyenne River Sioux, Confederated Salish The known number of recorded BRTE, GRTE, SHOS, and Clark expedition and continuing with journals and Kootenai, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Kiowa Tribe of and YELL wickiups is quite small. The parameters of

14 Chapter One: Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology Research Design Refinement 15 environmental contexts within which these occur from 1982-1992, and was Task Force Chair in 1987- recently, he completed an ethnographic overview has been carefully studied, but too few sites are re- 88. Prior to joining Edison, he was a consultant with of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. corded in sufficient detail to allow develo pment of a Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI), of Menlo Park, predictive model for occurrence presently unknown California. Several of CSRI’s studies are classics in de- Dr. White’s experience in preparation of studies for wickiups. Also factoring into this is the vast area in- velopment of the Traditional Cultural Property con- Badlands National Park and Devils Tower National cluded within BRTE, GRTE, SHOS, and YELL; except, and are quoted in National Register Bulletin 38. Monument put him in contact with many of the Tribes tensive sampling of the area, using a standardized pertinent to the present study. Specifically, he has method of wickiup recordation, would be required He has taught anthropology at the State University worked with Eastern Shoshone and Arapaho people for reliable predictive modeling to be attempted. of New York in Brockport (1973), Virginia Polytechnic from the Wind River Reservation; Chippewa-Cree Institute and State University (1974), the University people of Rocky Boy’s; Assiniboine/Gros Ventre people The fully edited draft report was written, printed, of La Verne (1985), and California State University of Fort Belknap; and the Assiniboine/Sioux people o f and submitted to the NPS and USFS by the PI at the at Dominguez Hills (1989, 1990, 1991). His interests Fort Peck; as well as the eponymous peoples of the end of August, 2011. Upon receipt of comments on include cultural diversity in complex societies, cor- Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and Kiowa reservations. the draft report, appropriate revisions were made and porate culture, cultural ecology and ethnobiology, so- He has also worked with Lakota people at Standing the final phase one report was submitted at the end ciocultural strategies of energy resource use, religious Rock, Cheyenne River, Pine Ridge and Rosebud re s- of 2011. The complete report representing phases aspects of natural resource use, Native American ervations, and with Ute people from Fort Duchesne one through three was completed in August 2011. prehistory and ethnology, and maritime anthropol- in Utah and from both Ute reservations in Colorado. ogy. He has done research with more than two dozen Native American tribal groups in California, Arizona, Katharine L White worked as an Anthropolo gy Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York State, Technician in Yellowstone National Park’s Personnel and Organizational Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington state, Ethnography Office for over six years. She holds Qualifications Wyoming, Alaska and Quebec Province, Canada, and two degrees in anthropology, a B.A. from McGill with ethnic minorities and marginal occupational University and a M.A. from University of Montana, Applied Cultural Dynamics is a sole proprietorship groups (Polish and Jamaican immigrants, agricultural Missoula. She is also currently in pursuit of a third formed in 1991 to provide cultural resource manage- harvest workers, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast fisher- degree, a Master of Fine Arts in Science and Natural ment administration, social impact assessments, and men, and Mormons). He holds three degrees in an- History Filmmaking at Montana State University. ethnographic studies. Applied Cultural Dynamics has thropology, a B.A. from Florida State University and an a well-equipped research library and office with FAX, M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Methodist Universit y. copying machine, flatbed scanner, modem connections, B/ W laser and HP Deskjet color printers, digital still and Dr. White has prepared a number of ethno graphic video cameras, and IBM-clone computers. Clients have overviews and assessment studies for federal agen- included private consulting firms, gas and electric util- cies throughout the country. In 1993-1994, he con- ity companies, Indian tribes, and state and federal agen- ducted research on ethnographic importance and cies including several units of the National Park Service. use of orchard resources at Capitol Reef National Park; this work involved extensive interviewing The owner/principal of Applied Cultural D ynamics, with residents of communities around the park. In David R. M. White, Ph.D., was Principal Investigator 1996, White co-authored an ethnographic over- (PI). He conducted the literature/archival studies, the view of the Sequoia National Forest, in California. In interviews, and the analysis and report preparation. 1998 he co-authored a cultural affiliation study for Death Valley National Park and completed a report Dr. White spent 14 years with the Southern on traditional place names for Devils Tower National California Edison Company, where he was Senior Monument. He also completed ethnographic over- Anthropologist with the Environmental Affairs views of southern Louisiana for Jean Lafitte National Division. He was Far West Regional Representative Park (1998), of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore to the Edison Electric Institute Task Force on CRM (2000), and of Badlands National Park (2002 ). Most

16 Chapter One: Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology Personnel and Organizational Qualifications 17 Chapter Two Natural Setting

Definition of Studyy Area mountain ranges. Drainage from the GYE flows into the Narrowly defined, the Study Area is comprised of Columbia River via the Snake, into the Mississippi via lands administered by Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Yellowstone, Missouri and the Platte, and into the Grand Teton National Park, Shoshone National Forest, Colorado via the Green. Elevations within Yellowstone and Yellowstone National Park (see Fi gure 2-1). National Park range from 5,265’ along the Yellowstone This is, however, a highly artificial unit. Accordingly, River north of Gardiner to 11,358’ at Eagle Peak; Grand the Study Area has been defined on an operation- Teton Nationa l Park elevations range from 13,770’ at al basis, herein, as roughly coterminous with the Grand Teton to 6,350’ at the south end of Jackson Hole. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) (Knight 1994). Depending on boundaries accepted, the GYE includes The present study extends attention well beyond some 18 to 20 million acres of land, centered on the the “Study Area” per se, as it is concerned not merely Yellowstone Caldera and encompassing various portions with “wickiups” found in the Study Area, but also of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Located on the con- with broader historical and cultural contexts within tinental divide, it includes more than 20 coterminous which those structures exist. Hence close attention

18 Chapter One: Introduction: Study Purpose and Methodology 19 is given to Tribal cultures (and especially their ar- Regardless of the mechanism or mechanisms involved Figure 2-1. chitecture) throughout the Great Plains, the upper in Yellowstone’s volcanism, it is Cretaceous Period and Map of Study Area Rocky Mountains, and the Columbia Plateau, as subsequent activity that largely defines the GYE land- well as more distant areas such as California and scape. Block faulting within the past five million years the desert Southwest. Subsequent discussion of created the Teton Range. The great eruption two mil- the natural setting is, however, limited to the GYE. lion years ago produced Yellowstone’s Huckleberry Ridge tuff, but most of that caldera has been obscured by younger flows. The most recent caldera (known as the Yellowstone Caldera) was formed 630,000 years Geologygy ago, but there have been more than two dozen volcanic Four geological provinces are represented within eruptions on the Yellowstone Plateau since that time. the GYE: the Middle Rocky Mountain Province, the The active nature of Yellowstone volcanism is read - Columbia Plateau Province, the Great Plains, and the ily observable in the remarkable fields of geysers, fu- Wyoming Basin. Rock units within the central GYE maroles, hot springs and mudpots or mud volcanoes . (Middle Rocky Mountain Province) extend back to Precambrian metamorphics (gneiss and schist), and The older volcanic flows are very different in nature present substantial marine deposits of the Paleozoic from more recent flows. The northward- sloping ma- and Mesozoic Eras as well. The Tetons are geologi- terial on the Washburn Range consists of dark brec- cally quite recent, having uplifted during the Cenozoic cia (a consolidated mass of fractured stones and vol - Era (Love and Reed 1968:9, 86ff ). Volcanism began canic ash). Later flows to the south are predominantl y in the latter part of the Late Cretaceous Period, of siliceous rhyolitic lava, including obsidian flows. and it has dominated subsequent geologic history. Recent geological activity within the GYE involves GYE volcanism has classically been attributed to the ice as well as fire—multiple glaciations created much of “Yellowstone Hotspot”, a stationary plume of hot roc k the present-day landscape, and glaciers are still visible originating in the earth’s mantle (Morgan 1971; Hadley, in both Yellowstone and Grand Teton Nationa l Parks. Stewart and Ebel 1976); block faulting that resulted In Grand Teton Nationa l Park several phases of glacia- in raising the Tetons and subsidence of Jackson Hole tion took place, beginning about 140,000 years before has speculatively been attributed to massive extrusion present and ending only about 15,000 years before of volcanic materials north of Grand Teton National present. Glacial kame (gravel) deposits, moraines, Park (Love and Reed 1968). Evidence of the hotspot and kettle lakes are some of the landscape features re- consists of a series of old calderas (explosive craters) sulting from glaciation within the park (Pierce and that indicate the continental plate drifting in a south- Good 1992, Elias 1996). Enormous amounts of sedi- western direction. Eruptions over the hot spot began ment were removed from the Jackson Hole area by ice around ten million years ago; the oldest and most mas- and glacial melt-water (Love and Reed 1968:102ff ). sive explosion within the present-day GYE took place about two million years ago and there have been subsequent (albeit much smaller) caldera-formin g explo- sions as recently as 630,000 years ago. Other hot spot Flora and Fauna evidence includes patterns of Quaternary Period fault- As the largest “intact” temperate zone ecosystem ing, regional distribution of earthquakes, and gravi - in the world (Reese 1984, Keiter and Boyce 1991), the tational anomalies (Smith 2002). The Yellowstone GYE encompasses a wide range of life zones with di- Hotspot remains controversial; some geologists be- verse species of plants and animals. The major life zones lieve upper-mantle processes may explain the geology are the Foothill (elev. 5165–6000’), Montane (6000 – equally well (Dueker and Sheehan 1997; Humphreys 7600’, also known as the Canadian Zone), Subal pine et al. 2000; Christiansen, Foulger and Evans 2002). (7600–10,000’) and Alpine (10,000–11,385’), each

20 Chapter Two: Natural Setting Flora and Fauna 21 with characteristic plant communities. To the north, Archaeologygy Ontario, Michigan and Indiana; west to Alberta and t $BOBEJBO$ /PSUIXFTU $PNQBOZ USBQQFST went into Yellowstone Plateau countr y the Yellowstone River Valley supports Great Plains Washington; and south to central Utah. Locally, co- during the War of 1812 prairie grasslands and big sagebrush, and various ri- Interestingly, archaeology at Yellowstone National operative buffalo hunting developed at this time, and parian species occur along the streams. Vegetation Park garnered official attention many decades before it pottery appeared for the first time. Elk and bighorn in the other life zones is highly diverse, but promi- did at other, later, National Parks. This was largely due sheep hunting is also documented.2 There are numer- t %VF UP"NFSJDBODPODFSOT BCPVU nent species include sagebrush, juniper, limber pine to the personal interests of Superintendent Philetus ous sites around Yellowstone from this time period. Brit- ish activities on the upper Missouri and Douglas fir in the Foothill zone; Douglas fir and Norris, who began collecting artifacts and archaeo - during the War of 1812, plans were made limber pine with sagebrush and grasslands in the logical site information as early as 1875. Norris re- for establishment of a fort at the mouth Montane Zone; lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, quired that artifacts found during construction of of the Yellowstone River subalpine fir, and whitebark pine in the Subalpine; roads and other park facilities be turned over to the History and stunted alpine vegetation in the Alpine Zone. Smithsonian Institution, and antiquarian interests Detailed written information about the Study Area toUIF :FMMPXTUPOF &YQFEJUJPO JO persisted among Yellowstone employees throug h- began with the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1805 – tended to establish the fort, failed The GYE is perhaps best known for its “charismat- out the first half of the twentieth centur y (Nabokov 1806. However, Lewis and Clark did not actuall y ven- ic megafauna”, including elk, moose, and bison (bison and Loendorf 2002:13-15, 2004:15-16). A variety of ture into the area but rather passed b y it, to the north. found a refuge in the area from near-extinction in scholars conducted research within the park begi n- Detailed histories of Yellowstone National Park, and t 'JSTU EFTDSJQUJPO PG B HFZTFS JO UIF the late nineteenth century). The National Elk Refuge ning around the mid- twentieth century, but the first earlier Euroamerican explorations of the region, have Yel- lowstone country, by Alexander (a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system, and a formal report was that of Taylor, Wood and Hoffman been provided by Chittenden (1895) and Haines Ross of the Hudson’s Bay Company jurisdiction not directly included in this study) was (1964). Other relatively early but important reports (1977). Available historic material for the other ju- established in 1912 to protect the Jackson Hole elk were produced by Condon (1948), Replogle (1956), risdictions is less substantial. For present purposes, herd. Pronghorn antelope, mule deer and bighorn Hoffman (1961), Taylor (1964), and McCracken (1978). a detailed discussion of explorations is not necessary; t .BKPS 4UFQIFO ) -POH FYQMPSFE sheep are also prominent species that were of sub- Even so, in the early 1980s Yellowstone National Par k instead, a timeline of key events and developments in Head- waters of the Platte, Arkansas stantial economic importance to Native Americans in was referred to as one of the least known archaeo- the region is presented, leading up to the establish- and Red Rivers, producing a report stating that the “Great American Desert” the region. Besides these larger animals, a wide vari- logical areas in North America (see Janetski 2002:19). ment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and sub- was uninhabitable by civi- lized people; ety of small game animals live within the GYE. Larger sequently to establishment of the other jurisdictions. this inhibited settlement of Loui- siana predators include grizzly and black bears, gray wolves, Janetski (2002:20-35) has provided a relatively Purchase territory and coyotes. Two hundred and seventy-nine spe- succinct summary of prehistory in the Yellowstone cies of birds have been recorded within Yellowstone region. A brief review of his information will suff- tt 1742–43: de la Verendr ye expedition National Park alone since 1872 (McEneaney 1988). fice for purposes of the present stud y. PaleoIndian re- opened a route from Canada to the t $PMPOFM "ULJOTPO BOE *OEJBO "HFOU mains (10,000–6000 B.C.) are sparse but present in Mandan villages on the Missouri River Benjamin O’Fallon signed treaties with Despite the size of the GYE, and the fact that much the area; Clovis points, and a burial, are known from 15 tribes at the mouth of the Yellowstone of the area is afforded federal protection, there are nearby areas, and a Folsom point made of obsid - many concerns over well-being of area species. Grizzly ian from Obsidian Cliff was found in Bridger-Teton t 0ME .FOBSE HBWF JOGPSNBUJPO QFS- bear population management and reintroduction of National Forest. Late PaleoIndian materials (Agate taining to the R. des Roches Jaunes to t "NFSJDBO USBQQFST XFSF XJUIJO QSFT- ent- day Yellowstone National Park; they gray wolves have been especially controversial. Some ll Gap, Eden and Cody Complex) are more Jean Baptiste Truteau Basin, He may have been there earlier species, such as pronghorn, have made good recover- common within Yellowstone, and at considerable al- ies following considerable declines. Yellowstone cut - titude. With the Archaic period (6000 B.C.– A.D. 1), t 3PDIFT +BVOFT XBT ĕSTU USBOTMBUFE BT throat trout appear to be reboundin g after a serious Pleistocene megafauna went extinct, and people turned “YellowStone” t 'PSU 6OJPO B GVSUSBEJOH QPTU XBT decline, but populations remain below historic levels. 1 to gathering of plant foods and hunting smaller ani- es- tablished on the Missouri opposite Various plant species are also of concern, including mals. A number of Archaic sites are known from the the mouth of the Yellowstone whitebark pine and quaking aspen (Schullery n.d.). Yellowstone region, which may have been particularly t "NBQ EJTQBUDIFE UP 1SFTJEFOU attractive due to drought in the lower-altitude Plains. Jefferson by Lewis and Clark showed the The Lawrence Site, on Jackson Lake in Grand Teton “River Yellow Rock” t +BDLTPOT)PMF XBT OBNFE BęFS%BWJE National Park, is a particularly important Archaic site. Jackson of the Rocky Mountain Fur The Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 1–1500) saw devel- Company (Diem and Diem 1978:1) 1. Pat Bigelow, Yellowstone National Park Fisheries Biologist, opment of far-reaching trade networks, in which lithic 2. See Frison (1991:246-258) for an extensive discussion of personal communication with Rosemary Sučec and David White. material from Obsidian Cliff was traded as far east as mountain sheep and prehistoric/protohistoric methods of hunting them.

22 Chapter Two: Natural Setting History 23 t UIF 64 $POHSFTT QBTTFE BVUIPSJ[- t (FPSHF $BUMJO USBWFMFE CZ TUFBN- t (FPSHF )VTUPO CFDBNF UIF ĕSTU XIJUF ing legislation for Yellowstone National boat to Fort Union and proposed “a na- resident of present-day Yellowstone Park, and it was signed into law by tion’s park, containing man and beast”, in National Park President Ulysses S. Grant the region

t $BQUBJO 8 ' 3BZOPMETQVCMJTIFE IJT t 1SFTJEFOU #FOKBNJO )BSSJTPODSF- t .BOVFM"MWBSF[ MFBEJOH B HSPVQ PG report on exploration of the Yellowstone ated the Yellowstone Park Timber-land men from the American Fur Company, River Reserve (precursor of Shoshone National discovered the Firehole River Basin Forest) geysers to " XJOUFS FYQFEJUJPO CZ "M +FTTVQ took place t 1SFTJEFOU (SPWFS $MFWFMBOE DSFBUFE t 0TCPSOF 3VTTFMMFOUFSFEUIFQSFTFOU the Teton Forest Reserve (precursor day park, visiting the Lamar Valley; he of Bridger-Teton National Forest; the traveled to the area in several subsequent t BO FYQFEJUJPO GSPN )FMFOB .POUBOB Bridger and Teton National Forests were years, as well to present-day Yellowstone National combined into Bridger-Teton in 1973) Park, was led by David E. Folsom, Charles W. Cook and William Peterson t 'BUIFS 1JFSSF +FBO %F4NFU ESFX t %FTQJUF PCKFDUJPOT GSPN TIFFQ a geo- graphically-accurate map of men, President Roosevelt enlarged the features in present-day Yellowstone t (FOFSBM ) % 8BTICVSO UPPL BO Yellowstone Park Timber-land Reserve, National Park, based on details provided expedition into Yellowstone countr y; establishing the Yellowstone Forest to him by Jim Bridger many geographic details were recorded, Reserve (Anderson 1927) and Old Faith- ful was given its name

t "O VOTVDDFTTGVM NJOJOH FYQFEJUJPO t &TUBCMJTINFOU PG UIF /BUJPOBM&ML went into the lower Yellowstone Valle y t /BUIBOJFM 1-BOHGPSE B NFNCFS PG Ref- uge (a unit of the National Wildlife under leadership of James Stuart the Washburn expedition, gave lectures Refuge system) in the southern part o f about Yel- lowstone in Washington D.C. Jackson Hole and New York City; he later claimed to t 8BMUFS 8BTIJOHUPO EF-BDZ MFE BO FY- have proposed the idea of a national pedition into present-day Yellowstone park at Yellowstone t $POHSFTT FTUBCMJTIFE (SBOE 5FUPO National Park; in 1876 he published National Park an account of the trip, describing hot springs and the absence of valuable t 'FSEJOBOE 7 )BZEFO JOTQJSFE CZ minerals Langford’s information, secured fund- t 1SFTJEFOU 3PPTFWFMU FTUBCMJTIFE ing for geological investigations in the Jackson Hole National Monument Yellowstone area; military escort was t "EE" JUJPOBM NJOJOH FYQFEJUJPOT JOUP UIF provided by General Sheridan; accu- Yellowstone country took place in 1864, rate topographic data and photographs t +BDLTPO )PMF /BUJPOBM .POVNFOU 1866, 1867, 1869 and 1874 were obtained was combined into an enlarged Grand Teton National Park to TFWFSBM QSPTQFDUJOH USJQTCZ " t +VEHF 8JMMJBN % ,FMMFZ QSPQPTFE DSF Bart Henderson resulted in discovery of ation of a national park at Yellowstone, the Falls of the Yellowstone and Hayden enthusiastically endorsed the idea

24 Chapter Two: Natural Setting History 25 Chapter Three Previous Research on “Wickiups” (Conical Timber Lodges)

What is a Wickiup?p recently, the word has been used specifically in refer- The term “wickiup” (with a wide variety of spellings) ence to rather substantial conical structures made of has seen widespread usage in the western United States, pine or aspen poles. As Kidwell (1969:3) remarked, this both by archaeologists and by explorers and military usage is unfortunate because it made the term so overly men. Within the study area and adjacent parts of the broad that it is nearly meaningless.2 This is especially Rockies and Northern Plains, the term “wickiup” was often used with great imprecision, to indicate any 2. Kidwell (1969) wrote a paper with a similar scope as the au- sort of rude or makeshift shelter.1 For instance, George thor: to acknowledge and establish the wealth of research poten- Shields (1883:36-42) entitled a chapter of his boo k tial wickiups’ possess. His paper differs from the author’s, however, in promoting the functional aspects of these structures as war “Meditations in a Wiciup”, but he described the structure lodges or eagle trapping lodges. The author, instead, focuses on only as a shelter made of “boughs” and canvas. More the 26 American Indian tribes associated with the Greater Yel- lowstone area and whether they were known to build and/or use 1. Riggs (1982), in a crafts article on building wickiups, defined conical timered structures. A discussion is provided of tribal the term as being a “general” one “for many of the variously architecture where known and an argument is made for consulta- similar dwellings of aboriginal peoples throughout the western tion with tribes to assist in determining the function of wickiups. plateaus, basins and deserts.” 26 Chapter Two: Natural Setting 27 fastened to true in regard to the southwestern United States, where gether with barks of trees oval or arbour-wise on top. The best sort of their the term “wickiup” is applied to quite different struc- houses are covered very neatly, tight, and tures—usually insubstantial, made of flexible boughs warm, with barks of trees, slipped from or saplings (frequently willow), dome-shaped rather their bodies, at such seasons when the sap than conical, and often covered with grass or brush. is up; and made into great flakes with pres- sures of weighty timbers, when they are The present study is contractually directed green; and so becoming dry, they will retain toward “wickiups” within and adjacent to Bridger - a form suitable for the use they prepare Teton National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, them for. The meaner sort of wig-wams Shoshone National Forest, and Ye llowstone National are covered with mats, they make of a kind of bulrush, which are also indif- ferent Park. But what is meant by “wickiup”? A precise defi- tight and warm, but not so good as the nition seems warranted, and in order to develop a former (Gookin 1806, Bushnell 1919b:24). clear definition, it is necessar y to examine historical usage not only of the term “wickiup” but also of Schoolcraft (1852) used the term “wigwam” for both the sometimes contrasting and sometimes overlap- domed and rectangular gabled structures; he provided ping terms “wigwam” and “tipi.” This topic has previ- tribal vocabularies of terms for “house” and “lodge” ously been explored in some detail by White (2005). without defining either term, and (insofar as obvious cognate terms for “wigwam” are assigned to both) the Wigwams. First, let us consider the term “wigwam.” native terms elicited suggest that his distinction was by The most obvious difference in use of this term , as no means made clear to the people interviewed (Table contrasted with “wickiup”, is that the term wigwam is 3-1). Similarly, Bushnell (1919a, 1919b) noted that there overwhelmingly applied to American Indian habita- were circular domed wigwams, long oval wigwams, tions of eastern North America. Diverse structures are and small conical wigwams, and he provided different so named, however. The term “wigwam” was used in Ojibwa names for each of these. Densmore (1929:22) English as early as the seventeenth century; Bushnell also used the term “wigwam” for any sort of Chippewa quoted a description of New England Indian habita- habitation, whether peaked lodge, bark house, or tipi. tions by Daniel Gookin, writing in 1674, as follows: Their houses, or wigwams, are built with Bushnell (1919b:23) indicated differential geo- small poles fixed in the ground, bent and graphical distribution of variant wi gwams; conical ` Figure 3-1 (top). Wigwam from Underhill (1971:58). Table 3-1. Figure 3-2 (above). Conical wigwam from Schoolcraft’s Vocabulary of House Terms Nabokov and Easton (1989:63). Figure 3-3 (left). Ojibwa Tipi from Driver Tribe/Band “house” “lodge” (1969:119). Blackfeet (Siksika) Napi ou yis Mou yé si Comanche Ka nu ke Ka nu ke Delaware Weèk wam Len nee kàh on Menominee O way ah quo nay waick Way ke wum Miami We ke aw me ------wigwams covered with sheets of birch bark were more Muskhogean rectilinear wattle-and-daub structures Ojibwa, Grand Traverse Bay Wah kah ye gun We ge wom northerly, while dome-shaped wigwams with cover- (1919b:47, 1922:7-8). Furthermore, Bushnell (1922:32- Ojibwa, Michilimackinac Wau cau e gun We ge waum ings of mats were found to the south (also see Douglas 34) suggested that Plains Algonquians, including the Ojibwa,, St. Mary’s Wa kï’ e gun Wëg’ e wam 1932). Bushnell also suggested an ethnic connec- Arapaho and Blackfeet, had used bark-covered conical Ojibwa, Saginaw Wee go woym Maw ka ke o kah mic tion: wigwams were Algonquian structures, he said, dwellings before moving out of the eastern woodlands . and he contrasted them with Siouan skin tipis and

28 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) What is a Wickiup? 29 Anthropologists continue to apply the term “wigwam” however, include in that category conical temporary to very different sorts of structures,and to apply other shelters that were covered with evergreen boughs). terms to the same sorts of structures. Early on, Stephen Powers (1877) and Lewis Henr y Morgan (1965; Some authors, though, would dispute such applica- orig. 1881) used the term in reference to unsubstan- tions of the term. For instance, Dellenbaugh (1906:200) tial houses of almost any description. Dellenbaugh wrote that tipis are portable, whereas wigwams are (1906:200) likewise used the term broadly, in reference “always fixed.” Vestal (1957:3-4) went further in limit a- to “any Amerind house of the skin or earth or wood tion of the term, insisting that not all conical skin-cov- type.” Similarly, Hoxie (1999:680) stated that the term ered dwellings—which are circumpolar in distribution— is “often used to refer to the dwelling of virtually any are tipis; the “true tipi,” he said, must be “a tilted cone, Native American.” More often, though, a distinction steeper at the back, with the smoke hole extending some is made on the basis of geography. Thus Huscher and distance down the more gently sloping side, or front of Huscher (1943:7) stated, without venturing an explana- the tent” and with two flaps that are used “to regulate tion, that “For some reason the term ‘wi gwam’ ... ap- the draft, ventilate the tent, and carr y off the smoke.” plies particularly to the eastern dome-shaped lodge and has never been extended to include the very simi - Hide-covered tipis have been well described. Laubin Figure 3-4 (left). From Topping’s Chronicles of the lar western dome-shaped lodge.” Underhill (1971:58), and Laubin (1957) provided one of the more de- Yellowstone; Murray (1968). writing in 1948, followed the same distinction noted tailed treatments, replete with historical and ethno- by the Huschers; she illustrated a generic “wigwam” as graphic details, despite their intention bein g ‘practi- Figure 3-5 (above). Traditional Apache dwelling a dome-shaped, mat-covered structure and used the cal’ in orientation, to “show you how to make, use, (Curtis 1903). term in reference to structures built by Algonquian and enjoy” a tipi.3 Vestal (1957:7-8) suggested that tribes, but said the dome-shaped structures built the first detailed description of a smoke-flap tipi by Apaches and Paiutes were “wickiups” (ibid.:243, was from a military expedition against the Kiowa- 246, 251, 262, 267) (see Figure 3-1). Bushnell (1919a, Apache in 1819–1820, but Meriwether Lewis 1919b), among others (e.g., Douglas 1932), included (with his inimitable spelling) clearly had described necessary, leaveing the lower part open for both dome-shaped and conical structures within the a tipi (calling it an “Indian tent”) in April 1805: about 4 feet for to pass in & out, and the top rubric of “wigwams.” Nabokov and Easton (1989:63) Similarly, in the same month and year, William Clark is generally left open to admit the Smoke Capt. Clark myself the two Interpretters to pass (Moulton and Dunlay 1987:38-39). showed a tipi-shaped structure with interior pole frame- and the woman and child sleep in a tent of wrote that work and exterior poles weighting down a covering of dressed skins. this tent is in the Indian stile, The Ossinniboins make use of the Same kind mats, calling this a “conical wigwam” (see Figure 3-2). formed of a number of dressed Buf- faloe of Lodges which the Sioux and other Indians Similarly, it seems clear that Coronado (1540-42) skins sewed together with sinues. it is cut on this river make use of — Those lodges or and Oñate (1599) had described tipis (see Nabokov Tipis. The term “tipi” (variously spelled, e.g., teepe, in such manner that when foalded double it tents are made of a number of dressed buff- and Easton 1989:123), even though their descrip- teepee, tepee) is almost universally applied to conical forms the quarter of a circle, and is left open falow Skins Sowed together with Sinues & tions lack the details that Vestal (1957:4-5) consi d- tents with interior poles and a hide covering, but the at one side where it may be attached or loos- deckerated with the tales, & Porcupine quils, ered necessary to identify a tent as a smoke-flap tipi. term is also more broadly used. Driver (1969:119) ened at pleasure by strings which are sewed when open it forms a half circle with a part Structurally important details are often lacking in to its sides to the purpose. to erect this tent, y identical to Nabokov and about 4 Inches wide projecting about 8 or 9 early descriptions. A key characteristic of tipis, to be showed a structure nearl a parsel of ten or twelve poles are provided, Easton’s “conical wigwam”, calling it an “Ojibwa tipi” Inches from the center of the Streight Side for discussed in more detail below, is whether construc- fore or five of which are attached together the purpose of at- taching it to a pole to it the (see Figure 3-3); Underhill (1971:59) showed a similar at one end, they are then elevated and their hight they wish to raise the tent, when the[y] tion begins with a three-pole or four-pole foundation. “Penobscot tipi.” In this regard, Driver and Underhill lower extremities are spread in a circular erect this tent four poles of equal length are were following the leads of Wissler (1948[1912]:36), manner to a width proportionate to the de- tied near one end, those poles are elevated Conical structures built entirely of poles have who described conical birchbark-covered “tipis” in mention of the lodge, in the same position and 8, 10, or 12 other poles are annexed form- been called “lodge pole tepees” or “wooden tepees” the Great Lakes, eastern Canada and New England, orther poles are leant against those, and the ing a Circle at the ground and lodging in the by several authors (e.g., Sullivan 1960, Cristenson and Densmore (1929:27-28), who considered an y leather is then thrown over them forming a forks of the four attached poles, then tents are 1963a, Tilton 1965, Ditmer 1989). But the latter relatively permanent conical structure, whether cov- conic figure (Moulton and Dunlay 1987:10). then raised, by attach the projecting part to sort of structure has also been referred to as a “war ered with bark or cloth, to be a “tipi” (she did not, a pole and incumpassing the poles with the lodge”, “wood lodge”, “conical timber lodge”, “log tent by bringing the two ends together and 3. Nabokov and Easton (1989:415) appropriately refer to this wickiup”, and “wickiup”. When confronted with an book as a “popular handbook on tipi making and use”. attached with a Cord, or laied as high as is

30 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) What is a Wickiup? 31 unclassified conical pole-and-brush structure such as incorrectly concluded that the word is Apachean in this often reflected evolutionary assumptions, e.g., in Parenthetically, it should be noted that many an- that shown in Topping’s The Chronicles of Yellowstone origin. The term is also separately used in reference Dellenbaugh’s (1906:196) statement that wickiups are thropologists have avoided or rejected use of the term (Murray 1968; see Figure 3-4),4 what should we call to Great Basin structures. This is sometimes in ethno- “the lowest type of house used by man” or Waterman’s “architecture” in reference to the dwellin gs built by it? Is it a wigwam, a tipi, a wickiup, or something else? graphic contexts (see Figures 3-6 and 3-7), but archae- (1925:475) characterization of wickiups as “the crud- Native Americans. This often reflected evolutionary as- ologists use the term quite broadly in reference to any est habitation in North America”. Popular use of the sumptions. For instance, Waterman (1925:476) com- Wickiups. The term “wickiup”, even more than the circular structure that is assumed to be dome-shaped or term likewise suggests pathetic, if not outright in- mented that it was only in Mexico and Central and terms “wigwam” and “tipi”, is used in diverse ways. roughly conical in shape (see, for example, O’Connell adequate, shelters. Shields (1883:36-42) has alread y South America that “the Indian became a real architect.” There are three distinct academic usages of the term, and Ericson 1974, O’Connell 1975 and Collette 2002). been mentioned in this regard. Others whose usage More recently, Driver (1969:133) pointedly criticized regarding: (1) Southwestern U.S. Apache dwellings; reflects negative value judgments include Lavine those who “would like to dignify the building skill o f (2) Great Basin Numic dwellings; and (3) High Plains/ There are also much more inclusive academic (1975:42-43) and even Ruth Underhill, whose com- the Pueblo Indians with the label ‘architecture’”; like Intermountain conical timber lodges. As noted in more usages of the term. Douglas (1930) referred to “wicki - ments on Apache and Paiute “wickiups” indicate a Waterman, he reserved the term for the monumental detail further on, Apache people have adopted the term ups” of both domed and pitched-roof types as typi - degree of disdain; Underhill (1953:267) referred to buildings of MesoAmerica. Clark Wissler was the ap- “wickiup” as an English term for their traditional dome- cal of “Apaches, Paiutes, Cocopas, Yumas, Havasupais the Paiute as “Those Who Had Little to Lose.” The parent but unacknowledged target of Driver’s criticism, shaped dwellings (see Figure 3-5). Many anthropologists and Walapais”; also see Grant (1994), who extends evolutionary bias against “wickiups” has undoubt- as Wissler (1966:53-56) had written about Puebloan use the term in this context, and one (Arkush 1987:174) the term to certain dwellings of the Apache, Paiute, edly contributed to assumptions among archaeologists “architecture.” Other anthropologists have been willing 4. Haines (1977:23) explained how this engraving was derived Cheyenne, Dakota and Crow. But this approaches the that the sites are unlikely to have sign ificant research to recognize vernacular architecture; see, for example, from a photograph taken on the Qu’Appelle River in Canada; it still more widespread colloquial and popular usages, value (for expansion on this point, see Baker 1995). Mindeleff (1898b), Dellenbaugh (1906), Bushnell (1922), was also used to depict other Indians, including a “hostile tepee” in which almost any sort of rather flimsy construction Waterman (1927), Bowers (1965), Morgan (1965[1881]), of Sitting Bull. The picture clearly does not depict a Yellowstone may be called a “wickiup.” Among anthropologists, Another approach. There are several poten- Rapoport (1969), Brook (1975), Morgan (1980), Gilman Sheepeater. tial approaches to the dilemma. We could start (1987), Green (1993), Eiselt (1997), and Nabokov (1999). by looking at formal architectural/structural char - acteristics. For the various sorts of so-called Here, the term “architecture” is used in reference “wickiups” we might ask the following questions: to any human structure; the term simply refers to the fact that all structures are built with cultural designs t Framework: Is the foundational frame- and plans in mind.5 Even for conical timber lodges or work made with rigid poles, or flexible saplings? CTLs—our focus from here on in this study—most of How are the poles arranged? Are the poles in- the above architectural/structural questions pertain. terior only, or are there both interior and exte r- The foundation will be rigid, but foundations, fasten- nal poles with some sort of material in between ? ings, and coverings may vary. Of course, this may not be evident in the case of old structures.6 The founda- tFoundation: With a rigid pole framework, is the tion may not be intact if the structure is partiall y col- foundation discernable? Is the structure freestand- lapsed; lashings are likely to have rotted away; and ing, or is it a lean-to build on or around a tree? If free- coverings are likely to have disintegrated. Nonetheless, standing, is it a three-pole or four-pole foundation? it is important to keep in mind that these factors were involved in the construction of conical timber lod ges, t Fastenings: How are the poles fastened and that they may be markers of tribal affiliation . together? Are there natural forks that intersect? Or are the poles lashed together in some manner? 5. Mindeleff (1898:414) explained that a preeminent archi- tec- tural historian, Fergusson, had defined architecture as “ornament- ed and ornamental construction” (James Fergusson, 1809-1886). t Coverings: How are the poles covered? Is there Nabokov and Easton (1989:11) provided a more appropriate defi- one sort of covering only, or are two or more sorts nition; for them, architecture “embraces what happens whenever of material combined? Is the covering made of human thought or action makes order and meaning of random brush, branches, more poles, bark sheets or slabs, space”—thus including not only buildings but also the socially Figure 3-6 (below). Paiute dwellings (Nabokov constructed spaces that surround them and Easton 1989:303). woven mats, bundles of grass, earth, or hides/skins? 6. Stuart W. Conner (2006) has pointed out that determin- Figure 3-7 (right). Paiute wickiup (Watkins ing the nature of conical timber lodge foundations might well 1945). require disassembly of the structure—not something to be lightly recommended.

32 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) What is a Wickiup? 33 A Table 3-2. key difference in tipi construction, which varies they were rectangular in plan, with vertical walls and study is lacking; Kidwell (1969) provides the closest Tribes Utilizing Three- and by tribe, is whether the poles are erected on a three- or pitched gabled roofs—generally quite similar in design approximation (see especially pp., 5-7 and Figure 1). four-pole foundation (see Table 3-2).This has only rarely to the wattle and daub summer houses of tribes in Voget (1943:75) cites James (1905:125) as having identi- Four-pole Foundations been noted as a potentially significant property of coni- the Southeastern United States (Driver 1969:124- fied such structures as far south as the Canadian River cal timber lodges. Wenker (1992:15) commented that 125). A pole framework was covered with slabs of elm in Oklahoma, but he appropriately notes that this Three-pole (Tripedal) Four-pole (Quadripedal) the use of “tripedal” or “quadrupedal” foundations “may bark constituting the walls and roof (Callender does not rule out their occurrence even farther south. Foundation Foundation be a function of tribal affiliation and tradition”, but he 1978:649, Callender, Pope and Pope 1978:658). Loendorf and Klinner (1995:37) suggest that CTLs and Apache Bannock3 also noted that it could also be a function of expedience horizontal cribbed log structures may have different dis- Arapaho Beaver or personal choice. In his examination of ethnographic The Kickapoo and Sauk used these rectangular tributions based on ecological factors, with cribbed log Arikara Blackfoot and archaeological literature, Wenker found “contra- structures—which would most accurately be called, structures being found among junipers and gnarled pine, Assiniboine Coeur d’Alene dictory and occasionally ambiguous” evidence on the in English, “cabins”—in their summer villages; winter and CTLs among “stands of straight pine or fi r trees.” Atsena Comanche question; Voget (1977:7) had suggested that “no regu- villages were comprised of round or oval domed stru c- Bannock Crow larity is to be expected” but earlier, in an unpublished tures covered with rush mats (Callender 1978:651, Encompassing structures typically called “wig- Cheyenne Flathead manuscript, he had speculated that three- and four-pole Callender, Pope and Pope 1978:658). Nabokov and wams” Voget (1977:9) noted that conical timber Gros Ventre Hidatsa tipi foundations would carry over into construction Easton (1989:10-11, 21, 75) illustrate rectangular structures were probably Asiatic in ultimate origin, Kiowa Kutenai of conical timber lodges (Kidwell 1969:19). Similarly, and domed Kickapoo structures, generally refer - and that they were widespread in Canadian wood - Mandan Nez Perce Conner (1989:5) suggested that the number of poles in ring to both as “wickiups” but in one instance distin - lands east of the Great Lakes, as well as on the Nez Perce1 Omaha4 a conical lodge foundation is more likely “a matter of guishing the domed summer house as an odanikani. Plains. Kidwell (1969:1) notes their presence also in Otoe Pend d’Oreille opportunity, not ritual or cultural conditionin g.” This Interestingly, Waterman (1925:62) called the Sac and the Subarctic and California, and Driver, agreeing with Omaha2 Sarsi aspect of construction has seldom been noted in extant Fox dwellings “wigwams”, and this usage was echoed an Asiatic origin, (1969:130) commented that con i- Pawnee Shoshone conical timber lodges. Archaeological site forms tailored by Harrington (1944). Contemporary Kickapoo cal dwellings were distributed across Eurasia west to Plains Cree Ute to the structures generally do not include foundation as people living in Coahuila, Mexico, are said to be Lapland and south to Tibet. Conical structures in the Ponca a variable, and even intensive examinations of “wick i- living still in “traditional wickiups” (La Prensa 1997) .7 Subarctic were built by the Athapaskan- speaking Santee Sioux ups” often fail to provide details on the foundation (see, Slave (Honigmann 1946). One reason tha there is no Teton Sioux for example, Joyes 1968). Hence we simply do not know Just how the term “wickiup” was transferred from distribution study surely relates to misapplication of Umatilla whether foundations are standard or variable in specific Sauk and Kickapoo cabins to western structures is the term “wickiup” to structures bearing little or no Wichita areas, or among structures built by particular tribes. undocumented. A logical supposition would be that architectural resemblance to the conical timber struc- Yakima the term came to mean any sort of American Indian tures. Narrowly construed, conical timber lodges are Yankton Sioux Variations noted in regard to conical timber lodges hut or shack, but this seems partiall y contradicted at least present in the Yellowstone re gion (and some References: include pole diameter (ranging from one inch to one by certain references. For instance, Jonathan Carver distance east, in Wyoming), in central Idaho, and in Lowie (1922), Campbell (1927), Douglas (1931a), Ray (1940), foot), pole length (up to twenty-five feet), and number (1778:46-47) described a Sauk villa ge of some ninety southwestern Montana—perhaps as far north as Butte.8 Turney-High (1941), Wissler (1948), Laubin and Laubin of poles (from 30 to as many as 166). Footprint di- bark-covered longhouses as “the largest and best built (1957), Kidwell (1969). ameters range up to fourteen feet (Taylor 1964:89, Indian town” he had seen, with “regular and spacious” Somewhat more problematic than distribution is 1. Laubin and Laubin (1957:120) state that Nez Perce have Arthur 1966:57, Conner 1965, Kidwell 1969:3, 21). streets. It does seem clear, however, that the word was the consistent description of conical timber structures both 3- and 4-pole tipis. spread during the nineteenth century by military lead- as “war lodges.” Lewis and Clark began this tradition; 2. Per Laubin and Laubin (1957). Back to the term “wickiup”: it is potentiall y instruc- ers and expeditionaries; see, for example, Beckwith Maximilian also described the structures as havin g 3. Per Steward (1943). tive to look at the origin of the term, which may lend ge (1876:70), and Terry (1970:20). been built by “war- parties” but also mentioned the 4. Per Lowie (1922), Campbellp (1927), and Douglasg (1931a). (1855:26), Dod some insight on subsequent misapplication to var i- Dodge had commented that “The ‘teepe,’ or lod ge, possibility of hunting parties (Maximilian 1906:42- ous other structures. The term is actually Sauk, Fox, may be regarded as the Indian’s house, the wickiup 43, 351). The designation as war lodges was perpetu- Foundations are likely to be a particularly impor- Menominee and/or Kickapoo in origin (wikĭyapi as his tent. One is his permanent residence, the other ated by Osborne Russell and George Bird Grinnell tant consideration, especially because this will be or wiikiaapi)—a Midwestern, rather than Western, the make-shift shelter for a night” (Bushnell 1922:70). (1927). Ewers (1958:46, 130-132) continued the tra - identifiable in most fairly well-preserved structures. term (Hodge 1910:2:950, Huscher and Huscher dition, and although he also noted that these lodges Conical timber lodges are not tipis, yet they share 1943:7). The Menominee term was wikiop or wa·panow Conical timber lodges are widespread in the Plains served as a base for hunting expeditions, he seems the same basic form with those structures, and tipis (Huscher and Huscher 1943:7, Spindler 1978:711). and Rocky Mountains, but a definitive distributional have been accorded little attention insofar as what These were very different from all structures in the west- 8. Keyser (2006) indicated that a conical timber lodge in the they might tell us in regard to the timber structures. ern U.S. to which the term “wickiup” has been applied; 7. See Wallace (1969) for a succinct history of Kickapoo move- Butte, MT vicinity was reported to him by Jim LaMarche, but this ments that left a significant segment of the tribe living in Mexico. site apparently remains unrecorded.

34 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) What is a Wickiup? 35 to have assumed that this occurred only in context historical accounts, that conical dwelling structures that the historical connection runs in the opposite direc- Nabokov and Loendorf (1994:73) suggest that these are of warfare. Mulloy (1952:133) had been more cau- were very small, and at the same time, it is documented tion of what would have been expected—in other words, the most common sort of timber structure in southwest- tious, suggesting that log structures “were used both that numbers of Great Basin and Plains people used the structure could represent an old Great Basin/ Desert ern Montana. Structures of this sort have been described as winter camps and as war lod ges.” Malouf (1963), small conical or dome-shaped shelters as menstrual Culture architectural tradition, reflectin g the Uto- by Mulloy (1941, 1965), Cramer (1961), Moe (1967), although referring to conical timber lodges as “war seclusion huts or as sweatlodges. Focusing on archi- Aztecan affiliation of Hopi; Athapaskans may have ad- Carbone (1972), and Loendorf (1969); also see Conner lodges” (and relying largely on Ewers as his source of tectural characteristics while avoiding undocumented opted the architecture during their southward migration (1974:27-28). They were noted in the Black Hills in the information), admits that they were also used by hun t- ethnographic or functional terminology preserves the through the Great Basin. Voget (1977:9) suggested ulti- 1830s by William Marshall Anderson (Partoll 1962:70), ers and as habitations. Voget (1977:1, 5) also noted option of learning from structures rather than im- mate Asiatic origins, with antecedents of Plains struc- and Lewis Henry Morgan noted them along the upper potential domestic usages of the structures; Kidwell posing potentially incorrect interpretations on them . tures to be found in the Canadian woodlands. Voget Missouri (Morgan 1959:197). The structures “invariably” (1969:7, 14-16) had dismissed the possibility of domes- also believed that conical timber lodges were largely re- were surrounded by sandstone slabs leaning against tic usage, instead supporting the “war lodge” hypothesis placed by tipis coincidental to acquisition of horses, and the walls (Conner and Halverson 1969:8). Late prehis- despite noting the lack of proof regarding that function.9 Possible Historical Relations that similar structures among Great Basin and Plateau toric log structures constructed on natural sandstone Earlier, Mulloy (1945:521) had suggested that conical between Conical Timber Lodges tribes resulted from Plains influence (ibid.:9, 13-14). outcroppings were documented near Pompe y’s Pillar log lodges in Crow territory were “used primarily in Creek, in southwestern Montana, by Mulloy (1969). war, but also as supplementary shelters to their usual and Similar Structures In consideration of the potential antiquity o f tipis and for other temporary needs.” In this regard, A variety of historical relations have been suggested Navajo forked-pole hogans, a comparison was made There were also roofless truncated cone structures, Mulloy more closely followed Lowie, who had indicat- in regard to “wickiups” of various sorts. Connections of architectural terminology between their structures such as those found at Thirty Mile Mesa (Mulloy ed that such structures were constructed b y visionar- are, however, difficult to establish with confidence. For and similar ones built by a California Athapaskan- 1958a:165, 1965; Conner 1966c). Marcy (1859:141-142) ies and elopers as well as by warriors (Lowie 1922:225). example, the Walpi (Hopi) built a conical hut almost speaking tribe, the Kato or Cahto (Myers 1978). Table described structures that seem very similar, stating that identical to Navajo conical forked-pole hogans (see 3-3 shows that despite structural similarities, there they were built by the “Wichita, Waco, Tonkawa and The “war lodge” label is symptomatic of a broader Mindeleff 1898a, Brugge 1956; also see the discussion of are no apparent correspondences in linguistic te r- Tawakoni”. Conner (1974) described one such structure problem—i.e., the assumption of function, based solely Navajo architecture, below). Called an umuki, the Hopi minology. This does not, of course, disprove connec- in detail; this site (24ML1026) was located in the south- on architectural form. For example, the size of a struc- structure had a specialized function of providing shelter tions; terminological linguistic changes can be rapid. ern Bull Mountains of Musselshell County, Montana, ture can be misleading; it has been alleged, in several from rain when working in fields. Hopi tradition holds not far from the Thirty Mile Mesa site. This was an ir- that this is an “old Hopi type” of architecture, and explic- Other sorts of timber lodges in the Plains area should regularly circular structure built of logs standing on 9. One reason that archaeologists have dismissed CTLs as itly explains that it was not recently adopted from the be mentioned, even though they are not the focus of end and leaning toward the center of the circle; stand- possible habitations is the frequent lack of artifacts, but this Navaho (Gifford 1941:108). Here we find an excellent the present study. A widespread type consisted of hori- ing trees formed supports for sections of the walls. The impression may have resulted from duff on the sites combined example of historical complications; Gifford apparently zontally laid “cribbed” logs or poles. Although Frison structure had an interior diameter of ten feet and wall with superficial examination of the sites. The Burnt Wickiup site expected that the Hopi would have borrowed the co n- (1991:257) attributed these to Sheepeater Shoshoneans, poles ranged from 3.5 to 9 feet in length, and the door- (48FR5018) and the Boulder Ridge site (48PA2642), discussed below, provides striking examples of sites that lacked artifacts cept from the Navajo, but he found linguistic and oral they were constructed by many of the Plains tribes, as way was on the east side. Good (1974) and Loendorf until fire revealed them in abundance. historical evidence to the contrary. It is entirely possible further detailed below. The structures were polygonal in (1969) described truncated cone structures located in outline (sometimes hexagonal, as mentioned by Morgan the Pryor Moutains south of the Middle Yellowstone. Table 3-3. [1959:197] and sometimes, as noted by Christensen Conner (1974:28-29) cited sources indicating that trun- [1963b], pentagonal). Christensen (ibid.) referred to cated cone structures may have been built by the Crow. Architectural terminology among widely-separated Athapaskan Speakers these as “hogans” and described them as “war lodges”. Conner (1966a) also referred to them as “Yellowstone Archaeologically-known structures somewhat simi - Architectural element Kata/Cahto term Navajo term hogans.” Good (1974:73, 82) believed the structures lar, or possibly similar, to conical timber lodges in- (California Athapaskan) (Jett and Spencer 1981:22- were hunting lodges, while Conner and Halverson clude: (1) Paleo-Indian structures from the Hell Ga p (Essene 1940:56-57) 23) (1969:8) think usage as winter camps was more likely. Valley in southeastern Wyoming (Haynes et a l. 1965, Forked door posts Tcüłgĭc ch’é’étiindęę náá’áí Conner (1966b) offered the opinion that, due to the Irwin-Williams et al. 1973); structures 2–4m in diam- Long poles set in door post Bĕlgal shádi’ááhdéé náá’áí frequent presence of pottery and hard-packed floors, eter, defined by circles of post molds, were assigned to crotches, extending to rear of ‘e’e’aahdéé’ náá’áí these were domestic structures; later he changed his the Midland Complex (8740–8440 BC) and the Agate house náhookosdéé’ náá’áí mind, believing they could also have been “war lodges.”10 Basin Complex (8500–8000 BC); the Midland Complex structures were described as “the earliest known Lintel Nanunai (term unavailable) 10. Conner (2006) has stated that the Evans wickiup (Joyes 1968) definite remains of Plains Indian dwellings” (Irwin- in central Montana is the only conical timber lodge that has been Williams et al. 1973:47); (2) Bear River Phase structures found with a bark floor.

36 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) Possible Historical Relations between Conical Timber Lodges and Similar Structures 37 in northwestern Utah (late Salt Lake Fremont, dating between 1600–1100 B.P.); these were 3-4 meter dia m- eter shelters made of poles that were pulled together to form a cone or dome, and covered with mud (Fry and Dalley 1979, Lohse 1980); (3) pole-and-thatch structures from the Snake River plain in southern Idaho; these date from 2600-350 B.P. and were 3-4 meters in diam - eter with interior and exterior hearths (Green 1993:63); and (4) 3 protohistoric Shoshonean dwellings from the upper Green River Basin of Wyoming (Frison 1971).

It should be pointed out that we simply do not know whether conical timber lodges would leave posthole im- pressions; the bottom ends of CTL poles are t ypically obscured by duff and it is unknown whether some may have been buried deeply enough to leave archaeolog i- cal traces after the structure has entirely rotted away. Perhaps the most suggestive evidence that post molds sometimes would be left is provided by Frison (1971). Chapter Four Frison found 3 round-to-oval structures at the prot o- historic Shoshonean Eden-Farson site. With , “shallow post holes quite closely spaced in the larger lodges” Conical Timber and “only a basic 3- pole structure with addition o f smaller poles to fill the intervals in one of the smallest”. Lodges in the Study Area

A brief discussion of sites within and adjacent to the W Redacted Creek Wickiups, study area follows. Included are some timber structures that are not conical timber lod ges. At the end of this discussion, Table (4-1) summarizes key characteristics k of the sites including jurisdiction, condition, features, i number of wickiup poles, type of poles, freestanding or ( lean to, foundation, elevation, and entrance direction. Wic iups ( Yellowstone National Park M Thirteen known sites with timber poles occur t within Yellowstone National Park and are addressed b here, but only four are conical lodges believed to be i of Native American construction (see Ta ble 4-1):

38 Chapter Three: Previous Research on "Wickiups" (Conical Timber Lodges) 39 Redacted

40 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Yellowstone National Park 41 n Redacted e Wa ne Rep o e

i s t Redacted

4 ntain Sit o

p t

Redacted

A e

Redacted a F c e r o O wit it in ense Dou as n fi b i h a i b A e structures p. a O s

T Redacted

42 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Yellowstone National Park 43 Redacted Redacted “a ver bad si n for Redacted Redacted Redactedo

t Steve L m A.D. H i P

U the

Grand Teton National Park Oddly, there are no known conical timber lodge sites within Grand Teton National Park (St. Clair 2006). Despite geographical proximity to known wickiups and occupation by cultural groups utilizing this architectural type, natural conditions, such as heavy snow and forest fires, may have destroyed Grand Teton’s CTLs. There also exists the possibility that CTLs simply have yet to be discovered in Grand Teton Nationa l Park. The one report of a po- Redacted tential wickiup documented within Grand Teton National Park at Flagg Ranch appears to be unfounded.

Bridger-Teton National Forest

Frison (n.d. 1984?) noted several CTLs within theRedacted Forest in the early 1980s. Redacted Redacted the c C b . Seven o s n F h Th s t h

44 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Grand Teton National Park 45 Redacted

46 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Bridger-Teton National Forest 47 Redacted Redacted

Redacted Shoshone National Forest Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

r f e Redacted Redacted

48 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Shoshone National Forest 49 l Redacted Custer National Forest a Redacted

p Redacted Redacted T (28” [71.12 c t s

t C Redacted

T Redacted Redacted

Lewis and Clark National Forest 2 Redacted a Other Jurisdictions Outside the a Study Area v f Although not part of the study area, certain h sites within Custer National Forest, and Lewis and n Clark National Forest, are mentioned here for com - a parative purposes. This listing is not complete, and no images are available for the sites discussed.

50 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Other Jurisdictions Outside the Study Area 51 Table 4-1. Characteristics of Timber Structure Sites in the GYE (Authentic & Questionable). n o n o i poles o t i c f n-t o a no.) di wickiup wickiup e . ndit L o o uris poles Freestanding or Site name Trinomial J Authentic? Feature(s) (incl. C N Type Foundation (ft) Elevation Entrance direction Max. height Max. diameter Landform(s) Vegetation Vista (Open/ Sheltered) water Nearest Hearth Ext.) Int./ (+/-, Lithic artifacts (+/-) Redacted

52 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Characteristics of Timber Structure Sites in the GYE 53 Ext.) rm(s) ./ ./ artifacts Sheltered) o c nt n/ I pe ndf thi a i (+/-, L (+/-) Elevation (ft) Elevation Entrance direction Max. height Max. diameter L Vegetation Vista (O water Nearest Hearth Site name Trinomial Jurisdiction Authentic? Feature(s) (incl. no.) Condition wickiup No. poles poles of Type Freestanding or Lean-to Foundation Redacted

54 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Characteristics of Timber Structure Sites in the GYE 55 n o n Ext.) i Maybe) poles o t i , rm(s) ./ Sheltered) c f o artifacts o o o nt no.) c di N n/ I wickiup wickiup n-t . ndit pe a ndf thi o o e i a Yes, uris poles Freestanding or Trinomial J Authentic? ( Feature(s) (incl. C N Type L Foundation Site name Elevation (ft) Entrance direction height Max. diameter Max. L Vegetation Vista (O water Nearest Hearth (+/-, L (+/-) Redacted

RedactedRedacted

56 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area Characteristics of Timber Structure Sites in the GYE 57 Chapter Five Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges

Redactedathered from S hpeton Sioux, and S r ers a

b s

1 n fi t

58 Chapter Four: Conical Timber Lodges in the Study Area 59 Redacted

60 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Tribal Recommendations for CTL Management in the GYE 61 Redacted preserve . recorded (with site forms, photographs, reports, old6 was found near Gunnison, Colorado, and it in- the nineteenth century, Arapaho territory began just Redacted cludes a possible dwelling structure described as “a east of present-day Yellowstone National Park in the rudimentary house that had been built of stone and Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests. Later, plaster, and maybe tree poles and brush” (Dodd 2004, in alliance with the Cheyenne and with aggressive hos- Stiger 2005). Experimental archaeology has been em- tilities against the Kiowa and Comanche, the Arapaho ployed to test whether the remains are likely to have moved south into the Plains of southeastern Wyoming been of a “wickiup”-like structure (Burroughs et al. and eastern Colorado. It was not until the mid-nin e- 2005); the answer appears to be affirmative. Late Archaic teenth century that the Northern Arapaho began Period sites with apparent conical structures also have moving back to the north. According to Crow people, been documented on the Plains (Frison 1983:81-85). the Arapaho preferred the “vertical pole, tipi- like Ute “wickiups” in archaeological contexts have been structure” to horizontal log lodges, although they con- considered indicative of the Late Precontact Canalla structed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). Phase, terminating in A.D., 1540 (Reed 1988, Reed and Metcalf 1999:149, Baker 2005), but some Ute “wickiup” Assiniboine/Gros Ventre. The Assiniboine and Gros sites clearly date as recently as the 1880s (O’Neil 2005). Ventre currently share the Fort Belknap Reservation, Numerous conical timber lodges were recorded in the located on the Milk River in northern Montana. The high Plains by nineteenth century observers includ- Assiniboine are Siouan (Nakota) speakers, who were ing Lewis and Clark, and Prince Maximilian of Weid- in the seventeenth centur y located in Manitoba and Neuweid. Indications are that CTLs or ver y similar Saskatchewan. They shifted westward and southward structures have existed over a very broad time range. until, by 1840, some were living along the Missouri River in present-day North Dakota and Montana Ethnographic references to conical timber lodges are (DeMallie and Miller 2001:572). Early location of the presented in two sections below. First, the tribes con- Gros Ventre is uncertain; in the mid- eighteenth cen- sidered to be associated with the Greater Yellowstone tury they were in Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan), Ecosystem, and presently consulted by the sponsoring but they had moved south a century later. Linguistically, jurisdictions, are discussed in alphabetic order. Second, the Gros Ventre are Algonquian speakers, closely re- other tribes utilizing conical timber lodges, and/or do- lated to the Arapaho (Fowler and Flannery 2001:677). miciles popularly referred to as “wickiups”, are discussed. Both the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre used three- Arapaho. Ethnographic treatments of the Arapaho pole foundation tipis (Lowie 1909:14-15, Dusenberr y (e.g., Hilger 1952, Trenholm 1986) typically mention 1960:60). Both also had conical timber lod ges (see only tipis and dome-shaped sweat lodges, but—con- Bushnell 1922:77 regarding Assiniboine structures). trary to Kroeber (1902-1907:3) and Hilger (1952), who According to Crow people, the Assiniboine and Gros stated that they lived exclusively in tipis—they did Ventre preferred the “vertical pole, tipi-like structure” build conical timber structures. Al gonquian speakers, to horizontal log lodges, although they constructed the Arapaho incorporated five divisions with separate both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). Voget dialects; these merged to some extent but then split into (1943:74) quotes Lewis and Clark as havin g identi- the Northern and Southern Arapaho. The former are fied some lodges built with elm boughs as Assiniboine Historical and Ethnographic now at the Wind River Reservation, while the latter live (see Moulton and Dunlay 1987:34, 38), but Voget References to Conical Timber in Oklahoma (Fowler 2001:840). One of the divisions considered the identification to be questionable. was known as Besawunena, variously translated as “Big Lodges and Related Tribal Lodge People”, “Wood Lodge People”, and “Brush-lodge Blackfeet. The Blackfeet (Natsitapii) are an Architecture Men” (Fowler ibid.:861). Whether the name referred to Algonquian-speaking group comprised of three tribes, conical timber lodges is unclear. At the beginning of Kainaa (Kainawa, or Blood), Piikani (Pikanii, Piegan), 5. Two out of the eighteen interviewees stated that they advocat- The antiquity of conical timber lodges is not clearly and Siksika. Their extensive territory included lands ed the excavation of hearths if archaeologists indicated that such established. A Folsom site approximately 12,000 years 6. Thus older than the Agate Basin structures previously in both present- day Canada and the United States, an examination could yield substantial information. mentioned.

62 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 63 conica generally much farther north than Yellowstone National the tipi poles, tanning the buffalo skins, manufacturing l timber lodges were Blackfeet; later (1974:83), weather or for other reasons, they build a war lodge. Taking four young cotton-woods or Park—although they traded and raided much farther the tipi covering, and putting up and taking down the he stated that it “isn’t possible to determine which tribe aspens, on which the leaves are left, and lash- south. Murphy and Murphy (1960:327-238) stated tipis when the group moved from one location to an- or tribes built the [lodges] seen by Lewis and Clark.” ing them together like lodge poles, but with that “Historical records … mention Blackfoot raids in other. Regardless of the size of a lodge, an even number the butts up, about these they place other Yellowstone Park and Jackson Hole and as far south as of hides was used; small lodges might be made with Although they seldom provided such detailed de- similar trees, also butts up and untrimmed. the valleys of the Green and Bear rivers and Great Salt as few as 14 skins, while very large ones might require scriptions, Lewis and Clark noted timber lodges The leaves keep the rain off, and prevent the Lake.” Siksika territory was the most northerly, extend- 30 or more. Poles averaged 25 feet in length, but for from the vicinity of present-day Fort Peck Indian light of the fire which is built in the lodge ing to the Saskatchewan River; the Kainaa or Blood an exceptionally large lodge they might be as much as Reservation in North Dakota (on April 30, 1805) from showing through. Sometimes, when occupied an intermediate area; and the Piikani lived 40 feet long. Due to the wear and tear caused by fre- all the way to Chouteau County, Montana (on June on the prairie, where there is no wood, in in northern Montana around Glacier National Park, quent moves, the Blackfeet cut new tipi poles each year. 7, 1805). These were variously referred to as “stick stormy weather they will build a shelter o f rocks (Brown 1961:116; Grinnell 1962:252). although their hunting territory extended on down lodges”, “lodges of sticks”, and lodges “made of stiks toward the Yellowstone River. Having acquired both A rather substantial body of literature describes coni- and bark” (Moulton and Dunlay 1987:159-263 passim). Grinnell’s description of the Blackfoot conical timber guns and horses by 1800, the Blackfeet were expand- cal timber lodges built by the Blackfeet. The earliest de- lodge as having a foundation of four poles is more pre- ing southward and eastward early in the nineteenth scription is from present-day McCone County, Montana, In February 1837, Osborne Russell described sim i- cise than the Lewis and Clark expedition description of century, putting them into conflict with the Crow and in the journal of Meriwether Lewis (May 4, 1805): lar structures which apparently were built by Blackfeet lodge foundations consisting of “three or more” poles; Shoshone (McClintock 1910, Brown 1961, Dempsey the usual construction of the lodges we warriors. He described them as “old rotten Indian forts Grinnell’s account is more to be trusted, and in addition, 2001, Nabokov and Loendorf 2002:74-80). Although have lately passed is as follows. three or more formed of small poles in a conical shape” and went on to as noted above, it may be that the structures seen by Blackfoot economy focused on buffalo hunting, they strong sticks the thickness of a man’s leg or state, “We found that the old forts were not bullet proof Lewis and Clark were erected by more than one group.7 also were traders who had welcomed fur trade with arm and about 12 feet long are attached in any place our rifle balls had whistled thro. them nearly the British. American contact with Blackfeet people together at one end by a with of small wil- every shot” (Haines 1965:52). Two years later, Russell It is noteworthy, too, that Grinnell describes the got off on a bad footing, however, resulting in a rep - lows, these are then set on end and s pread was attacked by Blackfeet warriors near Yellowstone lodges as being built with pole butts up; if this was con- utation as warlike savages. Blackfeet hostility toward at the base, forming a circle of ten twelve or Lake, and wrote that “At the encampment I found a sack sistently done, it might constitute an ethnic marker the Americans may have had a purely economic basis; 14 feet in diameter; sticks of driftwood and of salt—everything else the Indians had carried away for conical lodges built by Blackfeet. Another pos- American mountain men directly competed with fallen timber of conve- nient size are now or cut to pieces They had built 7 large Conical forts sible marker of Blackfeet timber lodges might be placed with one end on the ground and the near the spot from which we supposed their number to Indians for furs, and the Lewis and Clark expedition other resting against those which are secured heavy logs around the base and an “angled, covered had announced their intention of trading directly with together at top by the width and which sup- have been 70 or 80 part of whom had returned to their entrance way composed of rather heavy forked tree tribes farther to the west, thus bypassing the middleman port and give the form to the whole, thus the Village with the horses and plunder” (ibid.:104-105). trunks” as described by John Ewers (1944:184, also position of the Blackfeet (Lewis 1942:27, Jud y 1987). sticks are laid on until they make it as thick see below; Wissler 1910:155; and Mullo y 1953:136).8 as theydesign, usually about three ranges, James Willard Schultz, who married into the Oddly, given the extensive descriptions cited above, The Blackfeet were renowned for their buffalo- each piece breaking or filling up the inter- Blackfeet and lived among them during the final Voget (1943:76) stated that “no specific descrip - hide tipis (Grinnell 1901; Barrett 1921b; McClintoc k stice of the two beneath it, the whole forming quarter of the nineteenth century, described a war tion is available” for Piegan or Blackfeet lodges. 1910:207-224, 1936; Ewers 1976), however, the Crow a connic figure about 10 feet high with a small lodge (ap-im-an or “sit inside place”) as bein g built and Cheyenne had the reputation of making the finest apperture in one side which an- swers as a in thick timber near a spring. “First they put up As previously explained, the consistent description door. Leaves bark and straw are sometimes skin lodges. Blackfeet tipis (nitoyis) was constructed on the poles—many of them and close together— and of conical timber lodges as “war lodges” is problematic. thrown over the work to make it more com- a four-pole foundation, with the foundation poles being plete, but at best it affords a very imperfect over these they placed balsam and spruce bou ghs in James Willard Schultz often described pole lodges as lashed together 4 to 6 feet from the top. The founda- shelter particularly without straw which is thick layers so a fire could be built inside and yet no such, but he also noted their use durin g hunting trips tion poles were placed in a rectan gular manner with the state in which we have most usually found light be seen from the outside” (Hanna 1988:110; (Andrews 2002:181). Contemporary Blackfeet people sides longer than the front or back, and the rear them (Moulton and Dunlay 1987:108-109). also see Schultz 1997:36 and Andrews 2002:181 ). refer to CTLs as “storm huts” (Zedeno 2007). Des pite poles were placed closer to the vertical so that the tipi has the appearance of leaning away from its entrance. Moulton and Dunlay credit the Blackfeet with George Bird Grinnell, working with the According to one account (Andrews 2002:84), the back construction of these lodges. They call them “Blackfeet Blackfeet early in the twentieth century, simi- 7. Grinnell was an experienced ethnographer, and he worked directly with Blackfeet people who provided him with detailed in- of the lodge was always placed toward the prevailing war lodge(s)” and note that in reference to the struc- larly described conical timber structures as “war formation; Lewis and Clark were generalist observers who rarely wind. Wissler (1910:99, 104), however, claimed that the tures Clark recorded, the name “Indian Fort Creek”, lodges.” He wrote, in regard to war parties, tha t spoke with Indian people, but rather reported tribal affiliations of entrance always faced to the east. This is not necessar- which was later changed to Antelope, and then what they saw on the basis of poorly understood versions of tribal They always endeavor to make camp in the territories. ily contradictory, however, since winds generally came Nickwall, Creek was established (1987:110-111). Earl y thick timber, where they cannot be seen; and from the west. Women were responsible for cutting on, Ewers (1958:46) implied agreement that these 8. Covered entrance ways are also found in Navajo hogans, and in here, when it is necessary, on account of bad domed, brush-covered Havasupai dwellings (Spier 1928: 180-181).

64 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 65 1921a, Hanna 1988:65). Dempse Densmore (1929:22) commented that his assumption that the pole lodges served only a y (2001:614) illus- typically faced east. Grinnell (1923-24:I:49-50; also “The princi- single function, Ewers provided interestin g details: trates a Blackfoot (Blood) menstrual shelter made o f see Hoebel 1978:6) described the ancient (Great Lakes pal types of dwellings were the wigwam, the peaked Upon approaching enemy territory, the poles, hides and brush. Mulloy (1952:133) stated that era) Cheyenne houses as having been built of woven lodge, the bark house and the tipi. To these may be raiders stopped to kill enough game to pro- the Blackfeet constructed shelters made of horizontal- willow shoots, variously plastered with mud or cov- added a conical lodge of evergreen boughs for tempo- vide food for the remainder of their journey. ly-placed logs, and he suggested that (according to in- ered with rush mats. The shape of these structures is rary use.” Densmore stated that the wigwam among the Usually they built a war lodge in a heavily formation from Crow people) they preferred these to not clearly indicated. The Cheyenne used dome-shaped Chippewa was any sort of dwelling, regardless of shape; timbered bottom or on a thickly wooded timber shelters of vertically- placed logs (also see Voget sweat lodges into the twentieth century (Grinnell 1919) she called conical, bark-covered lodges “wigwams.” height, or repaired an old one built by some 1977:8). Horizontally- placed log structures are fairly and later. They also built conical timber lodges, though Peaked lodges had long ridgepoles with sloping sides. earlier party. If a new lodge was needed, all common in the study area; they are often referred to as little information is available regarding these. According set to work gathering fallen timbers or cut- “cribbed log structures” (see Cramer 1961, Cristenson to Crow people, the Cheyenne preferred the “vertical Densmore (1929:27-28) provided details on ting new ones to erect a conical framework of 1963b). These bear an intriguing resemblance to pole, tipi-like structure” to horizontal log lodges, a l- Chippewa bark houses. They were built on a tripod poles. This they covered with bark or brush. They then laid heavy logs around the base the wolf traps described by James Willard Schultz: though they constructed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also foundation, with the poles held together by crotch- and built an angled, covered entrance way. …an oblong, pyramidal log pen about eight see Voget 1977:8). Grinnell (1926:224) indicated that es left on them; the other poles—spruce wood, when Working industriously, a war party could by sixteen feet at the base, and eightfeet in a covered passageway into the lodge was built of logs. available—were stacked against the foundation poles complete the lodge, large enough to sleep a height, the last layer of logs being placed to form a conical structure upon which sheets of dozen men, in two hours. It was built well about eighteen inches apart. Eas- ily climb- Chippewa-Ojibwa. These Algonquian speakers lived birch, elm or cedar bark were placed. These struc - inside the edge of timber, where it could not ing the slope of this, the wolves would jump in the upper Great Lakes area, where they were in tures were often used at sugar camps. Similar coni- be seen from the open plains. But it was dan- down through the narrow ap- erture at the hostile relations with the Dakota (Hickerson 1962:27- cal lodges, covered with balsam or other ever green gerous ground. All hands were needed to top to feed upon the quantities of meat that 28) until the late seventeenth century. Then a truce with boughs, were another form of temporar y shelter. speed the work. …. The war lodge not only had been placed inside to decoy them, but the Dakota allowed them to begin a western expan - On these, the boughs were placed points downward. provided shelter from rain, snow, and cold, 9 they could not jump out (Schultz 1916:148). sion. The majority of Chippewa-Ojibwa people live in but concealed the fire ofrelatively smok e- less willow branches built inside and served Cheyenne (Northern). The Algonquian- speak- Ontario province, Canada (Ritzenthaler 1978:743), In July, 2005, a visit to the Mille Lacs Indian Museum 10 as a fortress in case of enemy attack. It was ing Cheyenne traditionally lived in present- day but others live in Minnesota, North Dakota, and the (Mille Lacs Indian Reservation, Minnesota) coinci- a base of supplies, where some food could Minnesota but moved westward from there under Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan dentally provided useful insight into the function of be left to be picked up on the return jour- pressure from the Chippewa and Assiniboine during (Rogers and Taylor 1981, Steinbring 1981, Albers 2001, different shapes of Ojibwa wigwams. A tribal guide ney, and a base for scouting operations. … the eighteenth century. Some but not all bands ad- Payment 2001). The Plains Ojibwa initially moved explained that domed wigwams were used during the Meanwhile, the other members of the raid- opted a horticultural lifestyle along the Missouri westward in connection with the fur trade, but early in summer, while peaked wigwams were fall, winter and ing party left at the war lodge hunted buff- River before continuing on into the Plains and the the nineteenth century they shifted to hunting buffalo, spring structures. The peaked wigwam displayed at falo, deer, elk, or any other game that might Black Hills (Grinnell 1923, 1926; Moore 1987:53- and they developed a Plains lifestyle, through interac- the museum had a short gable post in the peak of the provide dried meat for the remainder of 87; Moore, Liberty and Straus 2001:863). Division tion and intermarriage with the Cree and Assiniboine. structure, and the base was oblong rather than round. their journey. They butchered the animals, dried the meat, and filled the men’s provision of the tribe into Northern and Southern Che yenne Long considered “landless” and unaffiliated with Traditionally, frameworks were left in place and re- bags. Sometimes they prepared an addition- took place after the early nineteenth century. The either Canada or the U.S., Plains Ojibwa people utilized the next year; birchbark, elm or basswood al meat packet—a small rawhide container Northern Cheyenne currently live on the Northern were eventually put on Turtle Mountain Reservation bark coverings were rolled up and transported from that could be fastened to the belt, holding Cheyenne Reservation in southeastern Montana. (North Dakota) and Rocky Boy’s Reservation one camp to the next. Peaked structures were pre- enough concentrated dried meat to provide (Montana). Others settled with allied people on other ferred in cool weather because they maximized the heat an occasional mouthful for the raider has- Along the Missouri, the Cheyenne lived in earth Montana reservations (Albers ibid.:654, 656-657). from the fire; heat traveled up the walls of the struc- tening homeward with captured horses. One lodges similar to those of the Arikara (Grinnell 1923– ture and then was channeled back down at the peak. of these packets was made for each man. It 24:I:24, Brown 1961:160), but upon movin g onto the Plains Ojibwa people used both hide tipis, and bar k In a dome-shaped wigwam, though, heat would was called “war lunch” (Ewers 1958:130-132). Plains they adopted the tipi. Campbell (1915) and or reed lodges harking back to their Eastern Woodlands rise and stay at the top of the dome.11 This difference Other Blackfeet structures should be briefly men- Grinnell (1923-24:I:50-51, 224-25) provi ded detailed origins (Skinner 1914:316). Plains Cree tipis were in thermal dynamics may be pertinent to the preva- tioned. Grinnell recorded traditions of early descriptions of the Cheyenne tipi, built on a three - painted with symbolic designs (Cadzow 1926:25). The lent distribution of different sorts of “wickiups”—i.e., Blackfeet houses built of “mud, sticks, and stones”, but pole foundation, lashed together; the butt ends of the Plains Cree built conical timber shelters on a three-pole people did not know their shape or how big they were poles were tapered and (as with Blackfeet tipis) the tipi foundation or leaning against a tree; these were used by 10. Funded independently from this project. (Brown 1961:100). Sweat lodges were hemispheric, six was steeper behind than in front, where the entrance women for domestic tasks as late as 1935 (Mandelbaum 11. This difference in thermal dynamics may be pertinent to the to seven feet in diameter, constructed with a willo w 1940:212, Ewers 1944:190, Voget 1977:5). In Minnesota, prevalent distribution of different sorts of “wickiups,” i.e., conical framework and a covering of buffalo skins (Barrett 9. These structures have also been identified as bobcat traps Chippewa/Ojibwa people used a variety of dwellings. peaked structures being more northerly whereas domed “wicki- (Zedeno 2007). ups” are more common farther south.

66 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 67 conical peaked structures being more northerly where- but covered with branches and more poles, “war lodges” used by horse raiders (Des Rosier 1965). summer; Wissler (1948:40) indicated that in 1853 or grass mats. The pole and branch struc- as domed “wickiups” are more common farther south. tures were more common in the field and Des Rosier gave fewdetails about the structures, other they were using both conical brush lodges and tipis. were useful to hunters or war parties. than to note that there was an interior hearth inside Coeur d’Alene. With their traditional territo- one. Pacific coast Salish people, on Vancouver Island, Redacted ew or ry located in eastern Washington State, the Coeur Brunton (1998:232), apparently following Schaeffer built earth-covered lodges that are reminiscent of t d’Alene oral traditions, however, express their vis i- (1936), described differences in winter and summer Missouri River structures, but lacking the four-post e tations to land now located inside Yellowstone conical lodges. Summer structures were covered with center foundation. These were described as follows : C National Park (Nabokov and Loendorf 2002). boughs or bark from spruce or fir trees, while winter A deep pit was dug in the ground and stout lodges used several layers of closely-set poles with poles were placed leaning together like a It is worthwhile to note that they share some tra- half-round poles set into the gaps. Brunton sug- tepee, with a hole at the centre. The earth ditional architectural expressions with the Salish gested that the conical timber lodges were largely re - was heaped up around and upon the top, Crow. Traditional territory of the Siouan- speak- and Kootenai. Included were conical family houses placed by tipis after acquisition of horses. Turney-High very much as eastern farmers cover their ing Crow was east of the Rocky Mountains on the covered with tule mats, and small conical lod ges (1937:99) had questioned whether mat-covered tipis potato pits. The hole in the top was the only headwaters of the Yellowstone, Powder, Wind and used by women during their menstrual isolation were originally Salish; he believed they may have doorway, the only passageway for light, and Bighorn Rivers; they had originally lived much far- (Walker 1982:70, Palmer 1998:318). As with the been borrowed from the Nez Perce, but noted that the only opening for the smoke to escape. ther to the east in Great Lakes country (Medicine Salish and Kootenai, the Coeur d’Alene adopted whereas the Nez Perce used a three-pole foundation, A notched pole was placed up the side of Crow 1979). They ranged south and east to the head - the roof and another protruded from the tipis after they acquired horses (Chalfant 1974:163). the Salish used a four-pole foundation. Contrary to interior through the opening in the top. waters of the Platte; there, and around the headwa- Brunton’s simple transition, Johnson (1969:134) docu - By these two poles the occupants passed in ters of the Cheyenne River, they came into serious Colville. The Colville used both tipis and conical mat mented that conical lodges with vegetable mat cover- and out of this dwelling (Crosby 1907:80). conflict with various Lakota bands. Crow territor y lodges. Pithouses may have preceded these. The skin- ings persisted well into the nineteenth century. One in the eastern portion of Yellowstone National Park covered tipis were adopted late in their history, after the illustrated Kootenai conical lodge was wigwam-like Comanche. The Shoshonean-speaking Comanche was specifically that of the Mountain Crow, a div i- tribe began wandering into the Plains to hunt buffalo in structure, with mats over an internal pole frame- were said by the Cheyenne to have been living in the sion of the tribe that left the Missouri River during (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998:242-244). Other Plateau work, held in place by external poles (ibid.:351). Black Hills and farther north, in the draina ges of the the sixteenth century. The River Crow followed them people, including the Klamath and Modoc, also utilized Little Missouri, Powder and Tongue Rivers, when the roughly two centuries later, establishing a territory small mat- covered conical lodges (Stern 1998b:450). Turney-High (1941:56) emphasized differences be- Cheyenne arrived there circa 1795 (Grinnell 1956:33). from the Yellowstone north to the Milk River. On the tween upper (northern) and lower (southern) Kootenai By the early nineteenth century, though, many of them Missouri, the Crow shared ancestry with the Hidatsa; Confederated Salish and Kootenai. With core ter- shelters; the plains-style tipi was the standard dwelling had moved south into present-day Colorado and west- linguistic separation of those two groups apparent- ritories located well to the north of the Yellowstone among the upper Kootenai, whereas grass- and mat- ern Kansas (Gussow 1974:88). The Lewis and Clark map ly was not completed until the mid-ei ghteenth cen- region, the Salish (“Flathead”), Kootenai and Pend covered conical lodges were typical among the lower showed tribes in the vicinity of the Black Hills, which tury (Wood and Downer 1977, Hoxie 1995:36-42, d’Oreille nonetheless ventured south into the present- Kootenai (also see Walker 1982:54 ). Fuller (1974:38) Grinnell (1923-24:I:30-31) identified later as Comanche. Nabokov and Loendorf 2001:41, Vo get 2001:695). day Yellowstone National Park rather often during the described upper Kootenai longhouses as being built Kavanagh (1996:181) questioned whether any of the nineteenth century. Nabokov and Loendorf (2001:70) with tripod foundations at the ends; bipod poles ex- northern bands variously identified as Comanche actu- Crow tipis were described by the Blackfeet as having identified two primary routes of travel onto the tended down the length of the structure with no ridge- ally were, but even if some Comanche bands were north a “cut-off ” appearance, because their lodge poles alleg- Yellowstone Plateau: via Bridger or Flathead passes pole, and these were connected with light- weight of the Black Hills at the end of the eighteenth century, edly were only slightly longer than the portion covered from the present-day Bozeman vicinity, or along the horizontal poles. Lower Kootenai lod ges were cov- others were making incursions into Colorado by the by skins (Grinnell 1901:655). Campbell (1927:90-92) Shields River from the Crazy Mountains. Plateau tribes ered not with rushes or tule, but rather with do gbane, beginning of the same century. By the nineteenth cen- denied this, stating that Crow lodge poles are actually utilized a wide variety of architectural styles, including Apocynum cannabinum. Turney- High believed that tury, some Comanches were in southeastern Colorado extraordinarily long. He pointed out that George Catlin circular and square semisubterranean plank houses (see Kootenai mat-covered lodges came later than hide- and southwestern Kansas, but most were in eastern (1796-1872), based on his travels in the 1830s, had flatly Crosby 1907:79-80 for a detailed description of these covered tipis, and were an adaptation to the western New Mexico and western Texas (Kavanagh 2002:887). stated that the Crow had “the most beautiful lodge” on more substantial structures); single, double and long territory that was lacking in bison (ibid.:62). According the continent (in this regard, see also McGinnis and lean-tos; and domed sweat lodges (Ray 1940:173-182). to Crow people, the Flathead preferred the “vertical The close relation between Comanche and Ute Sharrock 1972:22). Lowie (1983:87) wrote that the Conical structures were also used, as more informal pole, tipi-like structure” over horizontal log lodges, al- (see White 2001:42-43) may be reflected in the “almost fantastic projection [of the tipi poles] beyond shelters (Schaeffer 1936:98-99). According to Malouf though they constructed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also fact that the Comanche are unique among Plains the point of intersection” gives the Crow tipi the form (1998:229), these Salish and Pend d’Oreille shelters see Voget 1977:8). Conical timber lodges located at St. tribes in using tipis with a four- rather than three- of an hourglass; this was what Catlin found so aes- … were usually conical-shaped tepees, or Marys Lake, east of Glacier National Park in Montana, pole foundation (Fehrenbach 1974:109). The thetically pleasing. Crow tipis were built with four - conical lodges with a similar framework, were identified by a Blackfoot consultant as Kootenai Comanche also used brush shades during the pole foundations; the floor plan was elliptical, nearly

68 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 69 circular, and the tops of the poles were massed toward provided no elaboration and suggested that, at least Crow summer shade structures differed from those of they always faced east. … Such lodges were for winter use and were never moved. the front (entrance side) of the tipi (Campbell ibid.). on the basis of existing descriptions, it is impossible other tribes by having a circular rather than rectangu- In the summer sagebrush was piled up for to distinguish tribal variations among such structures. lar floor plan, and a conical rather than flat roof (Lowie walls and this was also substituted when Redacted s pro Earlier, Mulloy had described two types of conical 1922:225, 1983:89); Lowie noted a resemblance to Sun grass was not available (Lowie 1924:221). log lodges in the Little Cayuse Mountains and in the Dance lodges among other Plains tribes. Along with a Clark’s Fork region, within Crow territory; one type number of other Plains tribes, the Crow also construct- Wind River tipis (and presumably their grass was hemiconical, built against a cli ff, while the other ed horizontal log structures (Mulloy 1945:519-520, lodges as well) were built on a four-pole founda - was completely conical and built in the open but some- 1952:133). Conner (1974:33) indicated that such struc- tion (Lowie 1924:221-222, Stewart 1942:339, times supported by a standing tree; stone slabs were tures were used as winter homes by the Crow. However, Shimkin 1986:322). According to Crow people, leaned against the exterior periphery of these lodges Voget (1977:8) suggested that they preferred conical the Shoshone (Wind River) preferred the “vertical and central fireplaces were characteristic (1943:63-64, structures. Curtis (ibid.:105) described one horizontal pole, tipi-like structure” to horizontal loglodges, al - 1945:519). Voget (1943:69, 1977:3) stated that free - structure: “…with dead logs we built a sort of stockage though they constructed both (Mulloy 1952:133) . standing conical timber lodges constructed by the Crow in a circle, and filled the crackswith dry grass; overhead Conical timber lodges have been described among used a four-pole foundation, althou gh they were most we piled brush, leaving a smoke-hole. Within was a Redacted rs interviewed the Crow; Charles Le Raye observed them in 1801, often built around a standing tree. Entryways faced good warm shelter.” An archaeological description of f and Catlin described some in 1841 (Le Raye 1908:172, east for protection against prevailing winds (Voget a cribbed log structure in Crow territory is provided s Catlin 1941:43, Voget 1977:2). Curtis (1909:21) state d 1977:4). According to Lowie (1918:261-262), the Crow by Davis, Keyser and Craven (1994), who suggest that that these were found in “the old times” at perma- would build conical timber lod ges with cottonwood the structures might be either hunting or war lodges. nent camps, and he said the women used them for poles if necessary, although they greatly preferred pine. N cooking. His description was scanty; he referred to Eastern Shoshone. During the mid- nineteenth o them simply as “tipi-shaped structures of logs and Redacted century, a number of Shoshone bands joined toget h- l brush.” T he suggestion that the structures were used er to form Washakie’s band—a shift in sociopolitical for domestic purposes is interesting.12 Multiple uses organization made possible by acquisition of horses i of such structures is likely; Linderman (1962:261- early in the eighteenth century and perhaps necessi- 265) described a brush lodge covered with leaves, and tated by conflicts with Crow warriors over hunting p used by a medicine man in treating a wounded war- rights in what is now central Wyoming. With territo- rior. Similarly, Lowie (1983:89) suggested that such ries both east and south of present-day Yellowstone structures were used not only by warriors but also by Other Crow structures include sweat lod ges, which National Park, these Shoshone people also inhabited Kiowa. The Kiowa-Tanoan speaking Kiowa have “eloping couples, and visionaries”. A probable Crow typically were dome-shaped, made with willow branch- between one- and two-thirds of YNP park itself, in its occupied portions of the Great Plains ran ging from pole “tepee” built circa 1885 near Livingston, Montana, es (Curtis 1909:54, Marquis 1928:214, Frey 1987:14, southern portions (Steward 1937, Stewart 1966, Madsen the Black Hills and Missouri River headwaters on the was described by Christensen (1963a). Loendorf and McGinnis and Sharrock 1972:69 ). Brown (1963) de- 1980), as well as all of Bridger- Teton National Forest north, to Durango, Mexico, on the south. Although Klinner (1995:36) indicate that the Crow built both scribed a barrel- shaped structure that may have been and most of Grand Teton National Park. Descendants they probably had a southern origin, ultimately (along CTLs and horizontal cribbed log structures, and state a hunting lodge or sweat lodge. Thomas LeForge dis- of the Washakie band live with the Arapaho people on with the linguistically closely related Tanoan Pueblo that they did not differentiate between the two types, cussed the use of menstrual huts among the Crow, but Wind River Reservation, southeast of the Study Area. people), Kiowa oral tradition places them originally on but considered them as varieties of temporary dwellings. he described them only as a “special wickiup willow the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. Harrin gton lodge shelter” with no more specific information about Lowie (1909) described architecture for Shoshone [1939:62] concluded, without basis, that the oral tra - Mulloy (1952:133) also stated that the Crow built their form (Marquis ibid.:201-202). Curtis (ibid.:28 - people at Fort Hall and the Wind River Reservation, as dition rendered it “absolutely certain” that both the “vertical log” lodges, but in this later publication he 29) also mentioned that young girls had small tipis, well as for Nevada Shoshones, with the implication that Kiowa and the Tanoan Pueblo people had an ori gin 12. Frison (1976) suggested that Wyoming pottery is either in which they played house. Lowie (1918:177, 261, 272- no differences were to be observed. Later, he was more in the northern Rocky Mountains.) The Kiowa were Shoshonean or Mandan-Crow. This topic is controversial, how- 275; 1922:225) noted temporary shelters (acta’tse’) made explicit regarding Wind River, where he stated that the first recorded by the Spanish in Montana, in 1732. The ever (see Johnson 1979 and Keyser 1980). The “Intermountain of sticks, bark, and foliage; these were used by warriors, Kiowa creation story tells of their Emergence into this ceramic tradition” (Wedel 1954, Mulloy 1958a) has its own com- grass lodge [was] similar in shape to the hunters, eloping couples, and people seeking visions. tipi but lower and smaller, with tall dry world through a hollow cottonwood log (Mooney plications: although Loendorf and Ston (2005: 87-88) suggested Voget (1977:3-4) indicated that conical war lodges 1896:1078, 1898:153). By the late eighteenth centu - that it appears to be older than the steatite pots associated with grass tied between the willow poles. … the Sheepeater Shoshones, Frison (1971) recovered quantities of were constructed with heavier timbers, and were rein- These huts readily caught fire and burnt ry they apparently were living in the Black Hills area, the pottery from the protohistoric Eden-Farson site (explicityly forced with additional timbers and stone slabs, whereas up. They were from seven to eight feet high, allied with the Crow against the Cheyenne and Arapaho, identified as Shoshonean) in the ppu er Green River Basin of “simple pole-bark-brush” shelters were less substantial. the size depending on that of the family; and by the early nineteenth century they were on the Wyoming.

70 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 71 North Platte, having been driven south by the Lakota. upper Missouri River and deeper into Crow territory timber lodges, and that they built a fence surround- Yellowstone National Park) from the Snake River Later in the century they ranged much farther south. (see, for example, Blish and Bad Heart Bull 1967:146). ing the lodge (ibid.:71). Voget (1977:5-6) indicated area. Nabokov and Loendorf (2002:161-177) provide In the eastern woodlands, ancestral Lakota/Dakota that Lakota (Oglala) people built shelters of saplings, detailed ethnographic and historical information on The Kiowa relied on tipis as their basic shelter, and people presumably lived in typical wigwam dwellings but the construction details he provided are vague. these peoples. Although the Northern Shoshone were used brush arbors. Kiowa tipis were painted with pic- (Bushnell 1922:44). A 1662 description portrayed a pali- denigrated by the Chippewa and Yan kton Dakota as tographic representations of warriors and their e x- saded town with large skin- and mat-covered lodges, but Nez Perce. Core territory of the Sahaptin- spea k- “Snakes” (a term widely adopted by white expedition- ploits (Szabo 1994). They had switched to canvas tipis by the mid-eighteenth century it is clear that b uffalo- ing Nez Perce, or Nee-Me-Poo, was in western Idaho, aries and settlers), the Crow and Arapaho referred by the later nineteenth century, with the decline of hide tipis were in frequent use (DeMallie 2001:722-725). rather distant from the Study Area. The tribe is famous, to them as “Grass Lodges” or “People that use grass the buffalo (Marriott 1963:100, Levy 2001:909-910). Upon moving to the Missouri River, Lakota/ Dakota though, for having traversed Yellowstone National Park or bark for their houses or huts” (Swanton 1952:403, Marriott (1945:ix) described the traditional shelters: people adopted earth lodge construction similar to that under leadership of Chief Joseph during the Nez Perce Trenholm and Carly 1964:3, Nabokov and Loendorf The Kiowas lived in tipis made of buffalo of the Arikara and Mandan (Hurt and Howard 1950). War of 1877 (see Nabokov and Loendorf 2004:219-230; ibid.:174). The Kiowa also named the Shoshone after hides. The tipi was built on a four-pole foun- Even so, dome-shaped structures, covered with mats also see Walker 1985, Yates 1992, Sanford 1994, and their grass lodges (Lowie 1909:183). The adoption of dation, to which twenty poles were added to or skins until later replaced by canvas, were used into Haines 1996:219). After Chief Joseph surrendered, the horses by many of the Northern Shoshone people result- fill out the circle. It faced east except when the twentieth century in South Dakota (Hurt 1954). Nez Perce were taken to the Colville Indian Reservation, ed in a prevalent shift to the use of skin tipis, but other it was pitched in the Sun Dance circle, when in Washington State. The Nez Perce traditionally con- groups continued to use a variety of brush shelters; it faced the center of the enclosure. The In 1863, a Santee settlement north of Yankton was structed double lean-to longhouses, some well over 100 e.g., winter dwellings of the Boise/Weiser River Valley tipi front was fastened with a mall, painted known as “Dirt Lodges”. It consisted of fifteen struc- feet in length (Spinden 190:195; Ray 1971:6; Walker Shoshones of Idaho were “a sort of tipi made of rye sticks, and there was a rawhide door hun g tures contemporarily described as being “constructed 1982:79,1998:427), although these may have been grass” (Murphy and Murphy 1960:319). Lowie (ibid.) over the opening. In warm weather the by placing sticks of wood five feet long upright in the primarily ceremonial in usage. They also used sweat described small conical lodges that in summer were sides were rolled up for two or three feet ground, binding their tops together with long poles, lodges and menstrual huts, and tipis have considerable above the ground. Tipis are still set up in …simply walled with brush; but in the winter summer camps and are the ritual shelters then placing other poles on this structure, and leaning antiquity. Early ones were covered with cattail or tule there was a thatching of sagebrush, or more for peyote meetings. Domed brush arbors their tops to the center, forming the roof. The entire mats (Spinden ibid.:197, Farrand 1921:245), but buff- commonly of dry pī’a cō’nip (spear-grass) were, and still are, built as summer shelters. structure was then covered with sod from the base to falo hide covers became the standard during the late whence the name cō’ni-gani, grass-lodges. the summit, leaving a small smoke-hole at the apex of eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as the Nez Marriott also provided a fictionalized account of the roof.” K i n g s bury (1953:2), after reproducing this Perce became more involved in Plains culture (Walker Structures of this sort have been described amon g the importance of a couple’s first tipi, circa 1865- description, commented that “From the above descrip- 1998:ibid.). Even so, during hunting trips, they contin- the Northern and Western Shoshone. These were not 1866. No information has been found su ggest- tion it is difficult to ascertain whether an earth lodge of ued to use brush shelters of sorts that Spinden dismissed always dwellings, although dwellings were quite simi- ing that the Kiowa built conical timber lod ges. the Arikara type is described or some other structure.” as “hardly worth mention.” According to Crow people, lar. Lowie (1909:183) described the Hū’na-gani as Mayhall (1962:7) commented on havin g a print the Nez Perce preferred the “vertical pole, tipi-like …a rude conical structure of unexcoriated of a Kiowa grass lodge, “but whether it is some- With acquisition of horses and expansion into the structure” to horizontal log lodges, although they con- branches or trunks, much lower than a tipi thing of their ancestral traits, or something copied Plains, large Sioux tipis became the typical domicile. structed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). and walled with brush or canvas. This serves after the Wichita houses of later date, is not known.” Even so, other sorts of structures (including conical as the menstrual hut (hū’na-gani). Sometimes timber lodges) continued to be used under certain cir- Redacted wed for this report the menstrual hut is dome- shaped, after Redacted cumstances. Linderman (1962:287) recounted discov- the fashion of the sweatlodges (nā’bacoko- ery of “an empty camp” of many “brush lodges” along gani), but still lower and smaller, just large the Rosebud, by which the Crow chief Plenty-coups enough for a single person to crawl in. knew that his party was outnumbered by the “Sioux.” Lakota/Dakota. Core Lakota territory did not Crow people said the “Sioux” preferred the “vertical The mounted, buffalo-eating Bannock hunted extend further west than the Black Hills of eastern pole, tipi-like structure” over horizontal log lodges, Shoshone-Bannock. West of Ye llowstone National throughout the Yellowstone Plateau, ranging through Wyoming; Lakota/Dakota people had lived in present- although they constructed both (Mulloy 1952:133; Park, the Shoshone-Bannock people now live on Fort southeastern Utah, southern Montana and western day Minnesota as recently as the mid-eighteenth cen - Voget 1977:8). Voget (1943:70) said Crow people would Hall Reservation, Idaho, established in 1867. This is a Wyoming, during the late 18th and early 19th cent u- tury (DeMallie 2001:719-722). By the mid-nineteenth assume that unfamiliar “log tipis” in their territory were consolidated group consisting of descendants of numer- ries. They used skin tipis (Madsen 1983:27), but they century, though, they had pushed the Crow out of the built by Sioux war parties. One Crow person stated that ous small groups of Northern Shoshones who originally had built grass lodges earlier on (Murphy and Murphy Black Hills. Conflicts between Crow and Lakota people Siouan timber lodges had one unique feature—a jutting lived in present-day Idaho, along with Shoshonean- 1940:319-320, Walker 1982:91), and built tipi-shaped took place primarily in the headwaters area of the branch for cooking—and an elderly Oglala man said speaking Bannocks and Sheep Eaters (not to be co n- brush lodges on into the early 20th century (see Cheyenne and Platte Rivers, but fights took place on the the Sioux preferred freshly cut young growth for their fused with the Sheepeaters who lived within present-day Figure 4.5, in Nabokov and Loendorf 2002:171). In

72 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 73 1832 a group of Bannock were described as living in failure to provide promised annuities and supplies went to live at both Fort Hall and the Wind River by Sheepeaters, on the basis that other Plains tribes “little huts of sage roots, which were yet so open and to the Indians (Madsen 1979). Structures with more Reservation after being relocated from Yellowstone also made similar dwellings, Nabokov and Loendorf ill calculated to shield them from the extreme cold, timber and less leaves or brush may also have been National Park between 1871 and 1879 (Nabokov took a closer look. They agreed with Hoffman (1961) that I could not conceive how they were able to endure found among the Northern Shoshone, although early and Loendorf 2002:228-229). Ǻke Hultkrantz inter- and Dominick (1964) that, in terms of the size and the such severe exposure” (Ferris 1940:189-190; Murp hy descriptions are often lacking in specificity. For in- viewed numbers of Sheepeater people at the Wind more tightly spaced poles, the conical timber lodges and Murphy ibid.:325). As Lowie (1909:183) noted, stance, the Astoria party in 1812 met “Snakes” living in River Reservation during the 1940s and 1950s, and as in Yellowstone National Park were most likely erected Lewis and Clark had similarly described Bannock “wigwams” said to have been “made of pine branches” recently as 1996 some Shoshone and Bannock people by Sheepeaters. Nabokov and Loendorf (2004:187) people as living in crude “small conical lodges of (Irving 1890:306, Murphy and Murphy 1960:301). have identified themselves as having Sheepeater an- also note both historical and archaeological data (Ross willow branches and brush”; the paucity of leather Another “wickiup” site in Northern Shoshone ter - cestry (ibid.:234-236). Not only have Sheepeaters been 1855:240, Davis 1975) suggesting that Sheepeaters built tipis was explained by the explorers as being due to a ritory was described by Polk (1979); these two struc- erroneously claimed to be extinct; they also have been lean-tos in caves, as winter residences. A game trap recent fight with the Atsina (Arapaho). However, simi- tures were in Central Oregon, and consisted of j u- wrongly stereotyped as being “pygmies”, as timid and consisting of a cribbed-log corral and V-shaped wings, lar structures were also described in the 1840s , and niper poles leaning against living juniper trees. fearful, as paupers, and as renegades (ibid.:106-112) . located in the Beaverhead National Forest south of their continued use over so long a time period ren- Butte, Montana, is believed to have been constructed by ders the Lewis and Clark opinion doubtful. Instead, Redacted he remembered Encounters with Sheepeaters date back to 1832 and Shoshone people, possibly Wyoming Tukudikas, during it appears that such shelters were culturally typi- h 1834, and both genealogical and cultural data per - the first half of the nineteenth century (Keyser 1976). cal, regardless of how inadequate they appeared to taining to them was recorded—but not published— Euroamerican sensibilities. Indeed, the Bannock were f by Hultkrantz and by Demitri Shimkin (Nabokov and N Redacted icates w et known to some tribes, including the Crow, as “Bad Loendorf 2004:149-151). Knowled ge of Sheepeater e Lodges” or “Worthless Lodges” (Marquis 1928:155). dwellings is based on the supposition—insti gated by f Superintendent Norris (1880, 1881) and accepted b y Foundations of conical structures among the Umatilla (including Cayuse and Walla Walla ). Nabokov and Loendorf—that structural remains found i Northern Paiute and Shoshone seem to have been The Umatilla and their allies were, like the Nez within Yellowstone National Park were in fact made by t quite variable. Generalizing for the Northern Paiute of Perce, Sahaptin- or related language speakers of the Sheepeaters. William Baille-Grohman, a European who R Oregon, northeastern California, and Nevada, Stewart Plateau region. Cayuse people had joined with Chief hunted in the Gros Ventre Mountains in the 1880s, re- (1941:377-378) distinguished between domed and coni- Joseph during his traverse of Washington, Idaho, ported having seen many Sheepeater lodges at or above cal structures, noting that the latter were used by some Yellowstone National Park and Montana (Ruby and timberline; he characterized them as consisting of stone groups in winter and by others in summer; the foun- Brown 1972:282-283). Architecture among these piles with lean-to roofs of pine logs (Scott 1982:38). dation was always a tripod, but the three poles som e- groups was similar to that of other Plateau tribes. times interlocked and sometimes were lashed together. “Mat lodges” were common (Suphan 1974:135); the A recent paper (Davis, Davis, Johnson and Dean Other Tribes On the other hand, Steward (1943:305) recorded coni- Cayuse are said to have used these as summer dwel l- n.d.) reviewing putative Sheepeater archaeological re- cal winter houses with four foundation poles lashed ings, while semisubterranean houses covered with mains concluded that the northwestern Wyoming According to Voget (1943:70), conical timber lodges together, for Lemhi, Fort Hall, Bannock, Grouse Creek mud were used in winter. In 1812, Cayuse people Sheepeaters are not clearly distinguishable—cultur- were built by “the Crow, Sioux, Cheyenne, Assiniboine and Promontory Point Shoshoni, and Skull Valley were noted as having “hide-and-mat tipis” (Ruby ally or historically—from other pedestrian Northern Gros Ventre, Hidatsa, Mandan, Arikara, Arapaho, Gosiute. Simms (1989:10) documented a conical struc- and Brown ibid.:4, 27-28). Mat lodges were some- Shoshoneans in central Idaho and southeastern Shoshone, Flathead, and Nez Perce…” In the follow- ture of piñon and juniper logs built on a four-pole times as much as 60 feet in length (Stern 1998a:396). Montana. Nonetheless, pertinent data stron gly sug- ing section, references to conical timber lod ges are foundation, in Shoshone territor y in eastern Nevada. gest that Sheepeater remains are characterized b y noted among additional tribes not discussed above. Yellowstone Sheepeaters (Tukudika). Related “Intermountain Tradition” ceramics; steatite vessels; Tribes said to have used “wickiups” are also identified Davis and Scott (1987) described two conical timber to both the Shoshone-Bannock and the Eastern a preference for obsidian lithic tools; mountain shee p along with notation of the specific type of structure in- lodges in extreme southwestern Montana, incorporat- Shoshone, the Tukudika are of particular interest to traps and ceremonial gear; and conical timber lodges volved. The use of conical timber structures is exten- ing boughs and bark slabs and constructed on tripod this study as a people who lived directly within present- (see Loendorf and Stone 76-89, 131-136, 137-145). sive and, as previously noted, historically complex. As foundations with interlocking poles. The poles were day Yellowstone National Park. According to Shimkin before, these tribes are discussed in alphabetic order. lodgepole pine and Douglas fir. A local rancher indi- (1947:247) Sheepeater territory included “Yellowstone Three types of Sheepeater dwellings were noted by cated that the structures were occupied during the early Park, the Absaroka Range, and the upper slopes of the Nabokov and Loendorf (2004:181): conical timber Apache. The term “wickiup” is often used in reference 1900s by Northern (Lemhi) Shoshone people who Wind River Mountains.” Contrary to many pu blished lodges, pole lean-tos inside of caves, and cribbed log to Apache dwellings, even by Apache people themselves hunted seasonally in the area. Off-reservation hunt- accounts claiming that they were exterminated by hos- structures. Whereas Hughes (2000) dismissed the pos- (see, for example, Gullette 1971, Cosay 1993, White ing was necessary at that time due to the government’s tile tribes or by a smallpox epidemic, their descendants sibility that these structures may have been erected Mountain Apache Tribe 1997, Baeza 1998). At least one

74 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 75 T author (Arkush 1987:174) has erroneously assumed he Hidatsa were allied with the Mandan, and were over horizontal log lodges, although they construct- found among both Canadian and Alaskan Athapaskan that the word originated with the Apache. The Apache- in hostile relations with the Lakota and Assiniboine ed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). speakers (Goddard 1916:210, McKennan 1965:43). language word for the structures is kowa (Nabokov and (Stewart 2001:329). In their riverine villages, the Easton 1989:338). As previously explained, the term is Hidatsa lived in earth lodges, which Lowie (1912:60) Mandan. Like the Hidatsa, the Mandan were Paiute/Shoshone.13 Conical dwellings and other instead Kickapoo in origin. Apache structures to which believed were derived from those of the Arikara. Siouan speakers who lived in earth lodge villages along structures were widespread among Paiutes and the term has been applied are predominantly dome- During the late summer buffalo hunts, people gener- the Missouri River. Under pressure from hostile no - the more southerly Western Shoshone, showin g shaped (Reagan 1931a, Goodwin 1935, Schaeffer 1958, ally lived in tipis (Bowers 1965:53). In 1833, though, madic tribes, they consolidated around the conflu - many similarities (and frequent differences) to Tuohy 1960, Longacre and Ayres 1968). Conical timber Maximilian had described “some old Indian hunting ence of the Missouri and Heart Rivers during the structures among the Shoshone- Bannock. Lowie structures are known, however, especially from the Fort lodges, built, in a conical form, of dry timber. The y late eighteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, (ibid.) noted that conical dwellings resembling men- Apache (White River) and San Carlos Reservations had, doubtless, been left by the Manitaries [Hidatsa], they joined with the Arikara and Hidatsa as the “Three strual huts were used prior to adoption of the tipi: (Gifford 1941, Santee 1947, Gerald 1958). Gifford who had come thus far on their hunting excursions. Affiliated Tribes” of Fort Berthold Reservation in North Summer houses consisted of branch (1941:108) stated that White River people said conical The lower part of the huts, or lodges, was covered with Dakota (Wood and Irwin 2001:349-351). Their earth structures tied together and covered wickiups were used in winter, but during the summer of the bark of trees; the entrance was square, and bones lodges were practically indistinguishable from those with leaves and grass to ward off the hot 1935 most of the structures he observed were conical. were scattered in all directions” (Bushnell 1922:147 ). of the Hidatsa, and the two tribes shared hunting ter- summer sun. Over the winter, the Newe Santee (1947:10) described the Fort Apachewickiup ritories west of the Missouri. Fall hunting camps and [Western Sho- shone] settled down for as being built of pine, juniper or mesquite poles Smaller, less well-built earth lodges were built at eagle-trapping camps featured conical timber lodges, several months. Winter houses , much with the tops lashed together, covered with grass or winter camps located in wooded bottomlands (Wilson as more fully described under Hidatsa, above (also see more elaborate than summer camps, were brush and covered with canvas or items of clothing. 1934). The Hidatsa also built tipi-shaped shelters of Wood 1967). Bowers (1950:243) illustrates a Mandan built of willow shaped in a conical frame poles, brush and earth (ibid.:411); these apparently conical timber lodge. According to Crow people, the and covered with grass and skins to keep out the snow and wind (Crum 1994:8). Arikara. Ancestors of the Caddoan-speaking Arikara were used in context of fall hunting and eagle-trapping Mandan preferred the “vertical pole, tipi-like struc- were located on tributaries of the Missouri River, in pres- camps (see Wilson 1928, Bowers 1950:206, Metcalf ture” over horizontal log lodges, although they co n- Conical structures were found amon g the Moapa ent-day Nebraska, during the late eighteenth century; 1963:22, 52). Kidwell (1969:7-13) summarized the structed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). Paiute of southeastern Nevada, and related people: as a result of smallpox epidemics, they moved progres- literature on eagle-trapping lodges, not only for the …the Tö’+intesà+u had cedar houses sively northward, eventually settling on North Dakota’s Hidatsa and Mandan, but for various other tribes in Navajo. Despite the close cultural and linguistic re- (mooΥáqani),—conical structures with a Fort Berthold Reservation (Parks 2001:365, Schneider the Plains and elsewhere. These were called midi- atihe lationship between Apache and Navajo people, tradi- framework of cedar trees tied together at 2001). Traditional Arikara architecture featured earth (Wilson 1934:411). Hidatsa timber lodges were first tional Navajo architecture is distinctive and strikingly the top and a covering of cedarbark thick lodges ranging from 40 to 60 feet in diameter, and described by Maxmilian of Weid- Nuweid in 1833 and different. The sheer variety of Navajo hogans renders enough to keep out the rain; pieces of bark housing about 20 people. These were pit houses similar Washington Matthews in the 1870s (Matthews 1877:7- even a summary discussion excessive for present pur- were tied together with cord. … There was to those built by other Missouri River tribes (Dou glas 9, Allen 1983:5). Allen (ibid.:6-7) noted that the same poses; Corbett (1940:104) defined seven distinct types. a fireplace in the center and a smoke hole 1931b, Daifuku 1952). When hunting buffalo away from sorts of structures were used in both hunting and eagle- Two types deserve mention here, although only one is above it. The Moapa lacked cedars; ac- cord- the riverine villages, the Arikara lived in tipis (Wissler trapping, but domed grass lodges were used as well as of primary concern: these are the forked pole ho gans ingly they substituted a framework of the same conical shape but consisting of any 1948:39), and they also built conical timber lodges. conical timber lodges. Timber lodges, too, had varia- and round or polygonal hogans with horizontal poles. long poles, e.g. willows, and used dry sawápō These were used in winter villages built along the river- tions; if reuse was planned it was built on a four-pole The latter are reminiscent of the cribbed log structures brush for a covering. The height of these ine bottomlands (Parks 2001:368). According to Crow standard similar to that of the earth lodges, but if not it in the GYE, while the former share many characteris- lodges was greater than a man’s stature. people, the Arikara preferred the “vertical pole, tipi-like was built by lashing four poles together in the manner of tics with conical timber lodges (see Sanfilippo 1998). The entrance faced away from the wind and structure” to horizontal log lodges, although they con- the tipis. Both types of timber lodge were covered with Letherman (1855) may have been the first to describe was so low that one would stoop in entering structed both (Mulloy 1952:133; also see Voget 1977:8). bark and earth, for warmth (Bowers ibid.:232-233, Allen the conical dwellings, which are believed to have been (Lowie 1924:218-219; also see Watkins 1945). ibid.:7). Possible Hidatsa (or Mandan) conical timber the earliest type of hogan (Jett and Spencer 1952:52). Hidatsa. The Siouan-speaking Hidatsa share ances- lodges have been recorded archaeologically (Will 1909, Wissler (1922:113) had suggested that these hogans In eastern Nevada—Western Shoshone territory ac- try with the Crow (Lowie 1918:272-275, Hoxie 1995:39- Stuart and Halverson 1969, Loendorf 1978), and a sum- were derived from conical brush shelters built on a cording to Steward (1938:125)—a conical structure 42). Their traditional territory centered on the upper mary of both previous and new examination of lodge foundation of forked poles; the comparison had been made of juniper logs was built with butt ends of Missouri River. Although ethnographic accounts in- sites and eagle-trapping pits by Allen (ibid.) not only previously noted by Mindeleff (1898a:497-498), and a the pole up (Simms 1989:10). This structural charac- dicate that the split between Crow and Hidatsa too k verifies ethnographic accounts but also ident ifies new number of scholars would later comment on this—in- teristic has been ethnographically documented amon g place during the eighteenth century, linguistic analy- variants. Notably, though, most timber lodges were cluding Corbett (1940:97,101), Underhill (1956:7), and the Blackfeet (Grinnell 1962:252, see above). This sis suggests that the process began in the fifteenth of the temporary sort. According to Crow people, the Brugge (1967:397-399). Tripod conical structures are century and was gradual (Wood and Downer 1977). Hidatsa preferred the “vertical pole, tipi-like structure” 13. The Shoshone National Forest consults with the Northwest- ern Band of Shoshoni Tribes in Idaho and Utah.

76 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 77 domed. Spier (1928:180-181) had suggested that conical Because the Paiutes had had only ephemeral buildings in Table 5-1. and domed dwellings were mere variants, but Steward the past”. The structure, however, is shaped like “a broad Shoshone Linguistic Terms for Coinical and Comed Structures rejected that notion because of functional and linguis- cone”, circular in plan. It is, in fact, a kani built of stone— tic differentiations (see Table 3-5). Shoshone people an edifice not unlike the canvas- covered tule lodge at (Steward 1941) also built horizontal log structures, but according to the Pyramid Lake illustrated by Lowie (1924:207, Figure 6). Location Conical structures Domed structures Crow they preferred conical structures (Voget 1977:8). Egan Canyon Dookahni navasukogadiŋgunt (sweatlodge) Pawnee. The homeland of the Caddoan- speakin g Elko Paitoni In Utah, among the Kaibab Paiute: Pawnee extended along the Missouri from the Kansas and Smoky Hill Rivers north to the Niobrara River in Fish Lake Valley Musa Their wickiups, about seven feet high, were present-day Nebraska, and to the south on the Plains Fish Springs Musa merely a lot of cedar boughs, set around a three-quarter circle, forming a conical she l- through present- day Oklahoma and into the upper Hamilton Tohokahni ter, the opening towards the south. In front Sabine and Colorado River drainages of Texas (Hyde Ione Valley Tohni nava düwa kahni (sweatlodge) they had their fire, with a mealing-stone or 1951). Their western extent on the Plains was ill defined Morey Tohni two, and round about were their conical and undoubtedly opportunistic, but there is no ind i- and other baskets, used for collecting grass cation that they were ever in northwestern Wyoming. Reese River Tohni nava düwa kahni (sweatlodge) seeds, piñon nuts, and similar vegetable Ruby Valley kahni/tohokahni navasukogadiŋgunt (sweatlodge) food, which in addition to rabbits formed One account is suggestive of a conical timber their principal subsistence (Lowie 1924:219). Smith Creek Valley Tohni lodge on the upper Platte River, but the description is Snake River Paitohni Thatched or mat-covered conical lodges were found vague on key details. It was stated that the “fortified Spring Valley Tohni among Paiute people along the east side of California’s Indian camp” was built of logs in “a circular form”, with Sierra Nevada, and extended west of the Sierra; they the wall about five feet high “and the top uncovered”. were found among the Death Valley Panamint, Saline Due to the location it was suggested that the struc- Valley Panamint, and Owens Valley Paiute, and in the ture was built by “Skeeree or Pawnee Loup Indians” observation serves not to suggest Blackfeet expeditions in the northern part of Surprise Valley; a superin- west among the Woponuch Mono, Entimbich Mono, (James 1905:252-253). As described, the structure into eastern Nevada, but rather to remind that vari- tendent of the Fort Bidwell Indian School wrote that: and Kern River Tübatulabal (Driver 1937:66). Western sounds more like a stockade than a conical lodge. ability of conical timber lodge construction techniques During the early years of the school, the Mono houses were often covered with slabs of bark, Voget (1977:8) considered the structure described may have no bearing on tribal ethnicity of the builders. difficulty of maintaining attendance was and similar structures were built by other California by James to have been a horizontal log enclosure. largely due to the parents’ encouraging the tribes including the Pomo, Wintu, Miwok and Maidu Among the Pyramid Lake Paviotso and the Walker children to remain home and in camps, or (Driver 1937:66, 113; Aginski 1941:403-405; Voegelin Ute.14 Close linguistic kin to the Paiutes, Utes are River Paiutes of Nevada, “wickiups” made of poles wickiups… ….I do not recall of any Indian 1942:66; Nabokov and Easton 1989:305). “Wickiu ps” also culturally similar—with the major exception that with tule coverings were rounded in floor plan but ir- family living in a house when I entered the of various sorts continued to be preferred dwellings most of them adapted to equestrian life whereas their regular in shape; Lowie (1924:220-221) characterized service in 1911, as a temporar y teacher. among some groups of Paiutes well into the twentieth Paiute kinsmen did not. Indeed, Utes have been called them as “neither distinctly conical nor beehive-like”. Indian wickiups were made out of woven century. Watkins (1945:13) described how an elderly “Paiutes with horses”— although this has been conten- Similarly, although more regular in shape, the Honey tule or mats, wrapped or thrown over small woman convinced her daughter to build a “wickiup” tious, as some Utah Utes had few if any horses (Smith branches which were bound or tied togeth- Lake Paiute of northeastern California built conical er in an oval or round top. Some lived in because she believed she could not recover from a 1974:18-22; also see Jones 1954; Steward 1968, 1974; winter dwellings of willow or juniper poles, covered tents of cotton manufacture (Gray n.d.:2, 3). serious illness in “a white man’s house.” We have pre- and Sučec 2007:70-71). The various Ute bands ranged with tule thatch; these were sometimes, though not viously noted how a superintendent at Fort Bidwell widely throughout present-day Utah and Colorado, always, semi-subterranean (Riddell 1960:41-42). North Details of conical winter house construction in west- Indian School in northeastern California com- also traveling and raiding into northern Arizona and of Honey Lake, the Surprise Valley Paiute had mat-cov- ern Nevada are provided in the notes of Willard Z Park plained about the Paiute preference for “wickiups.” New Mexico (Callaway, Janetski and Stewart 1986). ered conical winter homes called ka’ni; oral tradition (Fowler 1980). Similarly, in southern Nevada, some held that they had previously lived in domed houses, conical Paiute structures were constructed over pits Traditional Paiute architecture may have been a On occasion, Utes went well beyond their usual ter - but these were replaced by the conical structures, about (Harrington 1953). Among the Nevada Shoshone partial inspiration for a contemporary cultural center ritories. For example, in 1906 two White River Ute which they learned from the Bannock many years in generally, Steward (1941:233) noted three distinct types and museum at the Pyramid Lake Reservation north - leaders, Appah and Red Cap, protested the openin g the past (Kelly 1932:104). Traditional houses were of dwellings: gabled, as found at Lida, Death Valley, east of Reno, Nevada. Krinsky (1996:167-168) com- of Uintah Valley Reservation in northeastern Utah to used well into the twentieth century at Fort Bidwell Ash Meadows and Owens Valley; conical pole struc- mented that the structure, designed by Hopi architect tures with two-, three- and four-pole foundations; and Dennis Numkena, necessarily took “an original form …. 14. The Shoshone National Forest consults with the Northern Ute Tribe.

78 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Historical and Ethnographic References to Conical Timber Lodges and Related Tribal Architecture 79 homesteaders by fleeing to South Dakota. The men in- lies around Lake Tahoe at the western edge of the tended to ally themselves with Lakota and Crow people; Great Basin, built a tripod-foundation brush shel- specifically, they hoped to find land on the Pine Ridge ter known as a galesdangle (Downs 1966:39, Tuohy Reservation where they could continue their tradi- 1969:5, 7, 8). Downs described this as a winter house tional way of life. The party of two or three hundred “made of tree limbs leaning together to form a pea k Utes was intercepted by the Tenth Cavalry near Casper, with a door in one end.” The structures were some- Wyoming, and taken to Fort Meade, South Dakota, on times covered with earth, or thatched with tule. the Cheyenne River Reservation; it briefly appeared they would be allowed to remain there, but they were r e- turned to Utah in 1908 (Hodge 1907-1910 2:876, O’Neil Summary of tribal distribution of 1968, Washburn 1973:II:780-787, Pettit 1990:136-138). conical timber lodges Also, parties of Ute hunters regularly ranged beyond the traditional band territories, into present-day south- Conical timber lodges are documented for many ern Wyoming, western Kansas and Oklahoma, and Figure 5-1. Washoe Galesdangle (from Tuohy of the Plains, Plateau, and Great Basin tribes associ- northernmost Texas (Marsh 1982:20, Pettit 1990:vi). 1969:8). ated with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. These include the ArapahoAssiniboine, Blackfeet, Ute shelters were generally similar to those of the provided details on construction of conical brush shel- Cheyenne, Chippewa/ Ojibwa, Coeur d’A lene, Paiute, although there were geographical variations. ters or “wickiups”; they were built on a four-pole Comanche, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Gros Ventre, Utes in Colorado were noted as having tipis in 1720 foundation with the poles tied together, and after the Nez Perce, Salish and Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock, (Thomas 1935:171). They were using tipis as well as addition of more poles (12-15) the structure was lay - and the Yellowstone Sheepeaters. The Colville and brush shelters in 1776 when they were visited by the ered with brush and tules, which were sometimes Umatilla built mat-covered conical lodges. The lit - Escalante expedition (Smith 1974:29). Brush shelters woven into mats. Cedar (juniper) bark provided an erature search also revealed that the Kiowas are were still in use in the early twentieth century (Lowie alternative covering for the structures. Some conical not known to have built conical timbered lodges. 1924:220). Densmore (1922:15) state d that brush structures were built entirely of logs (Johnson 1972). shelters were used by people too poor to have tipis, Potentially distinguishing characteristics on a tribal but she added that the brush shelters were common Ute tipis, like their conical brush shelters, were basis include heavy logs around the base and an angled, during the summer; Reagan (1931b:410) made the built with a four-pole foundation (Smith ibid.:37). Elk covered entryway (Blackfeet); poles placed with butt same claim, perhaps relying on Densmore as the hides were more commonly used among the western- ends up (Blackfeet); stone slabs around the base (Crow); source of his information, but without having cited her. most bands of Utes, while the easternmost bands used a jutting branch for holding a cooking vessel and/ buffalo hides. Some bands of Utes claimed that hide- or fences surrounding the structure (Lakota). Three- Two types of brush shelter occurred. Domed covered tipis post-dated contact with the Americans and four-pole foundations are well documented for willow houses were used year-around by Western (Callaway, Janetski and Stewart 1986:348). Canvas tipis but seldom mentioned in connection with coni- Utes, whereas the Weeminuch were the only Eastern replaced hides during the nineteenth century (Pettit cal timber lodges; it is possible that the distinction Ute band to build them, and they used them only in 1990:18). Faunal analysis of remains at several presum- is irrelevant to Tribal affiliation, being opportunistic summer. Conical brush structures were also used, but ably Ute “wickiup” sites in western Colorado has result- or a matter of personal preference rather than cultur- only among the Eastern bands (Callaway, Janetski ed in a hypothesis that the structures indicate cool/ cold al. Three-pole foundations for conical timber lod ges and Stewart 1986:348-350; their Figure 9 illustrates season usage, primarily within the lower piñon-juniper have been recorded among various Paiute groups, one that was the home of Chief Tavaputs). Schmitt vegetal zone (Cater 2003). This is consistent with eth- Northern Shoshone and Plains Cree, while four-pole and Brown (1948:286) provided a photograph by W. nographic information from a Jicarilla Apache con- foundations are documented among Blackfeet, Crow, H. Jackson, circa 1870, showing a Ute conical pole sultant, examining wickiup structures in the San Luis Hidatsa, certain Paiute and Shoshone groups, and Utes. structure at Los Pinos, Colorado. Pettit (1990:16) in- Valley of Colorado (territory shared with Southern Ute cluded photographs of both conical brush shelters and people); he indicated that wickiups were used in the fall canvas-covered tipis built around living juniper trees. and winter, in piñon-juniper woodland (White 2003). Baker (2003:6) referred to shelters built around living trees as the “…most ephemeral and simple form of … Washoe. The linguistically distinct Washoe arboreally associated wickiups.” Smith (1974:35-36) (D’Azevedo 1986), whose traditional territory

80 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges Summary of tribal distribution of conical timber lodges 81 Chapter Six Discussion

Analysis of conical timber lodge origin. Archaeologists need to work closely with forest- sites ers, to determine objective ways of determining what is, and is not, the result of natural thinning. (2) The ab- Perhaps the most surprising thing about CTLs is just sence of historic references to certain sites needs to be how difficult it is to determine what is and what is not a carefully examined. Just because Martindale, Replo gle CTL—this, even after our refinement of the term “wick- and Haines failed to mention a site does not necessar- iup” above. For this reason, we have reviewed all of the ily mean that the site did not exist at the time of their timber structures within the jurisdictions, not just the observations. Their data should be subject to the same unambiguous CTLs. Several different aspects of ambi- scrutiny as any other archaeological survey—unless we guity deserve mention, and elaboration. (1) One of the know that a given area was systematically searched, we biggest problems is the generally undeveloped hypoth- cannot reliably say that a particular site was not pres - esis of “natural thinning.” Although this undoubtedl y ent then. (3) The process of CTL deterioration is poorly occurs, the notion has been used uncritically to dismiss documented. When a CTL that was previously doc u- certain sites as having other than an anthropogenic mented is found to have collapsed, the progression

82 Chapter Five: Ethnographic Information on Conical Timber Lodges 83 is relatively clear. But what happens with subsequent and Arizona (Seymour 2004). Mulloy (1954), because (perhaps evidenced by a cleared space or flat stone 1989) indicates repetitive reuse of features. Details are weathering and deterioration? What are the charac- he found few artifacts in association with so-called near the fireplace), and sleeping platforms or backrests. not pertinent here, but Dooley’s analysis showed a cor- teristics that might establish a pile of poorly preserved “tipi rings”, doubted their domestic function; he co n- relation between resource predictability and persistent poles to have been a CTL, rather than something else? sidered them “problematic” and perhaps “ceremonial” Dooley (2004) provided a literature review explor- use of areas. The strongest correlations were with prox- (Mulloy 1958a). Kehoe (1958, 1960) produced a con- ing recent innovations in tipi ring research. A key shift imity to wooded areas and areas with slightly higher At the onset of this study, it was hoped that various vincing argument that tipi rings indeed resulted from is away from chronologically-distinct deposits (which elevations; proximity to water was less important. characteristics of CTLs might allow prediction of areas stones used to weight down the edges of tipi cover - Dooley refers to as “Pompeii- type assemblages”) and where additional CTL sites might be found. This proved ings, but he has been criticized because his data came toward “time-averaged deposits” (Binford 1983, Stern Simms (1989) provides innovative analytic leads in to be impossible, both as a result of a rather small only from Blackfeet observations.1 Hoffman (1961) 1994). The latter result from repetitive re-use of an the context of examining Great Basin “wickiup” sites. sample of sites and because data relevant to a predic- defined fourteen types of stone circles, and discussed area. A secondary shift is toward “non-site methods”— Importantly, instead of accepting paucity of artifacts as tive model are often missing from site forms. Elevation potential functions; Malouf (1961:381) co nfirmed the a seemingly absurd proposition to anyone trained in indicative of little or no research potential, Simms con- is one of the most consistently reported variables, but variability of the circles, but believed that most (except ‘classical’ American archaeological methods, which siders variability in artifact density as an indicator of be- CTLs included in Table 4-1 occur lower than 6010’ for very large circles, and those with spokes) were d o- focus almost exclusively on sites as the primary re- havior. At the Bustos site, absence of interior hearths and (one is simply said to be between 5000’ and 6000’) mestic rather than ceremonial. Frison (1983 ) showed search setting. Non-site methods shift attention away absence of interior artifacts, low density of artifacts in and as high as 10,400’. A four- to five-thousand foot how a variety of domestic structures could result in from spatially-restricted occupation or activity areas, areas external to the structures, combined with repet i- elevation spread clearly provides no predictive value. archaeological stone circles. Kehoe (1983) turned out focusing instead on settlement systems, land use, and tively-used external hearths and roasting pits (contain- Landforms on which CTLs occur are highly variable, an even more exhaustive treatment of stone circles, landscapes. Dooley notes that stone circles are difficult ing piñon cone and nut hull fragments), plus evidence from narrow canyons to hilltops and pass summits. concluding that they are indeed tipi rings but that to date, chronometrically; density of features appears to of aboriginally cut juniper stumps, suggested to Simms The various jurisdictions have varying definitions of many questions about them remain to be answered. be the best indicator of sequential occupation of sites. that the site was visited repetitively for short periods of old growth timber, and the available map is of a scale Spatially- associated features may not be contemporane- time— probably in the fall, for gathering of piñon nuts. such that it is not possible to determine whether or Because of the paucity of artifacts typically found in ous; specific features or places may have been used not any particular CTL site is in old growth or not. association with tipi rings, the features have been con- by different groups at different times, for different pur- These analytic approaches would seem to have signifi- None of the available site forms addressed this factor. sidered to have little research value. Shifting the frame poses; and dating techniques are not sufficiently fine- cant promise for research on conical timber lodge sites. Furthermore, regardless of whether site surroundings of analysis, however, can produce new approaches. grained to distinguish between different occupations A pertinent research question would be whether usage now constitute old growth, there is no apparent way to Oetelaar (2000) urged a shift away from a narrowly or use episodes of a feature or place. Following Jochim of particular conical timber lodges was short-term (as determine whether this was the case when the struc- functional/ economic frame of analysis, for tipi rings (1976), Dooley notes that hunter-gatherer camps are implied by the “war lodge” characterization) or longer- ture was erected (see discussion of 48FR5347, Lower that do produce artifacts; he commented that, in ad- located according to considerations of proximity to re- term (implying certain resource-extraction scenarios, or Dinwoodie Wickiup, above for an example of significant dition to their practical functions, tipis are “cultural sources, and ability to access resources (including being domestic usage). Simms (along with other researchers vegetation changes over the years). Site forms are often constructs which simultaneously serve the symbolic, able to see game animals). Refinement of this premise is he cites) provides analytic leads for addressing this ques- vague about vistas (open or sheltered). Th is is also not structural, proxemic and ergonomic needs of the occu- provided by Ebert and Kohler (1988:128), who consider tion. Low artifact density may indicate shorter-term use a characteristic upon which purposive sampling might pants”. Oetelaar suggested that, based on ethnographic three aspects of ecosystem variability: (1) economic in- of a site or feature; alternatively, it may reflect longer- be based, as the information available on the presence descriptions of spatial uses inside of tipis, it might be tensification; (2) spatial heterogeneity of resources; and term use, with “secondary disposal” or removal of refuse of open or sheltered vistas from acknowledged wickiup possible for archaeologists to identify features and struc- (3) temporary predictability of resources. Specifically, from the immediate vicinity of the shelter. Increasing sites is too variable for interpretation. Site forms often tural characteristics such as placement of entrances Dooley looked at proximity to and seasonal availability artifact diversity indicates multiple activities and longer- simply identify the nearest water (e.g., “Ross Lake”) (which can have both practical and cosmological con- of water; proximity and seasonality of food resources, term usage, although it is important that areas well re- without indicating the distance to the water. Successful notations), positioning of interior hearths (whether in such as bison; availability of firewood and buffalo chips; moved from the shelter be searched for artifacts insofar predictive modeling would require a sample of at least a the true center of the tipi, or nearer the entrance), pres- and viewsheds (which allow seeing needed resources, as activities associated with the shelter may have taken few hundred sites, with clearly defined and consistently ence or absence of a “family altar” or “smudge hearth” as well as monitoring for enemies). (Interviews with place away from the shelter itself. Seasonalit y of usage applied locational variables recorded for each of them. tribal and band members and representatives for this is important; colder weather requires more substantial report confirm the likelihood of such an approach being shelters. Clear evidence (e.g., multiple layers of charcoal 1. Other ethnographic documentation exists. Bushnell (1922:20- Archaeologists have occasionally dismissed “wickiup” 21) had documented Plains Cree tipi rings, based on observations used in practice in the GYE.) Analytic complications are in hearths) or subtle clues may indicate reuse of the site; sites as having scant research value, due to the typical by the Hind expedition of 1858; he noted also that when stones posed by environmental changes over time, and by diff- at the Bustos site, numerous metates were found, but paucity of artifactual material found in and around were unavailable, tipi margins were weighted with sod. Fletcher fering cultural considerations in use of an area by diff- manos were absent—apparently having been scav- the structures. This echoes early interpretations of tipi and LaFlesche (1911) and Newman (1962) document that Omaha ferent groups of people. The extent of siltation at sites enged. Sites along trails have relatively few artifacts, ring sites. There are thousands of such sites all through tipis were weighted down with stones. Frison (1991:97) ha identi- was used for relative dating purposes; lichenometry suggesting rapid movement through the area; on the fied tipi rings in the northern Bighorn Mountains that he believes the Plains, from Edmondton, Canada, south into New were Crow. Seymour (2004) documents Apache tipi rings in the (measuring the extent of lichen accumulation) also pro- other hand, sites in protected locations have more ar- Mexico (Vestal 1957:3-4) and even into southern Texas Hueco Mountains of southern Texas. vided relative dating; “rock robbing” (recycling) (Deaver tifacts, indicating longer-term usage (also see Loendorf

84 Chapter Six: Discussion of Conical Timber Lodges in the GYE Analysis of conical timber lodge sites 85 Nationa and Weston 1983). Finally, it is important to note that l Forest archaeologists)— usually under cri- focusing on household populations at archaeological the apparent paucity of artifacts at many “wickiup” sites terion (d), research value. This is an important step sites. Careful study of extant conical timber lodges— may be more illusory than real; this is demonstrated by in providing for administrative protection of the re - along with the securing of additional ethnographic sites 48FR5018, Burnt Wickiup, and 48PA2642, Boulder sources. CTLs may also qualify as Traditional Cultural data—might illuminate questions that have been raised. Ridge Conical Lodge, discussed above. Heavy ground Properties (TCPs), but supporting data for CTLs in the Naroll (1962) had hypothesized that a habitation’s floor cover of duff may have prevented artifacts from being GYE are not presently available; it is important to rec - area could directly predict the number of household observed at some sites; archaeological preconceptions ognize that the absence of data (such as, e.g., observ a- members; Cook and Heizer (1968) and Wedel (1979) of “wickiup” sites may be another factor involved . tion of tobacco offerings being left at the sites) is not developed more sophisticated models, but these were the same as having negative data. It might be noted applied as rule-of-thumb guidelines which produced that some CTLs qualify as sacred sites, e.g., eagle trap- unrealistic results—e.g., lines of regression predicted Threats to Conical Timber Lodges ping lodges when an eagle hunting bundle or buff- relatively large household populations with zero space Conical timber lodges and similar structures are falo skull altar was placed inside (Beckes and Keyser (see Blakeslee 1989:4). Using the number of beds in a threatened by a variety of conditions. Fire (often started 1982:202), or if used for burial (see Erdoes and Ortiz single- room dwelling ties population to room perim- by lightning) is especially dangerous to preservation 1984:204).2 Of the tribal members and representatives eter rather than area, and this be gins to take cultural of these structures (Frison n.d. 1984?:2-3, Johnson et interviewed for this report, all did not consider “wick- variables into account rather than assuming cross-cu l- al. 1988; Johnson, Conner and Feyhl 1991; Frey 2002; iup” sites as sacred and/or potentially eligible as TCPs. tural uniformity in spatial utilization. Of course, a r- Cox 2003:2; White 2003, Greubel 2005). Rotting is chaeological identification of beds is extremely chal- the fate of others, especially if constructed with softer Defining the archaeological research potential of con- lenging if not outright impossible—and in the case of woods such as balsam or spruce (Christensen 1963a, ical timber lodge sites is outside the scope of the present conical timber lodges, significant differences should Conner 1974:34, Conner 1989:5-6). Wind damage has study, yet a few comments seem justi fied. A common be expected according to hypothesized functions of also been recorded (Hamilton 1973), and higher eleva- preoccupation of scholars concerned with conical the structures. Thus, “war lodges” would presumably tion sites are particularly endangered by the weight of timber lodges has been their ethnographic affiliation, have housed many more individuals (especially if they snowpacks (Kingsbury 1986:18). Vandalism is respon- and application of the direct historical method has slept sitting up, to enhance alertness) than domiciles of sible for the destruction of many others. Ranchers often been couched in these terms. Are conical timber comparable size. Seasonal usage of shelters might also and other settlers salvaged poles from the structures, lodges in the greater Yellowstone area predominantly, result in different household populations: people would for various uses (Conner 1974:24, 34-35, Conner an d or substantially, connected with Sheepeater Shoshones? presumably be more comfortable with fewer individu- Halverson 1969:5). Logging can damage or destroy Or were several tribal groups, also perhaps including als in a small shelter in the summer, than in the winter. “wickiups”, as can other land uses such as oil and gas Blackfeet and Crow, responsible for the structures? exploration. Falling trees are responsible for some Ethnographic knowledge of conical timber lodges, their damage to wickiups (Davis and Scott 1987:86). Some construction techniques and their usa ges, is likely to “wickiups” have been ruined by flooding as a result of persist among a number of Plains tribes. It is clear from ice break-ups (Allen 1983:16) or beaver dam construc- interviews conducted for this report that tribal and band tion (Conner 1966d), and damage by cattle or deer members and representatives do hold information about poses another threat (Johnson 1972:93, Cox 2003:2). the construction, uses, and meaning of conical timber Bison and elk may also damage the structures. Finally, lodges in the GYE. Recordation of this information is it is appropriate to note Steven Baker’s (1995:1) co n- important when possible, both for intrinsic value of the tention that ephemeral sites are compromised b y data and for insights that the data can shed on other a “lack of professional recognition and attention.” questions including resource management. It is important to note, however, that due to the number of people traveling through the area and using CTLs, ethnograph- TCPs and Research Potential ic affiliation of CTLs in the GYE is difficult if not nearly Archaeologists who have recorded “wickiup” sites impossible to conclude by physical evidence solely. in context of federal undertakings regularly recommend eligibility of the properties for listing on the Other research questions might be fruitfully stud- National Register of Historic Places (see, for example, ied. There is a fairly considerable body of literature Kingsbury 1986, and sites recorded by Bridger-Teton 2. Deaver (1992:3-24, 3-25) discusses this in some detail.

86 Chapter Six: Discussion of Conical Timber Lodges in the GYE TCPs and Research Potential 87 Chapter Seven Management Recommendations

Documentation and Monitoring this probably is a matter of ignorance (e.g., when the Professional recommendations regarding “wickiup” site form comments is “fir or pine” or “conifer”). The sites are almost universal in puttin g emphasis on the number of poles in a CTL is often left uncounted, or need for detailed documentation of the structures and some qualitative term such as “numerous” is given). their surroundings (Frison n.d. 1984?:7, Gruebel 2005, The number of foundation poles is seldom noted; in Martin 2005, Ott 2005). Thorou gh consideration of Table 4-1, only 3 of 19 free-standing CTLs (15.8%) pertinent structural and environmental aspects of the have notations regarding foundation. Entrance di- sites is of crucial importance in this regard. Table 4-1 rection is more often than not ignored; 5 of 23 CTLs provides a good indication of the uneven nature of (including lean-tos) (21.7%) have the entrance direc- past recordation of CTL sites. Brief perusal of the table tion specified. Dimensions of CTLs are frequently reveals that many pertinent characteristics have been omitted from site forms, and whether the structure passed over without comment or with inadequate in- has an open or sheltered vista often must be extrapo- formation. Specifically, archaeologists have often been lated from other information. The absence of hearths vague about the type of poles used in construction; seems seldom noted; presence, however, seems usually

88 Chapter Six: Discussion of Conical Timber Lodges in the GYE 89 mentioned. Also worth recordation are surveys of sur- Protection Coordinated Management of CTLs rounding structures and sites, especially those located near high ridges and whitebark pine stands. Through Considering the ephemeral nature of CTLs in gen- Considering current staffing and funding, it is clear both tribal representative interviews and ethnograph- eral and the specific climate and landscapes of the that formal and coordinated management of CTLs ic research, it is clear that CTLs may have been built GYE, it is unreasonable and even undesirable to rec- across the various jurisdictions of the GYE is neither by guardians who stayed while other members fasted ommend the complete protection of CTLs in the feasible nor particularly desirable. Notwithstanding, it on high ridges or collected pine nuts. When possible, GYE. Threats to CTLs are numerous (see “Threats to is prudent to share information regarding CTLs across tribal cultural staff should be involved in the survey, Conical Timber Lodges” in Chapter 6) and it is ex- the various jurisdications of the GYE. Utilization of the documentation, and interpretation of CTLs in the GYE. pected that such structures will eventually succumb CTL feature site form (Appendix C) will greatly aid in to natural processes and disappear from the land- the uniformity of data collection and site recordation A comprehensive CTL feature form has been de - scape. However, measures should be taken on behalf standards across GYE parks and forests. Storing GYE veloped for the specifc structures and landscapes of respective jurisdications to prevent any unnat u- CTL information in one database could also provide of the GYE (see Appendix C). The feature form, ral deterioration or vandalism of CTLs in the GYE. additional security for site locations and a compre - which was largely based on the Colorado Culture hensive source for future study on CTLs in the GYE. Resource Inventory Project, has been modified Measures can include sharing CTL geospatial info r- to incorporate the various feature characteristics, mation across and within land jurisdictions so that r e- Continued contact with other individuals and orga - tribal input, and photo documentation standards spective park and forest activities and planning avoid nizations who manage CTLs across the nation is also that reflect the specific nature of CTLs in the GYE. disturbing CTLs on the landscape. With the exception recommended as it encourages the free transfer of new of any CTLs preserved for interepreation, it is also o f ways to manage and understand the significance of such utmost importance to keep CTL locations confidential structures on the landscape. Such information can only Interpretation from the general public. Informing and educating park benefit CTL resources and future management decisions. The preponderance of unique CTLs in the GYE and forest employees about the existence and cultural suggests that interpretation of such cultural sites are importance of CTLs within each jurisdiction also serves prime for interpretation to the general public. Such to protect the structures from unintentional destruction. Further Tribal Relations cultural sites provide additional information to the Tribal and band representatives and members ex- corpus of GYE knowledge about the long-standing Fencing of sites, and posting of warning signs, may pressed a great deal of interest in the CTLs of the and continued Native American presence and uti- be effective in preventing certain sorts of damage, es - GYE. Of those interviewed for this report, all were lization of the landscape. Tribal representatives in- pecially in areas easily accessed by the public. Specific encouraged by their involvement in the report terviewed for this report echo this recommenda - measures should be developed for specific sites, howev- and expressed desire to be continuall y informed tion and support any interpretive endeavors related er; threats to particular properties are peculiar to those about and involved in future mana gement deci- to CTLs, but caution that such endeavors should not properties and generalized measures are less likely to sions regarding the structures and their surrounds. reveal specific site locations to the general public. be effective. Multiple measures are likely to be needed in order to optimize site protection. Kingsbury (1986) In addition, it is likely that various tribal and band GYE CTL information could be incorporated into ex- provides a good example of recommendations tailored members will seek to perform ceremonies and other isting jurisdictional media as well as new media (e.g., for to specific threats to conical timber lodges. For in- cultural activities at CTL sites. In such circumstances , wayside signage, museum exhibits, brochures, intrepre- stance, placement of rebar datum points was recom- coordination with and facilitation b y each respective tive talks, and video). In addition, tribal representatives mended for sites particularly susceptible to fire damage land jurisdiction is imperative to ensure that tribal suggested that one CTL be preserved for interpretion. or deterioration through natural weathering; antiquity members can locate and access each site. If time , YELL’s Gardiner Road Wickiup is an ideal CTL for sign placement was recommended for sites with ready staffing, and funding are available, hosting a meet- preservation considering its realtively easy accessibil- public access; avoidance by oil and gas roads was recom- ing of all GYE tribes and bands to visit various CTLs ity (and lack of cultural sensitivity due to questionable mended in exploration areas; archaeological monitoring in order to exchange stories and cultural information authenticty). Tribal representatives expressed a keen was recommended for a site where construction activi- would also be valuable in learning more about the interest in being involved in the production and imple- ties were being planned; and additional site and feature significance of CTLs to associated tribes and bands. mentation of any interpretion about CTLs in the GYE. description was recommended for sites with inadequate existing documentation (Kingsbury 1986:16-20).

90 Chapter Seven: Management Recommendations Coordinated Management of CTLs 91 REFERENCES

Adams, Richard, John Lund and Tory Taylor. 2006. of Post-Contact Eastern Ute Archaeology. Paper A Preliminary Report on the High Rise Village presented to the 2005 Annual Meeting, Colorado Site: Whitebark Pine Nut Processing and Sheep Council of Professional Archaeologists, Grand Hunting at 10,700 Feet. Report prepared for the Junction, Colorado, March 5. Shoshone National Forest. Barrett, Samuel A. 1921a. The Blackfoot Sweat Lodge. Aginski, B.W. 1941.Culture Element Distributions: Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee Yearbook XXIV. Central Sierra. Berkeley: University of 1: 73-80. California Anthropological Records 8(4):393-468. Barrett, Samuel A. 1921b. The Painted Lodge or Albers, Patricia. 2001. Plains Ojibwa. In Raymond Ceremonial Tipi of the Blackfoot. Public Museum J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North American of the City of Milwaukee Yearbook 1: 85-88. Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.652-660. Washington Beckes, Michael R. and James D. Keyser. 1983. The DC: Smithsonian Institution. Prehistory of Custer National Forest: An Over view. Allen, Walter E. 1983. Eagle Trapping Along the Little Billings MT: USDA Forest Service. Missouri River. North Dakota History: Journal of Beckwith, Lieut. E. G. 1855. Report of Explorations the Northern Plains 50(1):4-22. for a Route for the Pacific Railroad, of the Line Anderson, A. A. 1927. The Yellowstone Forest Reserve. of the Forty-first Parallel of North Latitude 1854. Annals of Wyoming 4(4):378-388. Andrews, David CD 792, 1B, 1854-55. Washington: Government C. (ed.) 2002. Blackfeet Tales from Apikuni’s World, Printing Office. by James Willard Schultz. Norman: University of Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Oklahoma Press. Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in Arkush, Brooke S. 1987. Historic Northern Paiute the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City NY: Winter Houses in Mono Basin, California. Journal Doubleday & Company. of California and Great Basin Anthropology Binford, Lewis R. 1983 Behavioral Archaeology and the 9(2):174-187. “Pompeii Premise.” In Lewis Binford, ed., Working Arthur, George W. 1966. An Archaeological Survey at Archaeology, Pp. 229-241. New York: Academic of the Upper Yellowstone River Drainage. Press. Agricultural Economics Research Report 26. Blakeslee, Donald J. 1989. On Estimating Household Bozeman: Montana State University. Populations in Archaeological Sites, with an Baeza, Jo. 1998. Cibecue High School on its Way Example from the Nebraska Phase. In Gregory Rejoicing. Whiteriver AZ: Fort Apache Scout R. Campbell, ed., Plains Indian Historical 36(21):1, January 20. Demography and Health: Perspectives, Baker, Steven G. 1995. Archaeological Interpretations, and Critiques, Pp.3-16. Plains Disenfranchisement of the Colorado Utes. Anthropologist 34(124/2), Memoir 23. Southwestern lore 61(3):1-9. Blish, Helen H. and Amos Bad Heart Bull. 1967. A Baker, Steven G. 2003. Historic Ute Archaeology: Pictographic History of the Oglala Sioux. Lincoln: Interpreting the Last Hour Wickiup University of Nebraska Press. (5RB3236). Southwestern Lore 69(4):1-34. Baker, Bowers, Alfred W. 1950. Mandan Social and Steven G. 2005. Dear Bill, Dear Omer: What Ceremonial Organization. Chicago: University of Should We Do Now? Notes on the Current State Chicago Press.

92 Chapter Seven: Management Recommendations References 93 Bowers, Alfred W. 1965. Hidatsa Social and Ceremonial Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center for Horr (ed.), Interior Salish and Eastern Washington Chang, ed., Settlement Archaeology, Pp.79-116. Organization. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Resources. Indians, Pp.37-196. New York: Garland Publishing. Palo Alto CA: National Press Books. American Ethnology Bulletin 194. Washington Cadzow, Donald A. 1926. The Prairie Cree Tipi. Indian Christensen, Tork N. 1963a. Story of a Tepee. Trowel Corbett, H. M. 1940. Navaho House Types. El Palacio DC: Government Printing Office. Notes 3:19-27. and Screen 4(3):14. 47:97-108. Brown, Dee (ed.) 1961. Pawnee, Blackfoot, and Callaway, Donald, Joel Janetski and Omer C. Stewart. Christensen, Tork N. 1963b. Pentagons of the Cosay, Bennett. 1993. Apache Village Being Built at Cheyenne: History and Folklore of the Plains: 1986. Ute. In Warren L. D’Azevedo, ed., Handbook Northwestern Plains. Trowel and Screen 4(6):2-4. Fort Apache: Series of Wickiups, Ramadas and From the Writings of George Bird Grinnell. New of North American Indians, vol. 11, Great Basin, Christiansen, R. L., G. R. Foulger, and J. R. Evans. 2002. Sweat Lodges Depicting Apache life First Step in York: Scribner. Pp.336-367. Washington DC: Smithsonian Upper Mantle Origin of the Yellowstone Hotspot. the Old Fort’s Development. Whiteriver AZ: Fort Brown, George E., III. 2002. Red Rock Ranch up Institution. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Apache Scout 16(31/26):1. the Gros Ventre. Kelly ID: David and Deborah Callendar, Charles. 1978. Sauk. In Bruce Trigger, ed., 114:1245-1256. Cox, Jack. 2003. Rescuing the Past: Researchers Scour Mackenzie, Red Rock Ranch . Handbook of North American Indians, vol. Collett, James. 2002. La Frontera del Cielo. Journal of the Rockies to Save Aboriginal Wickiups. Denver Brown, Lionel. 1963. A Crow Lodge Frame. Plains 15, Northeast, Pp.648-655. Washington DC: Big Bend Studies 14:85-95. Post, July 9, p.F1. Anthropologist 8(22):273-274 Smithsonian Institution. . Condon, David. 1948. American Indian Burial Giving Cramer, Joseph. 1961. The Lian Site: An Historic Log Brugge, David M. 1956. Navajo Sweat Houses. El Palacio Callendar, Charles, Richard K. Pope and Susan M. Pope. Evidence of Antiquity Discovered in Yellowstone Shelter in Yellowstone County, Montana. Plains 63:101-106. 1978. Kickapoo. In Bruce Trigger, ed., Handbook National Park. Yellowstone Nature Notes Anthropologist 6(14):267-270. Brugge, David 1967. Revised Dates for Navajo Hogans of North American Indians, vol. 15, Northeast, (July-August):37-43. Cristenson, Tork N. 1963a. Story of a Tepee. Trowel and Pp.656-667. Washington DC: Smithsonian Near Canyon de Chelley. American Antiquity Conner, Stuart W. 1960a. Wigwam Creek Tipis. Screen 4(3):14. 32(3):396-398. Institution. Manuscript report in D. White’s possession, copy Cristenson, Tork N. 1963b. Pentagons of the Brunton, Bill B. 1998. Kootenai. In Deward E. Walker, Campbell, Stanley. 1915. The Cheyenne Tipi. American provided by Dr. Lloyd Warr. Northwestern Plains. Manuscript, Billings Anthropologist 17:685-694. Campbell, W. S. Jr., ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Conner, Stuart W. 1960b. Wigwam Creek Tipis: Archaeological Society. vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.223-237. Washington DC: 1927. The Tipis of the Crow Indians. American Supplement #1. Manuscript report in D. White’s Crosby, Rev. Thomas. 1907. Among the An-ko- me- Anthropologist 29:87-104. Smithsonian Institution. possession, copy provided by Dr. Lloyd Warr. nums or Flathead Tribes of Indians of the Pacific Burroughs, Bret, Chris Clayton, Peny Wells, and Will Carbone, Gerald. 1972. An Amateur’s General Surface Conner, Stuart W. 1965. 24ME409. Trowel and Screen Coast. Toronto: W. Briggs. Report of the Tongue River Drainage Area. The Raines. 2005. The Re-creation and Destruction 6(13):1-8. Crum, Steven J. 1994. The Road on Which We Came of a Folsom Hunter’s Home. Paper presented to Wyoming Archaeologist 15(4). Conner, Stuart W. 1966a. Letter to John C. Ewers, May – Po’I Pentun Tammen Kimmappeh: A History of t he 2005 Annual Meeting, Colorado Council of Cannon, Kenneth P. and Patrick Phillips. 1993. 4. the Western Shoshone. Salt Lake City: University Professional Archaeologists, Grand Junction, Post-Fire Inventory and Evaluation in Yellowstone of Utah Press. Colorado, March 5. National Park: The 1989 Conner, Stuart W. 1966b. Letter to John C. Ewers, May 23. Curtis, Edward S. 1903. Apache Wickiup — “Apache?” Bushnell, David I. 1919a. Ojibwa Habitations and Other Field Season. Lincoln NE: NPS Midwest Archeological in catalo Conner, Stuart W. 1966c. The Russian Creek Wickiup g; grass structure; Library of Congress, Structures. Annual Report of the Board of Regents Center, Midwest Archeological Center Technical LC-USZ62-101173. of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year Ending Report No. 24. Report on file at Yellowstone Site. Archaeology in Montana 7(1):9-12. Curtis, Edward S. 1909. The Apsaroke. The North June 30 1917, Pp.609-618 Conner, Stuart W. 1966d. Recollections of a Wickiup . National Park and the Midwest Archeological American Indian, Vol. 4. Cambridge MA: The Center. Site. Archaeology in Montana 7(4):15. Bushnell, David I. 1919b. Native Villages and Village University Press. Sites East of the Mississippi. Bureau of American Conner, Stuart W. 1989. Bear Canyon Timber Lodge, Carver, Jonathan. 1778. Travels Through the Interior D’Azevedo, Warren L. 1986. Washoe. In Warren L. Ethnology Bulletin 69. Washington DC: Parts of North America in the Years 1766, 1767, 24CB639. Handwritten manuscript on file at D’Azevedo, ed., Handbook of North American Government Printin Yellowstone National Park, 8 pages plus mileage g Office. and 1768. London. Indians, vol. 11, Great Basin, Pp.466-498. log and photos. Bushnell, David I. 1922. Villages of the Algonquian, Cater, John. 2003. A New Perspective on the Seasonal Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Siouan, and Caddoan Tribes West of the Use of Ute Architecture in Western Colorado. Conner, Stuart W. 2006. Personal communication. Daifuku, Hiroshi. 1952. The Pit House in the Old World Mississippi. Bureau of American Ethnology Southwestern Lore 69(1):1-11. Catlin, George. 1841. Letter to David White, May 16. and in Native North America. American Antiquity Bu I lletin 77. Washington DC: Government Printing llustrations of the Manners, Conner, Stuart W. and Samuel D. Halverson. 1969. Slim 18:1-6. Office. Customs and Conditions of the North American Buttes Lodge. Archaeology in Montana 10(1):1-13. Davis, Carl M. 1975. Wickiup Cave. Plains Byerly, Katherine. 2006. Wickiup Survey— Shoshone Indians. 2 volumes. New York. Chalfant, Stuart A. Cook, Sherburn F. and Robert F. Heizer. 1968. Anthropologist 20(70):297-305. National Forest: Field Reports and Findings 1974. Historical Material Relative to Coeur d’Alene Relationships Among Houses, Settlement Areas, Davis, Carl M. and Sara A. Scott. 1987. The Pass Creek Summary. September-December 2006. Indian Aboriginal Distribution. In David Agee and Population in Aboriginal California. In K. C. Wickiups: Northern Shoshone Hunting Lodges

94 References References 95 in Southwestern Montana. Plains Anthropologist Archaeology in Montana 6(1):14-15. Mountain Sheep Trapping and Early Historic Methodology and the Practice of Anthropology. 32:83-92. Diem, Kenneth L. and Lenore L. Diem. 1978. “A Occupation in the Absaroka Mountains of In John van Willigen and Timothy J. Finan, Davis, Carl M., James D. Keyser, and Cynthia D. Community of Scalawags, Renegades, Discharged Northwest Wyoming. Office of the Wyoming State eds., Soundings: Rapid and Reliable Research Craven. 1994. Coyote House: Prehistoric Butte Top Soldiers and Predestined Stinkers”? A History Archeologist, Laramie, WY. Methods for Practicing Anthropologists. National Occupation in the Pine Parklands. Archaeology in of Northern Jackson Hole and Yellowstone’s Ebert, James I. and Timothy A. Kohler. 1988. The Association for the Practice of Anthropology, Montana 35(2):5-57. Influence 1872-1920. Moose WY: Grand Teton Theoretical Basis of Archaeological Predictive Bulletin 10, Pp. 1-10. Davis, Carl M., Les Davis, and Ann Johnson. The Late Natural History Association. Modeling and a Consideration of Appropriate Findley, Judson B. and Chris C. Finley. 2004. The Prehistoric Intermountain (Ceramic) Tradition Ditmer, Joan. 1989. Ancient Tepees Awe Visitors. Data-Collection Methods. In W. James Judge Boulder Ridge Archaeological Inventory: A Late and the Historic Sheepeater Shoshone. Denver Post, August 2 (Proquest). and Lynne Sebastian, eds., Quantifying the Prehistoric/Early Historic Shoshone Landscape in Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, Northwestern Wyoming. Report prepared for the Deaver, Ken. 1989. Identifying Ring Site Occupations. Dodd, Catherine. 2004. This Very Old House. American Shoshone National Forest, Cody WY In Scott MacEachcrn, David J.W. Archer, Archaeology 8(1):26-31. and Application of Archaeological Predictive . Modeling, Pp. 97-171. Denver: U.S. Dept. of the and Richard D. Garvin, eds., Households and Fletcher, Alice and Francis La Flesche. 1911. The Dodge, Richard Irving. 1876. The Black Hills. New Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Communities: Proceedings of the 21st Annual York: J. Miller. Omaha Tribe. Twenty-seventh Annual Report of Chacmool Conference, Pp. 256-265. Calgary: The Eiselt, B. Sunday. 1997. Defining Ethnicity in Warner the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years Dominick, D. 1964. The Sheepeaters. Annals ofWyo- Archaeological Association of the University of Valley: An Analysis of House and Home. Reno: 1906-1907 Pp. 17-672. Washington: Government ming 36(2):131-168. Calgary. University of Nevada, M.A. thesis, Department of Printing Office. Dooley, Mathew A. 2004. Long-term Hunter- Anthropology. Deaver, Sherri and Ann Manning. 1992. Fowler, Catherine S. (comp. and ed.). 1989. Willard Z. Gatherer Land Use in Central North Dakota: An Et Elias, Scott A. 1996. The Ice-Age History of National Park’s Ethnographic Notes on the Northern Paiute hnographic Overview of the McKenzie, Environmental Analysis. Plains Anthropologist Medora, Sioux, Ashland and Beartooth Ran Parks in the Rocky Mountains; Chapter 7, Grand of Western Nevada, 1933-1944. Salt Lake City: ger 45(190):105-127. Districts of the Custer National Forest. Billings Teton National Park (pp.115-135). Washington University of Utah Anthropological Papers 114. MT: Ethnoscience. Douglas, Frederic H. 1930. Southwestern Indian DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Fowler, Loretta. 2001. Arapaho. In Raymond J. DeMallie, Dwellings. Denver Art Museum, Leaflet No. 9. Dellenbaugh, Frederick S. 1906. The North Americans Erdoes, Richard and Alfonso Ortiz (eds.) 1984. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, of Yesterday: A Comparative Study of North- Douglas, Frederic H. 1931a. The Plains Indian Tipi. American Indian Myths and Legends. New York: Plains, Pp.840-862. Washington DC: Smithsonian American Indian Life Customs, and Products, on Denver Art Museum, Leaflet No. 19. Douglas, Pantheon Books. Institution. the Theory of the Ethnic Unity of the Race. New Frederic H. 1931b. The Plains Indian Ewers, John C. 1944. The Blackfoot War Lodge: Its Fowler, Loretta and Regina Flannery. 2001. Gros York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Earth Lodge. Denver Art Museum, Leaflet No. 20. Construction and Use. American Anthropologist Ventre. In Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook DeMallie, Raymond J. 2001. Sioux Until 1850. In Douglas, Frederic H. 1932. New England Indian Houses, 46:182-192. of North American Indians, vol. Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North Forts and Villages. Denver Art Museum, Leaflet Ewers, John C. 1958. The Blackfeet: Raiders on the 13, Plains, Pp.677-694. Washington DC: Smithsonian American Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.718-760. No. 39. Northwestern Plains. Norman: University of Institution. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Downs, James R. 1966. The Two Worlds of the Washoe. Oklahoma Press. Frey, David. 2002. Preserving the Past: Artifacts’ Safety DeMallie, Raymond J. and David Reed Miller. 2001. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ewers, John C. 1974. Ethnological Report on the Worries Experts. Denver Post, June 24, p.A-13. Assiniboine. In Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Driver, Harold E. 1937. Culture Element Distributions: Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes of Indians. Frey, Rodney. 1987. The World of the Crow Indians: Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, VI. Southern Sierra Nevada. Berkeley: University In David Agee Horr, ed., American Indian As Driftwood Lodges. Norman: University of Plains, Pp.572-595. Washington DC: Smithsonian of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53-154. Ethnohistory: Plains Indians, Pp.23-202. New Oklahoma Press. Yor Institution. Driver, Harold E. 1969 [orig. 1961]. Indians of North k: Garland Publishing, Inc. Frison, George C. 1971. Shoshonean Antelope Densmore, Francis. 1922. Northern Ute Music. America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ewers, John C. 1976. Blackfoot Indian Tipis: Design Procurement in the Upper Green River Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Dueker, K. G. and A. F. Sheehan. 1997. Mantle and Legend. Bozeman MT: Museum of the Basin, Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist Ethnology Bulletin 75. Washington DC: Discontinuity Structure from Midpoint Stacks of Rockies.Farrand, Livingstone. 1921. Notes on the 16(54/1):258-284. Government Printing Office. Nez Perce Indians. American Anthropologist Converted P to S Waves Across the Yellowstone Frison, George C. 1976. Crow Pottery in Northern 23:244-246. Dempsey, Hugh A. 2001. Blackfoot. In Raymond J. Hotspot Track. Journal of Geophysical Research Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 21(71):29- 44. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North American 102:8318-8327. Fehrenbach, T. R. 1974. Comanches: The Destruction Frison, George C. 1980. A Composite Reflexed, Mountain Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.604-628. Washington Dusenberry, Verne. 1960. Notes on the MaterialCulture of a People. New York: Knopf. Ferris, Warren Sheephorn Bow from Western Wyoming. Plains DC: Smithsonian Institution. A. 1940. Life in the Rocky Mountains. Paul C. of the Assinboine Indians. Ethnos25(1-2):44-62. Anthropologist 25:173-176. Phillips, ed. Denver Finan, Timothy J., and John van Des Rosier, Fred L. 1965. Kutenai War Lodges. Eakin, Daniel H. 2006. Evidence of Shoshonean Willigen. 1991. The Pursuit of Social Knowledge: Frison, George C. 1983. Stone Circles, Stone- filled

96 References References 97 Fire Pits, Grinding Stones and High Plains letter from O. C. Gray, former superintendent of Site: An Indian Hunting Camp in the Absarokas. Hodge,Frederick. Webb (ed.). 1907-1910. Handbook Archaeology. In Leslie B. Davis, ed., From Fort Bidwell Indian School, to Mrs. Mabel B. Trowel and Screen 4(4):2-4. of American Indians North of Mexico. Bulletin Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring Hackett of Fort Bidwell. Vertical file “Fort Bidwell Haines, Aubrey L. (ed.). 1965. Osborne Russell’s Journal of the Bureau of American Ethnology 30. 2 vols. Investigation and Interpretation, Pp.81-92. Plains History,” Modoc County Public Library, Alturas of a Trapper [1834-1843], With a Biography of and Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Anthropologist 28(102/2), Memoir 19. CA. Maps of His Travels While a Trapper in the Rocky Hoebel, E. Adamson. 1978. The Cheyennes: Indians of Frison, George C. n.d. (1984?). Cultural Resources Green, Thomas J. 1993. Aboriginal Residential Mountains. Edited from the Original Manuscript the Great Plains. Second edition. New York: Holt, in Selected Areas of the Bridger-Teton National Structures in Southern Idaho. Journal of California in the William Robertson Coe Collection of Rinehart and Winston. Forest. Manuscript; copy in files of Larry Loendorf. and Great Basin Anthropology 15(1):58-72. Western Americana in the Yale University Library. Hoffman, J. Jacob. 1953. Comments on the Use and Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Greubel, Rand A. 2005. Strategies and Methodologies Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [Original Distribution of Tipi Rings in Montana, North Plains. Second edition. San Diego: Academic Press. for Investigation of Wickiup Sites. Paper presented 1955, Portland: Oregon Historical Society.] Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Missoula: Fry, Gary F. and Gardiner F. Dalley. 1979. The Levee to the 2005 Annual Meeting, Colorado Council Haines, Aubrey L. 1977. The Yellowstone Story: A Montana State University Anthropology and Site and the Knoll Site. Salt Lake City: University of Professional Archaeologists, Grand Junction, History of Our First National Park. Two vol- Sociology Papers 14. of Utah Anthropological Papers 100. Colorado, March 5. umes. Yellowstone National Park WY: Yellowstone Hoffman, J. Jacob. 1961. A Preliminary Archaeological y and Museum Association. Fuller, E. O. 1974. The Confederated Salish and Grinnell, George Bird. 1901. The Lodges of the Blackfeet. Librar Survey of Yellowstone National Park. Bozeman: Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, American Anthropologist 3:650-668. Haines, Aubrey L. 1996. Yellowstone Place Names: M.A. thesis, Montana State University. Montana. In David Agee Horr, ed., American Grinnell, George Bird. 1927. An Additional Note on the Mirrors of History. Niwot: University Press of Honigmann, John H. 1946. Ethnography and Indian Ethnohistory, Interior Salish and Eastern Wickiups. Yellowstone Nature Notes 4(5):4. May Colorado. Acculturation of the Fort Nelson Slave. Washington Indians, Pp. 25-167. New York: 31. Hamilton, Alice. 1973. Michigan Creek Wickiup. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Garland Publishing. Grinnell, George Bird. 1956 [orig. 1915] The Fighting Manuscript, Denver CO, in Stuart W. Conner Anthropology 33:1-169. Gerald, Rex E. 1958. Two Wickiups on the San Carlos Cheyennes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Files. Hoxie, Frederick E. 1995. Parading Through History: Indian Reservation, Arizona. Kiva 23(3): 5-11. Press. Hanna, Warren L. (ed.). 1988. James Willard Schultz: The Making of the Crow Nation in America, 1805- Gifford, E. W. 1941. Culture Element Distributions: XII. Grinnell, George Bird. 1919. A Buffalo Sweatlodge. Recently Discovered Tales of Life Among the 1935. New York: Cambridge University Press. Apache-Pueblo. Berkeley: University of California American Anthropologist 21:361-375. Grinnell, Indians. Missoula MT: Mountain Press Publishing Hoxie, Frederick E. 1999. Wigwam. Encyclopedia of Anthropological Records 4(1):1-207. George Bird. 1923-24. The Cheyenne Indians, Company. North American Indians, Pp.680-681. Boston: Gilman, Patricia A. 1987. Architecture as Artifact: Their History and Ways of Life. 2 vols. New Haven: Harrington, John P. 1939. Anthropological Miscellany, Houghton Mifflin. Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Yale University Press. 2. Kiowa Memories of the Northland. In Donald D. Hughes, Susan S. 2000. The Sheepeater Myth Southwest. American Antiquity 52: 538-564. Grinnell, George Bird. 1926. By Cheyenne Campfires. Brand and F. E. Harvey, eds., So Live the Works of of Northwestern Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist Man: Seventieth Anniversary Volume Honoring Goddard, Pliny Earl. 1916. The Beaver Indians. New New Haven: Yale University Press. 2000 45(171): 63-83. Edgar Lee Hewett, Pp.162-176. Albuquerque: York: American Museum of Natural History Grinnell, George Bird. 1962. Blackfoot Lodge Tales: The Humphreys, E. D., K. G. Dueker, D. L. Schutt and R. Anthropological Papers 10(4):201-294. Story of a Prairie People. Lincoln: University of UNM Press. B. Smith. 2000. Beneath Yellowstone: Evaluating Harrington, M. P. 1953. Southern Nevada Pit Dwellings. Good, Kent N. 1974. A Survey and Synthesis of Nebraska Press. Plume and Nonplume Models Using Teleseismic Masterkey 27:136-142. Harrington, Mark M. 1944. Archaeological Sites Within the Sub- Alpine Gullette, A. V. 1971. Wickiups Vanishing: Tourist, Images of the Upper Mantle. GSA Today 10:107. Too Much Hominy. Masterkey 18:155-156. Ecological Zone, Pryor Mountains, Montana. Lumber Enterprises Provide Jobs and Modern Hurt, Wesley R. 1954. Additional Notes on Dakota Missoula: M.A. Thesis, University of Montana. Homes for Apaches. Whiteriver AZ: Fort Apache Haynes, C. Vance, Henry Irwin and Cynthia Irwin- House Types of South Dakota. University of South Goodwin,Grenville.1935.TheSocialOrganization of the Scout 10(7):3, July 31. Williams. 1965. The Hell Gap Site. VII INQUA Dakota:W. H. Over Museum, Museum News Congress, Field Conference E Guidebook,. Western Apache. Chicago: University of Chicago Gussow, Zachary. 1974. An Ethnological Report on 15(1):3. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. Press. Cheyenne and Arapaho: Aboriginal Occupation. Hurt, Wesley R. and J. H. Howard. 1950. Two Newly- Gookin, Daniel. 1806. Historical Collections of the In David Agee Horr, ed., Arapaho-Cheyenne Hickerson, Harold. 1962. The Southwestern Chippewa: recorded Dakota House Types. Southwestern An Ethnohistorical Study. Menasha: American Indians of New England. Boston: Massachusetts Indians, Pp.27-95. New York: Garland Publishing Journal of Anthropology 6:423-426. Anthropological Association Memoir no. 92. Historical Society Collections vol. 1. Inc. Huscher, Betty H. and Harold A. Huscher. 1943. The Hilger, Sister Mary Inez. 1952. Arapaho Child Life and Grant, Bruce. 1994. Wickiup. Concise Encyclopedia of Hadley, D. M., G. S. Stewart and J. E. Ebel. 1976. Hogan Builders of Colorado. Southwestern Lore Its Cultural Background. Smithsonian Institution, the American Indian, P.334. New York: Random Yellowstone: Seismic Evidence for a Chemical 9(11):1-92. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 148. House, Wings Books. Mantle Plume. Science 193:1237-1239. Haines, Hyde, George E. 1951. Pawnee Indians. Denver: Aubrey L. (ed.). 1963. The Parker Mountain Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Gray, O.C. n.d.. Typed transcription of untitled, undated University of Denver Press.

98 References References 99 Irving, Washington. 1890. Astoria. New York: Thomas Judy, Mark A. 1987. Powder Keg on the Upper Missouri: Keyser, James D. 2006. Personal communication with the role of the Fur Trade. Monographs of the Y. Crowell and Co. Sources of Blackfeet Hostility, 1730-1810. David White. Email, May 11. American Ethnological Society 6. New York: J. J. Irwin, Henry, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, and George American Indian Quarterly 11(2):127-144. Kidwell, Arthur S., Jr. 1969. The Conical Timbered Augustin. Agogino. 1965. The Hell Gap Site: Archaeological Kavanagh, Thomas W. 1996. The Comanches: A History, Lodge on the Northwestern Plains: Historical, Linderman, Frank Bird. 1962 [orig. 1930] Plenty- Sketch. The Wyoming Archaeologist 8(2):35-39. 1706-1875. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ethnological, and Archaeological Evidence. Coups: Chief of the Crows. Lincoln NE: University Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, Henry Irwin, George Kavanagh, Thomas W. 2001. Comanche. In Raymond Archaeology in Montana10(4):1-49. of Nebraska Press. Agogino and C. Vance Haynes. 1973. Hell Gap: J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North American Kingsbury, George W. 1953. House Types of the Santee Loendorf, Larry. 1969. The Results of the Archaeological Paleo-Indian Occupation on the High Plains. Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.863-885. Washington Indians. Vermillion SD, W. H. Over Museum: Survey in the Pryor Mountain-Big Horn Canyon Plains Anthropologist 18(59):40-53. DC: Smithsonian Institution. Museum News 14(11):1-3. Recreation Area, 1969 Field Season. Ms., University Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1986. Washoe Language. In Kehoe, Thomas F. 1958. Tipi Rings:e Th “Direct Knight, D. 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Montana, Missoula. Warren L. D’Azevedo, ed., Handbook of North Ethnological” Approach Applied to an of Wyoming Landscapes. New Haven: Yale Loendorf, Larry. 1978. An Evaluation of 110 American Indians, vol. 11, Great Basin, Pp.107- Archaeological Problem. American Anthropologist University Press. Archeological and Historical Sites in the Little 112. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. 60:861-873. Kingsbury, Lawrence A. 1986. 1985 Wickiup Protection Missouri Grasslands of North Dakota. Grand James, Edwin. 1905. Acount of an Expedition from Kehoe, Thomas F. 1960. Stone Tipi Rings in North- Project. Butte MT: Bureau of Land Management, Forks: University of North Dakota. Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains Performed central Montana and the Adjacent Portion of Butte District. Loendorf, Larry and Lori Orser Weston. 1983. An in the Years 1819, 1820. In Reuben Gold Thwaites, Alberta, Canada: Their Historical, Ethnological Krinsky, Carol Herselle. 1996. Contemporary Native Examination of Tipi Rings in the Bignorn Canyon- ed., Early Western Travels, 1748-1846, vol. 16. and Archeological Aspects. Bureau of American American Architecture: Cultural Regeneration Pryor Mountain Area. In L. B,. Davis, ed., From Cleveland: A. H. Clark. Janetski, Joel C. 2002. Ethnology Bulletin 173, Anthropological Papers and Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Indians in Yellowstone National Park. Second 62:417-474. Washin Rin gton DC: Government Printing Kroeber, Alfred L. 1902-1907. The Arapaho. New York: g Investigation and Interpretation, Pp.147- edition. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Office. [Reprint 1985, Lincoln NE: J & L Reprint 156. Plains Anthropologist Memoir No. 19. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural Jochim, Michael A. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Co.] History, v. 18. Loendorf, Larry and Duane Klinner. 1995. Dead and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: Kehoe, Thomas F. 1983. A Retrospectus and Fall Timber Structures in the Bighorn Canyon La Prensa. 1997. Institute of Texan Cultures Hosts Academic Press. Commentary. In Leslie B. Davis, ed., From National Recreation Area, Montana. Las Cruces Kickapoo Photographic Exhibit. San Antonio: La Microcosm to Macrocosm: A NM Johnson, Ann M. 1979. The Problem of Crow Pottery. dvances in Tipi Ring Prensa, May 4. : Loendorf and Associates. Archaeology in Montana 20(3):17-29. Investigation and Interpretation, Pp.327-342. Loendorf, Larry and Nancy Medaris Stone. 2006. Larkin, Hannah and Kathryn Byerly. 2006. Wickiup Plains Anthropologist 28(102/2), Memoir 19. Mountain Spirit: Johnson, A. M., K. J. Feyhl, S. W. Conner and M. B. Survey—Yellowstone National Park. Field Reports The Sheep Eater Indians of Keiter, R. B. an Ye Bryant. 1988. The Cremation of Two Early Historic d M. S. Boyce. 1991. The Greater and Findings Summary. Yellowstone National llowstone. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America’s Press. Timbered Structures in the Bull Mountains. Park: Yellowstone Center for Resources. Archaeology in Montana 29(2):97-115. Wilderness Heritage. New Haven: Yale University Lohse, Ernest S. 1980. Fremont Settlement Pattern and Laubin, Reginald and Gladys Laubin. 1957. The Indian Press. Architectural Variation. In David B. Madsen Johnson, Ann M., Stuart W. Conner and Kenneth J. Tipi: Its History, Construction and Use. Norman: , ed., Kelly, Isabel T. 1932. Ethnography of the Surprise Fremont Perspectives, Pp.41-54. Salt Lake City: Feyhl. 1991. Post-fire Identification of Nineteenth University of Oklahoma Press. Centur Valley Paiute. Berkeley: University of California Utah State Historical Society, Antiquities Section, y Wooden Structures. Archaeology in Lavine, Sigmund A. 1975. The Houses the Indians Built. Montana 32(2):33-47. Publications in American Archaeology and Selected Papers 16. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. Le Raye, Ethnography 31(3). Longacre, William A. and James E. Ayres. 1968. Johnson, C. Ralph. 1972. A Study of North Park Tipis. Charles 1908. Journal of Charles Le Raye. South Arc Southwestern Lore 37(4):93-101. Johnson, Olga Kennedy, Dorothy I. D. and Randall T. Bouchard. 1998. Dakota Historical Collections 14:150-180. heological Lessons from an Apache Wickiup. Weydemeyer. 1969. Flathead and Kootenay: The Northern Okanagan, Lakes, and Colville. In In Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, eds., Letherman, J. 1855. Sketch of the Navajo Tribe of Rivers, the Tribes, and the Region’s Traders. Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of North New Perspectives in Archeology, Pp.151-159. Indians, Territory of New Mexico. Annual Report Northwest Historical American Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.238-252. Chicago: Aldine. Series IX. Glendale CA: A. of the Smithsonian Institution, 1855. H. Clark Company. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Love, J. D. and John C. Reed, Jr. 1968. Creation of the Levy, Jerrold E. 2001. Kiowa. In Raymond J. DeMallie, Jones, John A. 1954. A Reinterpretation of the Ute- Keyser, James D. 1976. The LaMarche Game Trap: Teton Landscape: The Geologic Story of Grand An Early Historic Game Trap in Southwestern ed., Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, Teton National Park. Jackson Hole: Grand Teton Southern Paiute Classification. Anthropological Plains, Pp.907-925. Washington DC: Smithsonian Quarterly 27(2/2). Montana. Plains Anthropologist 19(65):173-179. Natural History Association. Institution. Joyes, Dennis Keyser, James D. 1980. Reply to Johnson’s “The Problem Lowie, Robert H. 1909. The Northern Shoshone. C. 1968. The Evans Wickiup Site, Lewis, Oscar. 1942. The Effects of White Contact Upon 24GV405. Archaeology in Montana 9(2):1-17. of Crow Pottery.” Archaeology in Montana Anthropological Papers of the American Museum 21(2):25-28. Blackfoot Culture, with Special Reference to of Natural History 2(2):165-306. Lowie, Robert H.

100 References References 101 1912. Some Problems in the Ethnology of the Crow E. Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of North American Mindeleff, Cosmos. 1898a. Navajo Houses. Bureau Mulloy, William T. 1941. Historic and Protohistoric and Village Indians. American Anthropologist Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.297-312. Washington of American Ethnology Seventeenth Annual Villages in the Yellowstone Manuscript. Ms. 14(1):60-71. DC: Smithsonian Institution. Report, 1895-96, Part 2, Pp.469-517. Washington Mulloy, William T. 1943 (?). Historic and Lowie, Robert H. 1918. Myths and Traditions of the Mandelbaum, David G. 1940. The Plains Creek. New DC: Government Printing Office. Mindeleff, Protohistoric Villages in the Yellowstone Valley. Crow Indians. New York: Anthropological Papers York: Anthropological Papers of the American Cosmos. 1898b. Aboriginal Architecture in the Manuscript in possession of Lawrence Loendorf. of the American Museum of Natural History Museum of Natural History 37:155-316. United States. American Geographical Society Mulloy, William T. 1945. An Indian Village in the Little Bulletin 30:414-427. 25(1):1-308. Marcy, Randolph P. 1859. A Hand-book for Overland Cayuse Mountains of Montana. Papers of the Lowie, Robert H. 1922. The Material Culture of the Expeditions. New York: Harper & Brothers. Moe, Richard B. 1974. Two Cribbed Log Structure Sites. Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters Archaeology in Montana 15(2):27-34. 30:511-521. Crow Indians. New York: Anthropological Papers Marquis, Thomas B. 1928. Memoirs of a White Crow of the American Museum of Natural History Indian (Thomas H. LeForge). New York: The Mooney, James A. 1896. The Ghost Dance Religion Mulloy, William T. 1952. The Northern Plains. In James 21(3):201-270. Century Company. and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Fourteenth B. Griffin, ed., Archaeology of Eastern United Annual Report of the Bureau of American States, Pp.124-138. Chicago: University of Chicago Lowie, Robert H. 1924. Notes on Shoshonean Marriott, Alice. 1945. The Ten Grandmothers. Norman: Ethnology for the Years 1892-93, pt. 2. Washington Press Ethnography. New York: American Museum of University of Oklahoma Press. Marriott, Alice Lee. . DC: Government Printing Office. [Reprinted 1991, Natural History Annual Papers 20(3):187-314. 1963. Saynday’s People: The Kiowa Indians and the Mulloy, William T. 1954. Archaeological Investigations University of Nebraska Press.] Lowie, Robert H. 1983 [orig. 1935]. The Crow Indians. Stories They Told. Lincoln: University of Nebraska in the Shoshone Basin of Wyoming. Laramie: Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, Bison Press. Mooney, James 1898. Calendar History of the Kiowa University of Wyoming Publications 18(1-3). Indians. Seventeenth Annual Report of the Books. Marsh, Charles S. 1982. People of the Shining Mulloy, William T. 1958a. A Preliminary Historical Bureau of American Ethnology 1895-96, pt. 1. McClintock, Walter. 1910. The Old North Trail; Mountains: The Utes of Colorado. Boulder CO: Outline for the Northwestern Plains. Laramie: Or, Life, Legends and Religion of the Blackfeet Pruett Publishing Company. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. University of Wyoming Publications 22(1). Moore, John H. 1987. The Cheyenne Nation: A Social Indians. London: MacMillan and Company. Martin, Curtis. 2005. Colorado Wickiups: An Mulloy, William T. 1965. The Indian Village at Thirty McClintock, Walter. 1936. The Blackfoot Tipi. Masterkey Archaeological Context and the Wickiup and Demographic History. Lincoln: University of Mile Mesa, Montana. Laramie: University of Nebraska Press. 10:85-96. Database. Paper presented to the 2005 Annual Wyoming Publications 31(1):1-22. Moore, John H., Margot P. Liberty and A. Terry Straus. McCracken, Harold (comp.). 1978. The Mummy Cave Meeting, Colorado Council of Professional Mulloy, William. 1969. An Indian Village Near Pompey’s 2001. C Project in Northwestern Wyoming. Cody WY: Archaeologists, Grand Junction, Colorado, March heyenne. In Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Pillar Creek, Montana. Plains Anthropologist Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, Buffalo Bill Historical Center. 5. 14(44): 95-102. Plains, Pp.863-885. Washington DC: Smithsonian Martindale, Phillip. 1927. The Old Wickiups of the Murphy, Robert F. and Yolanda Murphy. 1960. McEneaney, Terry. 1988. Birds of Yellowstone. Boulder Institution. CO: Roberts Rinehart. Gallatin. Yellowstone Nature Notes 4(2):8. Shoshone-Bannock Subsistence and Society. Morgan, Lewis H. 1959. Lewis Henry Morgan, The Berkeley: University of California Anthropological McGinnis, Dale K. and Floyd W. Sharrock. 1972. The Matthews, Washington. 1877. Ethnology and Philology Indian Journals, 1859-62, edited by Leslie A. Records 16(7):293-338. Crow People. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Series. of the Hidatsa Indians. United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, White. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Murray, Robert A. (ed.) 1968. E. S. Topping, The McKennan, Robert A. 1965. The Chandalar Kutchin. Miscellaneous Publications 7. Washington DC: Morgan, Lewis H. 1965. Houses and House- life of Chronicles of the Yellowstone: An Accurate, Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Government Printing Office. the American Aborigines. Chicago: University of Comprehensive History of the Country Drained Paper 17. Chicago Press. [Orig. 1881, Contributions to North Maximilian, Prince of Wied. 1906. Travels in the by the Yellowstone River. Minneapolis: Ross & Madsen, Brigham D. 1979. The Lemhi: Sacajawea’s American Ethnolo Interior of North America. In Reuben gy, IV, Government Printing Haines. People. Caldwell ID: Caxton Printers. Gold Thwaites, ed., Early Western Travels, 1748-1846, Office.] Myers, James E. 1978. Cahto. In Robert F. Heizer, Madsen, Brigham D. 1980. The Northern Shoshoni. vol. 23. Cleveland: A. H. Clark. Mayhall, Mildred Morgan, W. J. 1971. Convection Plumes in the Lower ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Caldwell ID: Caxton Printers. P. 1962. The Kiowas. Norman: University of Mantle. Nature 230:42-43. vol. 8, California, Pp.244-248. Washington DC: Madsen, Brigham D. 1983. The Bannock of Idaho. Oklahoma Press. Morgan, William N. 1980. Prehistoric Architecture in Smithsonian Institution. Moscow: University of Idaho Press. [Original Medicine Crow, Joseph. 1979. The Crow Migration the Eastern United States. Cambridge MA: MIT Nabokov, Peter. 1999. Architecture. In Frederick E. 1958, Caldwell ID: Caxton Printers, Ltd.] Story. Archaeology in Montana 20(3):63-72. Press. Hoxie, ed., Encyclopedia of North American Malouf, Carling. 1961. The Tipi Rings of the High Metcalf, George. 1963. Small Sites On and About Moulton, Gary E. and Thomas W. Dunlay (eds.) 1987. Indians, Pp.38-42. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Plains. American Antiquity 26:381-389. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Garrison The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton. 1989. Dwellings Malouf, Carling I. 1963. Battle Pits and War Lodges. Reservoir,North Dakota. Smithsonian Institution: Vol.4, April 7-July 27, 1805. Lincoln: University of at the Source: Native American Architecture. New Archaeology in Montana 5(2):1-11. Malouf, Carling River Basin Survey Papers 26. Washington DC: Nebraska Press. York: Oxford University Press. I. 1998. Flathead and Pend d’Oreille. In Deward Government Printing Office.

102 References References 103 Nabokov, Peter, and Lawrence Loendorf. 1994. Every 45(171):35-61. Apache Region. New York: American Museum Forked-Stick Hogans: Determining Ethnicity Morning of the World: Ethnographic Resources Ott, Richard. 2005. The Colorado Wickiup Project. of Natural History Anthropological Papers through Architecture in the Archaeological Study, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Paper presented to the 2005 Annual Meeting, 31(5):287-345. Record. Flagstaff: M.A. thesis, Department of Area: Including Information on Adjacent Lands Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Reagan, A. B. 1931b. Ute Dwellings. El Palacio Anthropology, Northern Arizona University. Managed by Custer National Forest and the Grand Junction, Colorado, March 5. 31:410-411. Sanford, William R. 1994. Chief Joseph, Nez Perce Bureau of Land Management. USDI Rocky Palmer, Gary. 1998. Coeur d’Alene. In Deward E. Reed. Alan D. 1988. Ute Cultural Chronology. In Paul Warrior. Hillside NJ: Enslow Publishers. Santee, Mountain Region, Nationa l Park Service; USDA Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of North American R. Nickens, ed., Archaeology of the Eastern Ute: A Ross. 1947. Apache Land. New York: Charles National Forest Service, Custer National Forest; Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.313-326. Washington Symposium, Pp,79-101. CCPA Occasional Papers Scribners’ Sons. and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana DC: Smithsonian Institution. No. 1. Denver: Colorado Council of Professional Schaeffer, Claude E. 1936. An Acculturation Study of State Office. Parks, Douglas R. 2001. Arikara. In Raymond J. Archaeologists. the Indians of the Flathead Reservation of Western Nabokov, Peter, and Lawrence Loendorf. 2002. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North American Reed. Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf. 1999. Colorado Montana. Washington DC: Report submit- American Indians and Yellowstone National Park: Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.695-717. Washington Prehistory: A Context for the Northern ted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, U.S. A Documentary Overview. Yellowstone National DC: Smithsonian Institution. Colorado River Basin. Denver: Colorado Council Department of the Interior. Park WY: Yellowstone Center for Resources, of Professional Archaeologists. Schaeffer, Margaret W. M. 1958. The Construction of a National Park Service. Partoll, Albert J. (ed) 1962. Anderson’s Narrative of a Ride to the Rocky Mountains in 1834, by Wm. Reese, R. 1984. Greater Yellowstone, the National Wickiup on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Naroll, Raoul. 1962. Floor Area and Settlement Pattern. Marshall Anderson. Frontier Omnibus. Missoula Park and Adjacent Wildlands. Helena: Montana Kiva 24(2): 14-20. American Antiquity 27:587-589. Neuman, Robert MT: Montana State University Press. Geographic. Schmitt, Martin F. and Dee Brown. 1948. Fighting W. 1962. Another Tipi Ring Inference. Plains Indians of the West. New York. Anthropologist 7(18):269-270. Payment, Diane Paulette. 2001. Plains Métis. In Replogle, Wayne F. 1956. Yellowstone’s Bannock Indian Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North Trails. Mammoth WY: Yellowstone Library and Schneider, Mary Jane. 2001. Three Affiliated Tribes. In Norris, Philetus W. 1880. Report Upon the Yellowstone American Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.661-676. Museum Association. Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North National Park, to the Secretary of the Interior, Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. American Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.391-398. for the Year 1879. Washington DC: Government Riddell, Francis A. 1960. Honey Lake Paiute Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Printing Office. Pettit, Jan. 1990. Utes, The Mountain People. Boulder Ethnography. Carson City: Nevada State Museum CO: Johnson Publishing Company. Pierce, K. Anthropological Papers No. 4. Schoolcraft, Henry R. 1852. Information Respecting the Norris, Philetus W. 1881. Annual Report of the L. and J. D. Good (eds.) 1992. Field Guide to the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Superinten Riggs, Jim. 1982. The Wickiup. In Richard L. Jamison, dent of the Yellowstone National Park, Quaternary Geology of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Tribes of the United States. Collected and pre- for the Year 1880. Washington DC: Government comp., The Best of Woodsmoke: A Manual of Washington DC: U.S. Geological Survey Open File pared under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Printing Office. Primitive Outdoor Skills, Pp.22-36. Bountiful UT: Report 92-504. Horizon Publishers. Ritzenthaler, Robert E. 1978. Affairs, per act of Congress of March 3rd 1847. Part O’Connell, James F. 1975. The Prehistory of Surprise Polk, Michael R. 1979. Two Conical Timber Lodges Southwestern Chippewa. In Bruce G. Trigger, II. Philadelphia: Lipincott, Grambo and Company. Valley. Ramona: Ballena Press Anthropological in Central Oregon. Northwest Anthropological ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Scott, Skylar S. 1982. A History of the Gros Ventre Range, Papers No. 4. Research Notes 13(1):1-8. Moscow: University of vol. 15, Northeast, Pp.743-759. Washington DC: Wyoming. M.A. Thesis. Laramie: University of O’Connell, James F. and Jonathan E. Ericson. 1974. Idaho Department of Anthropology. Smithsonian Institution. Wyoming. Earth Lodges to Wickiups; A Long Sequence of Powers, Stephen. 1977. Tribes of California. Rogers, Edward S. and J. Garth Taylor. 1981. Northern Schullery, Paul. n.d.. The Greater Yellowstone Domestic Structures from the Northern Great Contributions to North American Ethnology Ojibwa. In June Helm, ed., Handbook of North Ecosystem. In Thomas J. Stohlgren, ed., Interior Basin. Nevada Archaeological Survey, Research Vol. 3. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the American Indians, vol. 6, Subarctic, Pp.231-243. West. Internet: http://biology.usgs. gov /s+t/pdf/ Paper 5. Interior. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Interior. pdf. O’Neil , Brian. 2005. The Rifle Wickiup Village. Paper Rapoport, Amos. 1969. House Form and Culture. Ross, Alexander. 1855. The Fur Hunters of the Far West: Schultz, James Willard. 1916. Blackfeet Tales of Glacier presented to the 2005 Annual Meetin g, Colorado Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. A Narrative of Adventure in the Oregon and Rocky National Park. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Council of Professional Archaeologists, Grand Mountains. London: Smith, Elder and Company. Junction, Colorado, March 5. Ray, Verne F. 1940. Culture Element Distributions: Schultz, James Willard. 1997. My Life as an Indian: XXII. Plateau. Berkeley: University of California Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1972. The Cayuse The Story of a Red Woman and a White Man in O’Neil, Floyd. 1968. An Anguished Odyssey: The Flight Anthropological Records 8(2):99-262. Indians: Imperial Tribesmen of Oregon. Norman: the Lodges of the Blackfeet. Mineola NY: Dover. o f the Utes, 1906-1908. Utah Historical Quarterly University of Oklahoma Press. [Original 1907, New York: Doubleday, Page & 36(4):315-329. Ray, Verne F. 1971. Lewis and Clark and the Nez Perce Indians. Potomac Corral WA: The Westerners, St. Clair, Jacquelin. 2006. Personal communication with Company.] Oetelaar, Gerald A. 2000. Beyond Activity Areas: Great Western Series no. 10. David White. Email, August 14. Seymour, Deni J. 2004. A Rancheria in the Gran Structure and Symbolism in the Organization Apacheria: Evidence of Intercultural Interaction and Use of Space in Tipis. Plains Anthropologist Reagan, A. B. 1931a. Notes on the Indians of the Fort Sanfilippo, Joanne M. 1998. Ute Wickiups or Navajo

104 References References 105 at the Cerro Rojo Site. Plains Anthropologist Walla. In Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of Sučec, Rosemary. 2007. Fulfilling Destinies, Sustaining University of Oklahoma Press. 49(190):153-192. North American Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp. 395- Lives: The Landscape of the Waterpocket Fold. Tuohy, Donald R. 1960. Two More Wickiups on the San Shields, George O. 1883. Hunting in the Great West: 419. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of Carlos Indian Reservation, Arizona. Kiva 26(2): Rustlings in the Rockies; Hunting and Fishing Stern, Theodore. 1998b. Klamath and Modoc. In American Indian Histories and Resource Uses 27-30. by Mountain and Stream. Chicago: Donohue Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of North Within Capitol Reef National Park and the Lands Tuohy, Donald R. 1969. Two Conical Wood Houses Brothers. American Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.446-466. Surrounding It. National Park Service. Denver, Near Masonic, Mono County, California. Reno: Shimkin, Demitri Boris. 1947. Wind River Shoshone Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Colorado. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 3(3):5-11. Ethnogeography. Berkeley: University of California Steward, Julian H. 1937. Linguistic Distribution and Sullivan, Helen. 1960. Report of a Lodge Pole Tepee. Turney-High, Harry H. 1937. The Flathead Indians of Trowel & Screen 1(6):5. Anthropological Records 5(4):245-288. Political Groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. Montana. Menasha: Memoirs of the American Shimkin, Demetri B. 1986. Eastern Shoshone. In American Anthropologist 34(4):625-634. Suphan, Robert J. 1974. Ethnological Report on the Anthropological Association 48:1-161. Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse Indians Warren L. D’Azevedo, ed., Handbook of North Steward, Julian H. 1941. Culture Element Distributions: Turney-High, Harry H. 1941. Ethnography of the Relative to Socio-Political Or American Indians, vol. 11, Great Basin, Pp.308- XIII. Nevada Shoshone. Berkeley: University of ganization and Land Kutenai. Menasha: Memoirs of the American Use. Re: Th 335. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. California Anthropological Records 4(2):209-259. e Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Anthropological Association 56:1-202. Shippee, James Mett. 1971.Wickiups of Reservation of Oregon v. The United States of Steward, Julian H. 1943. Culture Element Distributions: Underhill, Ruth. 1956. The Navajos. Norman: University Yellowstone Park. Plains Anthropologist 16(51): America, Before the Indian Claims Commission, XXIII. Northern and Gosiute Shoshoni. Berkeley: of Oklahoma Press. 74-75. University of California Anthropological Records Docket No. 264 and Docket No. 198, Def. Ex. #18. In David Agee Horr, ed., Indians of the Northwest: Underhill, Ruth. 1971 [orig. 1948]. Red Man’s America: Shoshone National Forest. 2006. VHS Video of Shoshone 8(3):263-392. Oregon Indians II, Pp.85-180. New York: Garland A History of Indians in the United States. Revised National Forest Wickiups. October 11-13 2006. Steward, Julian H. 1968. Review of The Current Status Publishing. edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Simms, Steven R. 1989. Structure of the Bustos Wickiup of Anthropological Work in the Great Basin: 1964. Swanton, James R. 1952. The Indian Tribes of North Vestal, Stanley. 1957. The History of the Tipi. In Laubin, Site, Eastern Nevada. Journal of California and American Antiquity 33(2):264-267. America. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Reginald and Gladys Laubin, The Indian Tipi: Its Great Basin Anthropology 11(1): 2-34. Steward, Julian H. 1974. Aboriginal and Historical American Ethnology Bulletin 145. Washington History, Construction and Use, Pp.3-14. Norman: Skinner, Alanson B. 1914. The Cultural Position of Groups of the Ute Indians of Utah: An Analysi9s DC: Government Printing Office. University of Oklahoma Press. t wit he Plains Ojibway. American Anthropologist h Supplement. In David Agee Horr, ed., Voegelin, Erminie W. 1942. Culture Element 16(2):314-318. American Indian Ethnohistory: California and Szabo, Joyce M. 1994. Shields and Lodges, Warriors Distributions: XX. Northeast California. Berkeley: Basin-Plateau Indians, Ute Indians I, Pp.25-159. and Chiefs: Kiowa Drawings as Historical Records. Spier, Leslie. 1928. Havasupai Ethnography. New York: Ethnohistory 41(1):1-24. University of California Anthropological Anthropological Papers of the American Museum New York: Garland Publishing Company. Tay Records 7(2):47-251. of Natural History 29(3):81-392. Stewart, Frank Henderson. 2001. Hidatsa. In Raymond lor, Dee C. 1964. Preliminary Archaeological Investigation in Yellowstone National Park. Voget, Fred W. 1943 (?). Documentary and Ethnological J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North American Spinden, Herbert Joseph. 1908. The Nez Percé Missoula: Ms., University of Montana. Observations. In William T. Mulloy, Historic and Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.329-348. Washington Indians. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Protohistoric Villages in the Yellowstone Valley, Association 2(3):165-274. Lancaster PA: The New DC: Smithsonian Institution. Taylor, D. C., K. Wood and J. J. Hoffman. 1964. Preliminary Archeological Investigations in Pp.65-82. Manuscript in possession of Lawrence Era Printing Company. Stewart, Omer C . 1941. Cu lt u re E lement Dist r ibut ions: Yellowstone National Mark. Missoula: Montana Loendorf. XIV. Northern Paiute. Berkeley: University of Spindler, Louise S. 1978. Menominee. In Bruce Trigger, State University. Voget, Fred. 1977. Timber Shelters of the Crow Indians. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, vol. California Anthropological Records 4(3):361-446. Terry, Alfred H. 1970. The Field Diary of General Alfred Archaeology in Montana 18(2-3):1-18. 15, Northeast, Pp.708-724. Washington DC: Stewart, Omer C. 1966. Tribal Distributions and H. Voget, Fred W. 2001. Crow. In Raymond J. DeMallie, Smithsonian Institution. Boundaries in the Great Basin. In Warren L. Terry: The Yellowstone Expedition, 1876. Second edition. Bellevue NE: The Old Army Press. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 13, Steinbring, Jack H. 1981. Saulteaux of Lake Winnepeg. D’Azevado et al., eds., The Current Status of Thomas, Alfred Barnaby. 1935. After Coronado. Plains, Pp.695-717. Washington DC: Smithsonian In June Helm, ed., Handbook of North American Anthropological Research in the Great Basin: Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Tilton, Institution. Indians, vol. 6, Subarctic, Pp.244-255. Washington 1964, Pp.167-238. Reno: University of Nevada, Mary. 1965. Ancient Tepee Still Stands in Walker, Deward E., Jr. 1982. Indians of Idaho. Moscow: DC: Smithsonian Institution. Desert Research Institute, Social Sciences and Humanities Publications 1. Mountain Glade. Great Falls Tribune, November University Press of Idaho. Stern, Nicola. 1994 The Implications of Time- Averaging Stiger, Mark. 2005. The Mountaineer Site: A Folsom 28. Walker, Deward E., Jr. 1985. Conflict and Schism in the for Reconstructing the Land-Use Patterns of Nez Perce Acculturation: A Study of Religion and Early Tool-Using Hominids. Journal of Human House and Residential Occupation. Paper present- Trenholm, Virginia Cole. 1986. The Arapahoes, Our People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Politics. Moscow: University of Idaho Press. Evolution 27:89-105. ed to the 2005 Annual Meeting, Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Grand Junction, Walker, Deward E., Jr. 1998. Nez Perce. In Deward E. Stern, Theodore. 1998a. Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Trenholm, Virginia Cole and Maurice Carley. 1964. Colorado, March 5. The Shoshonis: Sentinels of the Rockies. Norman: Walker, Jr., ed., Handbook of North American

106 References References 107 Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, Pp.420-438. Washington Horse and Buggy Tour Guides. New Mexico: DC: Smithsonian Institution. University of New Mexico Press. Wallace, Ben J. 1969. Oklahoma Kickapoo Culture Wissler, Clark. 1910. Material Culture of the Blackfoot APPENDIX A Change. Plains Anthropologist 14(44/1):107-112. Indians. New York: American Museum of Natural Scopes of Work: Phases 1-3 Warr, Lloyd C. 2006. Personal communication with History Anthropological Papers 5(1):1-175. David White. Email, May 10; telephone conversa- Wissler, Clark. 1922. The American Indians. New York: Final Scope of Work (9/29/04) - PHASE ONE tion, May 13. Oxford University Press. Ethnographic Research on Wickiups within Bridger- organizations and members. A detailed discussion of Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1973. The American Indian Wissler, Clark. 1948 [orig. 1912]. North American Teton National Forest, Grand Teton National Park, proposed methodology for carrying out the neces- and the United States: A Documentary History. 4 Indians of the Plains. New York: American and Yellowstone National Park sary studies is provided. Important subsections of the vols. New York: Random House. Museum of Natural History, Handbook Series No. (2004-2005) methodology discussion focus on Native American ethnography and different sources of information per- Waterman, T. T. 1925. North American Indian 1. tinent to study goals. Next, theoretical orientation is Dwellings. Reprinted from the Smithsonian Wissler, Clark. 1966. Indians of the United States. briefly noted, along with the proposer’s understanding Report for 1924, pages 41-485. Publication 2814. Revised edition (original 1940). Garden City NY: Literature Search Only, No Travel of peoples to be referenced in the study. Qualifications Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Doubleday. of the proposer’s organization and personnel are (Originally published in The Geographical Review Wood, W. Raymond. 1967. An Interpretation of Mandan noted. The proposed budget is provided separately . 14[1]:1-25.) Culture History. Bureau of American Ethnology Submitted to Rosemary Sučec Waterman, T. T. 1927. The Architecture of the American Bulletin 198. Washington DC: Government Yellowstone National Park Indians. American Anthropologist 29(2):210-230. Printing Office. Background Watkins, Frances E. 1945. Moapa Paiute Winter Wood, W. Raymond and Alan S. Downer. 1977. Notes on The Bridger-Teton National Forest (BRTE) co n- Wickiup. Masterkey 19:13-18. the Crow-Hidatsa Schism. Plains Anthropologist by David White sists of 3.4 million acres adjacent to the Grand Teton 22(78/2): 83-100. Wedel, Waldo. 1954. Earthenware and Steatite Vessels Applied Cultural Dynamics National Park and the National Elk Refuge; these from Northern Wyoming. American Antiquity Wood, W. Raymond and Lee Irwin. 2001. Mandan. In 7 Frasco Way, Santa Fe NM 87508 lands have been under federal protection since the 29(4):403-409. Raymond J. DeMallie, ed., Handbook of North Phone 505-466-3444 late nineteenth century. Grand Teton Nationa l Park Wedel, Waldo. 1979. House Floors and Native American Indians, vol. 13, Plains, Pp.349-365. DUNS No. 176829646 (GRTE), established by Congress in 1929, was com- Settlement Populations in the Central Plains. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. August 2004 bined with Jackson Hole National Monument in Plains Anthropologist 24(84):85-98. Will, George F. 1909. Some Observations Made 1950 to include more than 300,000 acres. Yellowstone National Park (YELL), the nation’s first national park, Wenker, Chris T. 1992. Native American Timber in Northwest South Dakota. American was established in 1872, including 2.2 million acres. Structures of t he Northwestern Plains. Archaeology Anthropologist 11:257-265. Overview The study area as a whole incorporates nearly 6 million in Montana 33(1):5-29. Wilson, Gilbert L. 1928. Hidatsa Eagle Trapping. This Scope of Work is predicated on a success- acres of land, while the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Anthropological Papers of the American Museum White, David R. M. 2003. Ethnographic Investigation ful proposal by Applied Cultural Dynamics (dated includes 18 to 20 million acres. Management of lands of Natural History 30(4). New York. of Wickiups Affected by a Wildfire in the Great 8/25/04) which led to a contract award (P158040592, within the national parks and national forest has fo- Sand Dunes National Monument and Preserve, Wilson, Gilbert L. 1934. The Hidatsa Earthlodge. September 7 2004). The Scope of Work has been cused primarily on protection of unique geological Colorado. Report Prepared for the National Park Anthropological Papers of the American Museum put into final form following a conference call on features and wildlife. Archaeolo gical sites have re- Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver CO. of Natural History 33(5):411-414. New York. September 27, 2004, involving David White, Rosemary ceived a fair amount of study but ethnographic con- White, David R. M. 2005. What is a Wickiup? Yates, Diana. 1992. Chief Joseph: Thunder Rolling Suĉec, Merry Haydon, and Jacquelin St. Clair. siderations have been a relatively recent consideration. Ethnographic Considerations. Paper presented Down From the Mountains. Staten Island: Ward to the 2005 Annual Meeting, Colorado Council Hill Press. The Scope of Work begins by discussing the back- Wickiup sites comprise an interesting sort of Professional Archaeologists, Grand Junction, Yellowstone National Park. 2006. VHS Video of ground of Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand Teton of resource, being simultaneously archaeologi- Colorado, March 5. Yellowstone National Park Wickiups and park National Park and Yellowstone National Park, and man- cal and ethnographic in nature; the opport u- White Mountain Apache Tribe. 1997. White Mountain archeologist, Ann Johnson. Summer 2006. agement needs related to the proposal. It briefly notes nity exists to provide methodology for develop- Apache Museum, Cultural Center Will Rewrite Zedeno, Maria Nieves. 2007. Personal communication the proposer’s understanding of deliverables requested ing objectively defined management techniques History. Whiteriver AZ: Fort Apache Scout (email) with David White, January 8. by the DOI/USDA. A section on the ethics of fieldwork that incorporate subjective evaluation criteria. 36(10):1, April 29. was included in the proposal, but it is deleted here as Whittlesey, Lee. 2007. Storytelling in Yellowstone: it pertained exclusively to consultations with Tribal

108 References Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 109 Ethnographic information generally, and infor- 2. Consul t with ag ency cul tural re - Mexico, Albuquerque, and the nationally-known library comparing and contrasting usage and importance mation on Native American resource usa ge in par- source management personnel, as identi- of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe), through of wickiups to the various Tribes. Alternative A will ticular, is important in order for NPS to comply fied in the RFP and as may be further sug- interlibrary loan (the Laboratory of Anthropology has produce no Tribal management recommendations. with various policies as described in NPS-28. The gested through contact with those individuals; exceptional success in securing obscure materials in this USFS is also in need of ethnographic information manner), from the knowledgeable Euroamerican indi- The report will include evaluation of data gaps, and for their management purposes, and this is poten- 3. Consult with a number of knowledgeable in- d i- viduals consulted by telephone, and from agency pe r- recommendations on appropriate future research, e s- tially more urgent for USFS than for NPS given the viduals, as identified in the RFP and as may be further sonnel who have copies of ‘gray literature’ documents. pecially as regards intensive interviews and/or field USFS mandate for multiple-use management of lands. suggested through contact with those individuals; Explorers’ journals will be examined, as these often in- visits. It will be written in language understand- clude pertinent information that may be overlooked in able to an educated lay public, as well to specialists An NPS Solicitation dated July 12, 2004 (RFQ- 4. Review various existing pu blished and published anthropological literature. Visits to regional in fields such as history and anthropology. Sensitive Q1580040592) reflects a goal to produce a study unpublished information, as identified in the repositories with materials otherwise unavailable will information, as identified by Tribal consultants, will on wickiups, both known and potentially occur - RFP and as may be further identified by search - be deferred until such time as additional funding ma y be included in confidential appendices or othe r- ring, within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Grand ing regionally appropriate data repositories; become available, but reasonable attempts will be made wise dealt with according to Tribal recommendation. Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Forest. to identify repositories that may have such materials. Such a report will facilitate park and forest plan- 5. Provide an inventory of known wickiups within The Principal Investigator (PI) will carry out the ning, environmental assessments, and other re - and near BRTE, GRTE and YELL, with maps, pho - The literature search will include attention to the full literature review, prepare the draft and final reports, source-related management decisions, and will con- tographs discovered during research, site forms and range of Native American Tribes currently being con- and carry out the authorized consultations. The tribute substantially toward agency obligations to other written descriptions, environmental contex- sulted by BRTE-GRTE-YELL on archaeological and eth- four-chapter format suggested in the RFP, plus refer- consult with American Indian tribes having known tual information, names for wickiups in En glish and nographic concerns, in order to reliabl y identify those ences cited and appendices, will be followed unless affiliation with lands administered by these agencies . native languages, Tribal affiliation with wickiups American Indian Tribes with the greatest potential con- changes are approved in advance by the COTR. A and criteria for evaluating tribal affiliation, as- ses- nection to the wickiups. This will guide future consul- minimal index will be provided if this feature of The proposal upon which this Scope of Work is sment of traditional uses of wickiups and evaluation tations, in the event that additional funding becomes Word performs as well as the ‘help’ manual suggests. based addressed the subject Request for Proposal (RRP), of their significance both in terms of the National available. If and when there is a decision to proceed Appendices will include any confidential material, ma- with modifications as suggested by an NPS letter (Patty Register of Historic Places (i.e., through provision with consultation, this will be initiated as an official gov- terial provided primarily for administrative or man- Oestreich to David White, August 11, 2004). To briefly of an historic context) and broader general crite- ernment-to-government notification by the appropriate agement purposes, and extensive documentation ma- summarize, the modification letter requests three alter- ria as may be culturally meaningful to the affili- YELL personnel (presumably the Contracting Officer’s terial that does not belong in the body of the report. natives: (A) a scope and budget to conduct a literature ated Tribes, and discussion of management options Technical Representative, COTR), with assistance from search only, and prepare a report thereon; (B) a scope from both federal agency and Tribal perspectives. the contractor if authorized to provide such assistance. The report will be in American Anthropolo gist and budget to conduct a literature search and consult format, with no oversized material; five copies of with three Tribes only, and preparea report thereon; and The study will achieve broad results throu gh cost- Alternative A provides for a videotape to be provided the draft report will be submitted (identified in a (C) a scope and budget to conduct a literature search effective research methodology. No travel will be un- by federal representatives, showing the wickiup sites. header or footer as DRAFT) and distributed as su g- and consult with five Tribes only, and prepare a report dertaken during the authorized study phase, and It is intended that this will be provided to the tribes gested in the RFP for NPS and USFS review. The final thereon. This final Scope of Work is based on Alternative consultation with American Indian Tribal members at agency expense, once a decision is made to pro- report, addressing NPS/USFS comments on the draft, A, the literature search only, and a report thereon. will be deferred until such time as additional fund- ceed with tribal consultation. The videotape is in- will be submitted with one initial approval copy, to ing may become available. Consultation with a gency tended to help Tribes in determinin g whether site be followed by three unbound camera-ready origi- personnel and knowledgeable EuroAmerican in- visits to the wickiups would be desirable, and this nals and ten (10) bound copies. The final report will Deliverables dividuals will be initiated, and continued when- in turn would help BRTE, GRTE and YELL in deter - also be submitted electronically in MS Word 2000 Solicitation RFQ-Q1580040592 (mod ified by NPS ever possible, by means of telephone conversations, mining appropriate levels of funding for further work. and, should the Contracting Officer’s Technical letter of August 11, 2004) requests various wor k prod- email and surface mail. Pertinent information will be Representative (COTR) so desire, also in pdf format. ucts. The modification letter suggested three alterna- sought for all areas within the Greater Yellowstone The Wickiup Study Report will be formatted to tives; only Alternative A is discussed here. It includes: Ecosystem, although in-depth study will be lim- include concise ethnographic summaries of cul - ited to the study area as identified in the RFP. tural groups and their use of wickiups—both past Proposed Methodology 1. Write a report on wickiups within the stud y and present. The extent of such information will be The proposed work is organized on the basis o f area (lands of BRTE, GRTE, and YELL), to include Published and unpublished information will somewhat limited under Alternative A, as it is an- what Finan and van Willigen call “stepwise research” results of investigations further detailed below; be sought either through locally-available resources ticipated that much of this information will be u n- (1991, “The Pursuit of Social Knowledge: Methodology (Zimmerman Library, the Southwest Research Center available from published and unpublished litera- and the Practice of Anthropology”). In other words, and the Clark Field Archive of the University of New ture. The report will also include overview sections,

110 Appendix A Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 111 related components of work are carried out in dis- 2. Research Design Refinement (Months 2-4) will in- Progress Reports will be submitted along with in- 7. access issues or problems regarding any crete increments in order to avoid duplication of effort. corporate new data developed durin g Phase 1 of Data voices, upon completion of deliverable steps (as d e- of the places or resources listed above; and Collection. A refined Re- search Design will be provided tailed in the proposed budget). It is expected that Alternative A. The proposed schedule for Alternative to the COTR following the initial conference call, and these will be brief and that they will focus on cor- 8. how contemporary life may or may not A includes one data collection phase and a research further refinement will continue as appropriate. A relating actual progress with the Work Schedule. relate to concerns about wickiup sites, includ- design refinement phase, one analysis phase, and progress report (#1) detailing research design refine- ing USFS/NPS management of such sites. one report preparation phase. The schedule is shown ment will be provided as a deliverable for this step . Native American Ethnography: General in terms of months from startup for a total of 12 Considerations. For each Native American group In all contacts with American Indian people, it months of study resulting in a final report. It is as- 3. Data Analysis (Months 5-8). The PI will conduct considered, there will be a brief ethnographic profile would be made clear that information that should not sumed, following the RFP modification letter of data analysis for the project. This will involve orga- written. This will deal with language, residential and be divulged will in fact be protected. The focus of the August 11, 2004, that this will probably be from nizing information (e.g., references, library notes subsistence patterns, and traditional architecture, at BRTE-GRTE-YELL Wickiup Study will be to provide October 1, 2004, until the end of September, 2005. and interview notes) from Phases 1 and 2 of data a minimum. The profile will focus on traditional re- identifications and evaluations of wickiup-related sites Work is not proposed to begin until fiscal year 2005. collection. In- formation will be compiled and a s- source use and activities likely to leave archaeological and resources, in order to enhance park/forest manage- sessed for validity. Data pertaining to wickiups and remains including wickiups and other temporary shel- ment actions and to make the parks and forest more 1. Data Collection Phase (Literature/Archival Study related resources in BRTE-GRTE-YELL will be ters. The ethnographic profile will deal with contempo- responsive to Native American concerns for wickiups. – Months 1-6). Research will begin upon authoriza - assessed in terms of regulatory criteria for potential rary practice of traditional culture, as well, both in gen- tion. Within one month of authorization, a telephone eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, eral and as it potentially applies to wickiup resources. consultation (conference call) will be held involving key as “Traditional Cultural Properties” or another ap- Sources of Information personnel at BRTE, GRTE and YELL, includin g the propriate qualifying status. Photographs will be pro- Topics to be discussed in interviews with Native Human Relations Area Files ( HRAF) COTR and as many of the cultural resource manage- cessed and la- beled, and maps of wickiups will be American groups, if such are possible in the future bibliographies, now available online (WinSPIRS1989- ment personnel as are available, to resolve any necessary prepared (only general maps will be used in the as a result of additional funding, include ident i- present), will be utilized for identi fication of primary details on the scope of work and to secure appropriate report; maps showing specific resource locations will fication of and/or concerns about the following: “classic” ethnographic monographs and articles pe r- documentation from the parks and national forest. Any be provided in a confidential appendix to the report). taining to the Tribes under consideration, as well agency individuals not availableat the time of this con- 1. shelters of various sorts (with particular at- as recent secondary sources providing overviews. ference call will be con- tacted as soon as possible there- The known universe of BRTE-GRTE- YELL wicki- tention to the matter of how cultural affiliation Contact will be made with contractors presently in- after. Phase 1 of data collection will consist of literature ups is quite small. The parameters of environmental to the particular group might be recognized); volved in production of an Ethnographic Overview and archival work. The PI will secure pertinent data contexts within which these occur will be carefully Study for GRTE and the National Elk Reserve, for from park and forest files, beginning at the time of studied, and if possible a predictive model for occur- 2. trails and shrines, insofar as these might be associ- recommendations of other pertinent data sources. the first meeting. Much of the initial literature review rence of presently unknown wickiups will be de- ve l- ated with shelters; will be conducted at the Laboratory of Anthropology oped. This should be readily possible at a very gross Ethnographic “gray literature” will be utilized library in Santa Fe, and the Zimmerman Librar y and level, in terms of factors such as site slope and proxim- 3. burial practices and whether these mi ght ever when readily available; this would include ethn o- associated libraries in Albuquerque NM. Interlibrary ity to permanent water sources. A more discriminat- relate to wickiups or remains that could be mistaken for graphic overviews and assessments produced for loans through the Laboratory of Anthropology will be ing model would depend on acquiring data for a larger wickiups (e.g., how might deteriorated scaffold burials other land-managing agencies in the vicinity of BRTE, used to minimize the need for travel to distant reposi- sample of wickiup sites; this may or may not be avail- be mistaken from, or distinguished from, wickiups); GRTE and YELL. Future funding may allow archi- tories. A progress report (#2, see research design phase able as a result of consultation with various a gencies. val data repositories to be sampled for information report #1 below) will be submitted to the COTR as a de- A progress report (#3) will be submitted in month 8. 4. ethnobotanical resources and the probabil- it y of not otherwise available. Libraries at the Universit y of liverable for this step. No visits will be made to BRTE, wickiups being located in proximity to the resources; Wyoming, in Laramie, could be a major source of in- GRTE or YELL for examination of their files; federal 4. Report Preparation (Months 9-10). The fully edited formation; other repositories that would bear inves- personnel will provide pertinent information directly draft report will be written, printed, and submitted to 5. ethnozoological resources and their potential re- tigation are at the SHPO offices in Idaho, Montana, to the contractor. Particular attention will be devoted the NPS by the PI. The transmittal letter will serve as lationship to wickiups (e.g., are wickiups more likely to Wyoming and Colorado. Historical collections at to the historical literature pertaining to exploration progress report #4. Upon receipt of NPS comments on be associated with certain sorts of hunting activities?); the Denver Public Library could also prove useful. of the Upper Missouri River Valley, including journals the draft report (Month 11), appropriate revisions will from early exploration, beginning with the Lewis and be made and the final report will be submitted to NPS 6. places of power or places with religious sig - Clark expedition and continuing with journals of trap- within thirty days after receipt of comments (Month 12). nificance or ceremonial locations and wheth- Theoretical Orientation pers, mountain men, and later government explora - er wickiups might be associated with such places; A Study of Wickiups does not require extensive theo- tion parties (e.g., for development of the railroads). rizing, as the goal is straightforwardly descriptive. Yet

112 Appendix A Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 113 10 E. Villard St. theory finds its place into any study, whether implicitly within the study area. These are (1) the Blackfeet Tribe strategy exists despite the impending resource dan- Bozeman, MT 59715 or explicitly, and it is likely to substantially influence de- of northwestern Montana, (2) the Confederated Salish gers and the significance of these structures to tribes. [email protected] cisions about what will be chosen for description and and Kootenai Tribes of western Montana, (3) the Crow (406) 223-0420 what will be dismissed as being of little or no concern. Tribe of northern Montana, (4) the Shoshone- The two forests and two parks have entered into Hence it is appropriate to make theoretical orienta- Bannock Tribe of the Fort Hall Reservation (Idaho), a written agreement to conduct research to enable tions explicit. The study will have dual theoretical bases. and (5) the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River management of wickiups within their jurisdictions. Reservation (Wyoming). A total of 26 Tribes are con- Objective and Rationale Culminating from the first phase of the wickiup study, First, Ecological Theory in anthropology presumes sulted on various cultural issues, by the agencies. there now exists an extensive literature review. What that human life is meaningfully organized in relation Alternative A, as proposed herein, does not include The overall objective of this project is to produce a is missing now is the information gleaned from the to natural resources. Such relations are often easily ob- consultation with any of these Tribes, but the litera- report that includes information gleaned from the first tribes. Their knowledge is pertinent to capture the most served by means of archaeological data. Exploitation ture review will encompass them insofar as possible. phase of research (already completed) as well as from complete and accurate information about these struc - of resources occurs by means of available technology work with tribes required in this phase. The report will tures, as well as to assist jurisdictions in their manage - and according to ideological presumptions of appro- identify likely tribal affiliations (currently unknown) ment of the structures in a culturally-informed manner. priate behavior, and political governance (whether in- Final Scope of Work (07/08/08) - PHASE TWO of wickiups, their significance to tribal peoples, their ternal or through intergroup dynamics) guides Research on Wickiups within Bridger-Teton Nation- actual and potential locations within Bridger-Teton access to resources. Shelters (including but not limited al Forest, Grand Teton National Park, and Yellow- National Forest (BRTE), Shoshone National Forest Desired Outcome: to wickiups) can potentially tell a great deal about the stone National Park (SHOS), Grand Teton Nationa l Park (GRTE), and During this second phase of study, knowledge from relationship between people and the environments they (2008-2011) Yellowstone National Park (YELL), and mana gement the tribes will be collected and incorporated into infor- exploit; conversely, historical understanding of differ- recommendations based on input from the tribes. mation gathered during the first study phase to provide ing Tribal relations to the environment may be helpful Second Phase: Consultation conscious and culturally informed management o p- in identifying Tribal affiliation with specific wickiups. Rocky Mountain Cooperative Ecosystems Unit (RM- Wickiups in BRTE, SHOS, GRTE, and YELL are tions for all jurisdictions. These management options CESU) recognized as rare and ephemeral cultural resources will be included in the report due as part of this study. Second, Social Construction Theory (see Peter Agreement Number: H1200040001 (IMR) that date from the protohistoric or very early historic The report will also include information to locate ad- Berger and Thomas Luckman, 1967, The Social period. Though several hundred were documented in ditional wickiups within all jurisdictions, contribute in- Construction of Reality) explains how social groups early historical accounts, particularly for YELL, only a formation to cultural (archeological and ethnographic) construct culturally specific views of reality. This ap- National Park Service Key Official few are known to remain. Up until the first study phase, resource management databases, and provide informa- proach, combined with traditional anthropological Tobin Roop no formal survey and documentation of wickiups had tion helpful in forests and parks planning and visitor perspectives on the concept of culture, is important P. O. Box 168 taken place in BRTE, SHOS, GRTE, and YELL. O f education efforts. It will include a section on data gaps in developing a coherent representation of processes Yellowstone Center for Resources the 29 wickiup sites recorded to date in the stud y area, and suggestions for further research. This report will involved in the development of cultural landscapes. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190 many of these structures are in fragile condition and be distributed to Greater Yellowstone managers, arche- (307) 344-2215 deteriorating. Also, tribes have not been thorou ghly ologists and ethnographers in the NPS Intermountain Taken together, the two theoretical approaches sug- [email protected] spoken with about these resources. Before the wickiup Region, and to tribes and their representatives. gest appropriate questions for better understanding study began, at least five tribes (Blackfeet Tribe, Crow tribal uses of the natural environment and its resourc- Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Confederated Salish and es, in both practical and symbolic contexts. The ideal Principal Investigator Kootenai Tribes, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes) fo r- Objectives in Research with Tribes: result will be a study presenting an integrated view of Gregory Campbell mally acknowledged the significance of these structures Communication with tribes will include con - wickiups and their place within the natural and cul- Department of Anthropology and had knowledge to convey about them. The exten- tact by letter, phone calls, interviews, and field visits. tural environment of BRTE, GRTE and YELL, as fil- Social Science Building sive ethnographic literature search completed durin g Communication will determine the actual and potential tered through different cultural perceptions and as ad- University of Montana the first phase of the wickiup study has now expanded locations of wickiups within the study area, their signifi- dressed either potentially or in actuality through both Missoula, Montana 59812 that number of tribes to include all 26 potentially aff- cance to tribal people, along with their functions, mean- archaeological and ethnographic research methods. (406) 243-2478 filiated tribes with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. ing, and likely affiliation (currently unknown), and their [email protected] In formal government-to-government consu ltations recommendations for management. From this report, with forest- and parks-associated tribes, oral agree- the four jurisdictions can make conscious and cultur- Peoples to be Included in the Study ments were made by the parks to research and devel- ally informed decisions based on input from the tribes The BRTE-GRTE-YELL RFP identifies at least five Researcher op a management strategy for these rare and endan - about their management, including determining their Tribes known to have information about wickiups Katharine L. White gered structures. To date, no conscious management National Register eligibility. From this information,

114 Appendix A Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 115 t the four jurisdictions will determine whether a co- *ODPSQPSBUF JOGPSNBUJPO HBUIFSFE EVSJOH there be a survey of the landscape surrounding the Report Objjectives: ordinated management of wickiups is feasible or de- research with tribes with the topographical attri- wickiups to locate associated features? Should data be sirable. To this end, the researcher is expected to: butes collected from the first study phase to provide placed at all known wickiup sites so that the location The researcher will supplement the first phase doc- a narrative about the potential locations of wicki- can be preserved though the structure has deteriorat- umentary review with the content of interviews con- t *OUFSWJFX UIF JEFOUJĕFE LOPXMFEHFBCMF NFNCFST ups in the four jurisdictions. This information will ed? Should they be monitored? Should a fire protec- ducted with tribal members. (A copy of that report of American Indian tribes about wickiups as speci fied be used in planning and for compliance purposes; tion plan be developed or does it exist? Does it seem will be provided to the researcher.) The identification by tribal governmental offices. In some cases, inter- feasible for the forests and parks to coordinate their and documentation obtained from tribes will focus on view may be conducted by members of those offices. t *G OBUJWF OBNFT PG XJDLJVQT BSF HBUIFSFE management? Is it appropriate for existing wickiups the traditional bases for the wickiup uses, the ascrip- The Ethnography Office is willing to assist in obtain- during work with tribes add those names to the list to be removed from their location and reconstructed tion of value and significance placed on these resources ing the names of tribal members to be interviewed of wickiup names (in English and in native languag- within USFS or NPS museums? What do participat- by the tribal communities or community mem bers, through a formal government-to-government process. es) that was developed during the first study phase; ing tribes think about this? Wyoming and Colorado information about cultural affiliation, if possible, and Questions that might be asked include whether tribal historical societies have moved and reconstructed tribal management recommendations. The interviews members still visit wickiup sites on federal lands, and, t *ODPSQPSBU F JOGPSNBUJPO HMFBOFE EVSJOH wickiups inside their institutions. Are there wickiups will serve to augment the literature search by adding if so, whether the structures are added to or chan ged work with tribes to identify the likely tribal affilia- in the four jurisdictions that would be appropriate to and/or updating the data derived from the literature in any way; if the tradition of building wickiups is still tion of wickiups and incorporate that information to let the public visit in order to interpret wickiups?; review. Topographical information will be synthesized being practiced on federal lands; who used wickiups in into the report. For example, do they know of ind i- to provide information about potential locations within the past and who may continue to use them; whether cators of ethnicity, for example, through construc- t *ODPSQPSBUF JOGPSNBUJPO HBUIFSFE GSPN SF- the four jurisdictions. A list of native and non-native specific wickiup locations are known and where the y tion? In the use of materials? In features on the search with tribes to provide an historical context names used to describe wickiups will be provided and would customarily be located; if wickiup structures landscape associated with the wickiups?, and so on; that will help evaluate the eligibility of wickiups to the will augment that provided in the first phase stud y. are tied in with seasonal migration routes and, if so, National Register and include information from the what activities; and whether the tribes have knowl - t *EFOUJGZ UIF USBEJUJPOBM VTFT PG XJDLJVQT GSPN tribes as to whether they can or should be considered Research results will describe, to the extent pos- edge of traditional uses of wickiups. The researcher conversations with tribal members and incorporate traditional cultural properties. If so, what attributes of sible, specific past as well as contemporary uses and will be provided a video production to share with tribal that information into the report. Were they used as shel- wickiups make them traditional cultural properties?; meanings of wickiups within the study area. This de- members. The video is a compilation of all the wick- ters? For ceremonial purposes? As sweat lodges? Or?; scription will focus on the integration of resource iup sites video-recorded in the study area as of 2008. t1IPUPT XJMM CF DPMMFDUFE GSPN USJCFT JG BWBJMBCMF uses and meanings with other selected aspects of t *EFOUJGZ UIF TJHOJĕDBODF PG XJDLJVQT UP FBDI PG Compile photographs taken of wickiups in the study tribal community cultural patterns. The researcher t*G VOSFDPSEFE XJDLJVQ TJUFT BSFJEFOUJĕFE EVSJOH the potentially associated tribes and/or tribal member; area that are shared by tribal members during com- will identify existing or potential conflicts between communication with tribes, as much information as munication and site visits with tribes. Photo graphs tribal group wickiup uses/traditional practices and possible will be collected to record them onto the ap - t *EFOUJGZ FBDI USJCFT QSFGFSSFE NBO- should be identified by site number, if available; current USFS and NPS management of these re- propriate Wyoming Cultural Property Forms. If photo- agement actions for the wickiups; sources. Along with this inventory, the researcher will graphs are available of these structures, include copies t *G UJNF BOE GVOEJOH QFSNJUT EFWFMPQ B TJUF GPSN recommend potential mitigation of these conflicts. of them to attach to the site form. Also provide a map t *ODPSQPSBUF JOGPSNBUJPO HBUIFSFE GSPN USJCBM for recording wickiups. Or, at a minimum, list the fac- showing all the new wickiup site locations. This informa- communication to develop culturally informed man- tors (including ones relevant to the tribes) that should The researcher will also provide management recom- tion will be placed in an appendix that will be submitted agement strategies for wickiups. Make recommenda- be included in a site form for the recordation of wicki- mendations to the USFS and NPS as identified in the under separate cover to protect the location of the sites; tions (separately and collectively) for management ups. For example, factors should include those that specific objectives above. The researcher will provide options to BRTE, SHOS, GRTE, and YELL. O ptions may contribute to cultural affiliation. Do site forms an historic context that will help to evaluate the eligi- t 8F FTUJNBUF UISFF FMEFST GSPN BQQSPYJNBUFMZ may include stabilization, restoration, interpretive re - exist for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? Forms can bility of wickiups to the National Re gister of Historic six tribes will wish to make field visits to wickiup lo- creation, preservation in a museum collection, and / be downloaded from their websites if the y exist. The Places and that should be considered for nomination cations. The researcher together with the NPS Key or consciously allowing them to decay or be otherwise USFS and NPS do know of a site form that has been to the National Register, if applicable, as Traditional Official will arrange those visits. The visits will be naturally destroyed. For example, should wickiups be developed for the state of Colorado and do have that Cultural Properties (see National Register Bulletin 38). coordinated with the appropriate federal land man- nominated as Traditional Cultural Properties under example in our possession to provide it to the re- agers. The visits will be paid for by the University Bulletin 38 and, if so, what criteria should be used to searcher. Is the form sufficient or should it be amended The researcher will identify data gaps that of Montana project budget. Information gleaned make that determination? Is there additional archeo- based on the synthesis of research? What ethnographic indicate the need for additional research. from these visits will be incorporated into the report; logical work that should be done in association with factors or issues might be missing from such a form? the wickiups? For example, are there hearths that could be excavated? Can the timber poles be dated? Should

116 Appendix A Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 117 Department of Anthropology Methodologgyy and Procedures: t ćF USJCBM NFNCFS JOTJTUT PO EJSFDU RVPUFT GVMMZ extensive ethnographic literature search completed Social Science Building understands the potential effects of being identified, and during the first phase of the wickiup study has now University of Montana The researcher must gain adequate permission and/or signs a release form; or expanded that number of tribes to include all 26 po- Missoula, Montana 59812 permits from official tribal representatives or organiza- tentially affiliated tribes with the Greater Yellowstone (406) 243-2478 tions to conduct research. In working with American t ćF JEFOUJUZ PG UIF USJCBM NFNCFS JT LFQU DPOĕ- Ecosystem. In formal government-to-government con- [email protected] Indian tribes, consent must be obtained by communi- dential and indicated only with a code where relevant. sultations with forest- and parks-associated tribes, oral cating with the appropriate governmental represent a- agreements were made by the parks to research and de- tives. Representatives from BRTE, SHOS, GRTE and The researcher will retain original field notes. velop a management strategy for these rare and endan- Researcher YELL will provide the names, addresses, other con- Selected portions of especially important data, with gered structures. To date, no conscious management Katharine L. White tact information, and suggestions to the researcher. tribal contact names deleted or the code name substi- strategy exists despite the impending resource dan- 10 E. Villard St. tuted, may be provided to the USFS or NPS managers . gers and the significance of these structures to tribes. Bozeman, MT 59715 The researcher will provide to official representa - [email protected] tives of the tribes copies of the final draft report for The researcher will provide to the USFS and The two forests and two parks have entered into (406) 223-0420 review. Reviews by tribal community representatives NPS tapes of the interviews conducted. If video a written agreement to conduct research to enable are to provide opportunities for input into and evalu- recording of interviews is permitted, the USFS management of wickiups within their jurisdictions. ation of the reports regarding the accuracy of the i n- and NPS also will receive copies of those videos. Objjective and Rationale: Culminating from the first phase of the wickiup study, formation obtained from tribal interviews and field there now exists an extensive literature review. The visits, as well as the appropriate presentation of infor- The researcher will be familiar with USFS and NPS The overall objective of this project is to produce a second phase of the study will incorporate tradi- mation considered culturally sensitive. Reviews also policies and guidelines on ethnography and Native report that includes information gleaned from the first tional knowledge and recommendations from the as - provide input into whether the course of the study Americans. phase of research (already completed) as well as from sociated tribes. What remains is the final editing o f should be adjusted. The researcher, along with USFS work with tribes required in this phase. The report will the report, professional layout and printing of the and NPS, will defer to communities’ wishes regarding identify likely tribal affiliations (currently unknown) report, as well as distribution to partners and tribes. the appropriate means and methods of presenting in of wickiups, their significance to tribal peoples, their the final report any information related to the religious Final Scope of Work (06/10/09) - PHASE THREE actual and potential locations within Bridger-Teton Desired Outcome: or sacred beliefs and practices associated with wicki- Research on Wickiups within Bridger-Teton Nation- National Forest (BRTE), Shoshone National Forest ups. This may mean that some information is omitted al Forest, Grand Teton National Park, and Yellow- (SHOS), Grand Teton Nationa l Park (GRTE), and During this third and final phase of the project the altogether, or is orally relayed to public land managers. stone National Park (2009-2011) Yellowstone National Park (YELL), and management report will be finalized, printed, and distributed. Final recommendations based on input from the tribes. writing of the report will be accomplished based on The researcher will not retain copies of the list of Third Phase: Final Report Printing comments from the review cycles to tribes and federal wickiups, descriptions of specific uses, and their loca- Rocky Mountain Cooperative Ecosystems Unit (RM- Wickiups in BRTE, SHOS, GRTE, and YELL are affiliates. The report will be edited, laid out and designed tions, use that information in scientific publications CESU) recognized as rare and ephemeral cultural resources by a professional. It will include photographs, maps, and or presentations, or otherwise make the information Agreement Number: H1200090004 (IMR) that date from the protohistoric or very early historic some color pages. The researcher will oversee the layout public in any way without explicit permission from period. Though several hundred were documented in and design of the report by the chosen professional. the tribal communities as well as the USFS and NPS. early historical accounts, particularly for YELL, only a Approximately 700 copies of the report will be printed. National Park Service Key Official few are known to remain. Up until thefirst study phase, Once finalized and printed, the researcher will coordi - The researcher will establish and use a set of codes Tobin Roop no formal survey and documentation of wickiups had nate the distribution of the report to partners, tribes and for the names of the tribal members who do not P.O. Box 168 taken place in BRTE, SHOS, GRTE, and YELL. Of their representatives, archeologists and ethnographers in wish to be individually identified. All individu- Yellowstone Center for Resources the 29 wickiup sites recorded to date in the study area, other NPS IMR parks, and to those repositories required als interviewed must sign a consent form indicat- Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190 many of these structures are in fragile condition and by NPS-28. Mailing will require the researcher to travel ing their permission to use information and the (307) 344-2215 deteriorating. Also, tribes have not been thoroughly to YELL in order to utilize the park’s mailing center. purposes for which that information will be used. [email protected] spoken with about these resources. Before the wickiup Constraints on the use of information must also be study began, at least five tribes (Blackfeet Tribe, Crow indicated. The researcher will not include direct Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Confederated Salish quotes from any tribal member in the narrative unless: Principal Investigator and Kootenai Tribes, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes) Gregory Campbell formally acknowledged the significance of these structures and had knowledge to convey about them. The

118 Appendix A Scope of Works: Phases 1-3 119 APPENDIX B Phase Two Materials: Wickiup Letter to Tribes N1427(YELL) Redacted

es s

vie

ill

e upcoming

120 Appendix A Phase Two Materials 121 stan in , most are Redacted Phase Two Materials: d e Wickiup Flyer to Tribal Representatives a n

W O use w e m m . Redacted I c

R cec E

E s: A terature Pertaining to Wickiups, report D D ” D & Sheep Trap” L

122 Appendix B Phase Two Materials 123 Phase Two Materials: Phase Two Materials: Interview Questions for Wickiup Interviews with Interview Questions for Wickiup Interviews with Tribal Representatives Tribal Representatives Redacted

D b Redacted D was accurate? I or change? D hat did you think of them?

W W W W l W pically be located? A ation routes? W wickiups? [RS mentioned w W W C nt tribes’ wickiups? how? D W

D s D n the GYE? D eservation? H s?

o ed?

124 Appendix B Phase Two Materials 125 Phase Two Materials: Distances to Wickiups in the GYE (continued) APPENDIX C Conical Timber Lodge Feature Component Site Form

The following CTL Feature Component Site Form was adapted from the Colorado Wickiup Project for Redacted use by land managers in the GYE.

Redacted

126 Appendix B Appendix C: Conical Timber Lodge Feature Site Component Form 127 CONICAL TIMBER LODGE FEATURE COMPONENT FORM Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK • GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK • SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST • BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST • LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL FOREST (Page 1 of 4)

1. Site No.: ______Temporary Site No.: ______Feature No.: ______2. Previous/Temporary Feature Nos: ______3. Related CTL(s)/Feature(s) Nos: ______4. Location (UTM): NAD ______; Zone ____ ; ______mE; ______mN 5. Elevation ______m/ft 6. Location Description: (Landscape features, vegetation, viewshed, orientation, nearest water, open/sheltered area) ______ ______7. Type of Feature 8. Inferred Function of Feature Conical timber lodge 1-2 pole leaner Habitation Storage Cache Hunting blind Unstructured poles Tree platform Utility pole/rack Windbreak Pole cache Other (describe) ______ Burial platform Corral Animal Pen ______ Sweatlodge Other (describe) ______9. Justification for Inferred Function: ______10. Feature/Structure Format: Freestanding Leaner Suspended in tree Other (describe) ______11. Condition: Standing Partially collapsed Collapsed; Comment: ______12. Total No. of Poles: _____ ; No. standing/leaning ____ ; No. collapsed ____ ; No. completely suspended by tree/poles _____ 13. Pole Ends: (No. of each) Decayed _____ ; Broken _____ ; Axe-cut _____ (Metal axe? ___ Stone axe? ____ ); Sawn ____ ; Uprooted ____ ; Burned _____ ; Comment: ______14. Range of Pole Length (s): ______to ______m 15. Range of Mid-pole Diameter(s): ______to ______cm 16. Is one pole significantly longer than the others (extending away from structure as a rack or hanger)?? No Yes If yes: Length _____ m; Mid-pole diameter _____ cm; Comment: ______17. Pole(s) Modification: Completely limbed Partially limbed, some branches present Unlimbed Split/Shaped Comment: ______18. Interlocked Forked Poles as Structural Supports: Number ____ ; Description ______19. Pole Wood: (No. of each) Lodgepole ____ ; Whitebark pine ___ ; Aspen ____ ; Cottonwood ____ ; Juniper _____ ; Fir ____ : Other ______20. Pole Condition: (Check all that apply) Cracking across grain Lengthwise grain separation Sagging Crumbling Lichens Moss Highly decomposed Comments: ______21. If platform/horizontal beam: Height(s) above ground: _____ m Comment: ______ 22. If 1-2 pole leaner: Top end of pole(s) (height above ground) ______; ______m Base of pole(s) (distance from support tree) ______; _____ m Angle of pole(s) (relative to ground) ______; ______º 23. Floor/Platform Plan: Circle Semi-circle Oval Triangle Rectangle Square Irregular Indeterminate Sketch, if needed Comments: ______(continued on next page)

Conical Timber Lodge Feature Component Form – GYE (Page 2 of 4) Site no. ______Temporary Site No. ______Feature No. ______

24. Dimensions of Floor/Platform: Interior height (headroom): ____ m; Diameter: _____ m OR Length: ___ m; Direction: ____ º; Width ______m; Direction: ____ º; Other sides/dimensions (length/direction): ______ 25. Floor/Platform Area: ____ m2 [Circle = 3.14 x radius-squared; Oval = length x width x 0.785; Triangle = 0.5 x base x height] 26. Floor Treatment: Excavated basin (Length) ______cm; (Width) ____ cm; (Depth) _____ cm Bark Mat (Length) ______cm; (Width) ____ cm; (Thickness) _____ cm Packed soil Other (Describe) ______27. Trowel Tested? (Describe) ______28. Degree of Slope at Structure: ______º; Direction ______º; Comment: ______

29. Nature of Entry If Discernable: (e.g., space between poles? Lintel or sill?) ______30. Entry Orientation: (Direction) ______º 31. Entry Dimensions: (Height) ______cm; (Width) ______cm

32. Evidence of Covering? (e.g., Suspended cross-beams or small branches? Rocks, branches, brush or bark at base of poles?) ______33. Species of Support Tree(s): (Number) Lodgepole ____ ; Whitebark pine ____ ; Aspen ____ ; Cottonwood ____ ; Juniper ___ ; Fir _____ 34. Condition of Support Tree(s): Living Dead 35. Diameter of Support Tree(s) Near Base: ___ ; ____ ; ___ cm 36. Compass Direction(s) of Support Tree(s) Relative to Structure/Feature: ______; ______; ______37. Cultural Modification of Support Tree: Limbed within interior of structure Limbed structure Axe-cuts Peeled-bark Horizontal circumference cut marks Other (Describe) ______38. Parts of Support Tree Utilized by Feature: Trunk(s) Limb(s) Limb(s) & trunk Poles supported by other poles Partially broken bent down limbs Other (Describe) ______

39. Hearth Type: (If discernable) Basin Ash stain FCR concentration Slab-lined Rock-filled (Describe) ______40. Visible Dimensions of Hearth: ______x ______cm 41. Estimated Potential for C-14 Date: Indeterminate without testing Poor Good; Material ______42. Location of Hearth: Interior Exterior Comment: ______43. Location of Interior Hearth: Center of structure Other (e.g., “inside entry”, “adjacent to wall”, “base of support tree”) (Describe) ______44. Location of Exterior Hearth Relative Center of Structure/Feature: Distance ______m; Direction ______

45. Rocks Associated with Feature: (Number) Interior ____ ; Exterior perimeter (e.g., base of poles) _____ ; Other ______Describe type, form, size (e.g., “two 15cm diameter river cobbles” or “one 14x12x8cm sandstone slab” ______Inferred Purpose ______Comments ______46. Associated Artifacts: (Describe, give numbers) Inside structure ______Diagnostics on site ______(continued on next page)

Conical Timber Lodge Feature Component Form – GYE (Page 3 of 4) Site no. ______Temporary Site No. ______Feature No. ______

47. Collections at Structure/Feature: (Describe, give numbers) Artifacts ______ Dendrochronology ( Metal axe-cut Other) Radiocarbon Soil Thermoluminescent Other (Describe) ______On file at ______48. Estimated Age of Structure: ______(Give reason) ______49. Noteworthy or unusual characteristics of feature(s): (Describe, give reason)______50. Imminent Threats to Structure: Collapse Decay Erosion Fire Vandalism Construction Grazing Comments ______Mitigation recommendations: Additional recording Hearth excavation Other ______51. Site documentation: Digital photos Color/B&W prints/negs/slides Video Roll/Disk/File Location(s): ______52. Recorded by: ______Date: ______53. Off-site Investigation: Consultation with Associated Tribes. Date Tribe Name/Title of Individual Notes ______54. Off-site Investigation: Background Research. Date Repository/Collection/Location Notes ______(continued on next page) Conical Timber Lodge Feature Component Form – GYE (Page 4 of 4) Site no. ______Temporary Site No. ______Feature No. ______

55. Additional Notes: