Tree-ring dating and archaeology in South Dakota
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Weakly, Ward F. (Ward Fredrick), 1938-1985
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 08/10/2021 16:55:46
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565163 TREE-RING DATING AND ARCHAEOLOGY
IN SOUTH DAKOTA .
by Ward Fredrick Weakly
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements . ' .For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 6 8 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction b y _____ WARD F, WEAKLY______
entitled______Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology in______
South Dakota______be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the
degree of ______Doctor of Philosophy______
Dissertation Director
After inspection of the dissertation, the following members
of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:*
Name Date
a ...
* This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or re production of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the in terests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author
SIGNED: PBEFACE
$he research reported in this paper was conducted under the auspices of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, the University of
Arizona, Tucson® Grants to the Laboratory by the National Park Ser vice supported the study from I96I4 through 1967a The specimens were obtained from the Middle Missouri Region in South Dakota as a result of the Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage operations carried out in connection with the construction of dams on the Missouri River® The majority of the collections were made by the Smithsonian Institution,
River Basin Surveys, Missouri Basin Project® Other material was pro-
. . ^ vided by the Nebraska State Historical Society, the University of
Nebraska, the University of South Dakota, the University of Kansas, and the University of Idaho® Over-all direction of the research fell to Bryant Bannister of the Laboratory, I was responsible■for the Laboratory analysis®
Many individuals have contributed to all phases of the prepa ration of this report® I owe a large debt to all of these people, and it is a great pleasure to acknowledge their assistance, although
I cannot convey my gratitude to these many individuals adequately here®
Bryant Bannister laid the groundwork for the study by nego tiating with the National Park Service for funds', and he provided the over-all direction for the research® On many occasions Dr® Bannister
ill iv took time from his busy schedule to assist the Missouri Basin Chron ology Projects The value of this research would not have been as
great without his effortse
Wilfred D* Logan of the Midwest Regional Office of the
National Park Service and Warren W, Caldwell of the Smithsonian In stitution, River Basin Surveys received with enthusiasm the idea of a study of the feasibility of utilizing tree-ring research in connection with the Missouri Basin Project* The Midwest Region of the National
Park Service, through the efforts of Dr* Logan and Dr* Caldwell, pro vided the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research with funds to carry out the project and permission to study the specimens from the area* The support and cooperation of the Midwest Regional Office and the River
.Basin Surveys are to a great degree responsible for the success of the project*
The laboratory analyses were aided by the cooperation of many
of the personnel in the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Bryant
Bannister, Jeffrey S* Dean, and William J * Robinson, in particular*
Dr* Bannister and Dr* Dean both assisted in checking the dating* Dr*
Robinson was particularly helpful in setting up the system of records and providing suggestions for organizing the material* In addition, there were Important contributions from others of the Laboratory staff, Harold 0* Pritts, Marvin A* Stokes, Thomas P* Harlan, and S*
Allan Skinner, who were always willing to discuss both general and specific problems connected with the research* The organization and writing of this report reflect the assistance of manyo My dissertation committee, composed of Raymond
Ho Thompson, Harry T« Getty, and Bryant Bannister, has offered many
suggestions for the improvement of the manuscriptc Their enthusiasm and cooperation have been instrumental in making it possible to com plete the report nearly on schedule0 The consideration shown and en thusiasm generated by the faculty of the Department of Anthropology have been of great help*
Hazel Gillie and John M* Hannah should also be mentioned here
As typist and illustrator they have provided much assistance with the mechanics of production* My thanks to both of them for their time and effort*
Finally, I want to thank, however, inadequately, my parents and John 1* Ghampe* My parents have never wavered in their support and encouragement* Dr* Ghampe and my father were the first to
interest me in archaeology and in tree-ring research* Without their
continued interest and enthusiasm the completion of the work would have taken much longer* TABEE OF CONTENTS
Page
E X Si.* O F i’AijXiiS floooooooeeeeeeiBeooeooee 3JC
EIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... »...... xiii
ABSTRACT ...... * ...... xiv
INTRODtloTION oeeeeeeoem ®o «6eo«eo oe®ee 1
Tree-Ring Studies in the Central and Northern Great
F l a m S oe ootitooeo 0ootieeeooeoe oo 2 Tree-Ring Studies in Peripheral Areas « « 6 . . . . , « 5 The Missouri Basin Tree-Ring Project 7 History of the River Basin Surveys3 Missouri Basin
Project e»® e oeetio «e e ’eoee 8 Development of the Missouri Basin Chronology Program « „ 9 Definition of Terms 10 The Great Plains Area ...... 10 The Central Plains Subarea ...... 11 The Northern Plains Subarea ...... a...* Ik The Middle Missouri Region *c. 11$. local Topographical Names 16 Organization of the Report 16
THE PROBLEM AID THE M E T H O D ...... 19
Procedures 21.
vollectlon o e e 0 eoooee®eoeeeOBeoo 22 Preparation of Specimens 23 Techniques of Study 2lj. Statistical Treatment 25
THE MODERN CHRONOLOGIES ...... 2?
Big Bend Chronology 30 .Chapelle Creek Chronology . . . , ...... e 1|1
Little Bend Chronology o « « . « o » s « e «o.®eo» lj.5 Mobridge Area Chronology k9 Cherry Creek Chronology .. ® 9 k9 Modern Specimens with no Provenience $k Discussion and Conclusions 56 vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page ho THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGIES . 61
H3*S tOmO Sxtes S3 Port Pierre II s 39ST21? 63 Port George,.39ST202 66 Port Sully, 39SL1&S o e eeooeeoeBsoeooo 66 Site 39LM3I 0 0 ,.. eeeeeoefflooeeeeiBOe o© 66 Historic Lower Brule Site, 39LMS3 ..©..««•»» 69 Post,-contact Ooalescent Horizon Sites ....o 69 The Leavenworth Village, 39009 ••«....*.«» 73 The Four Bear Site, 39DM2 73 the Medicine Crow Site, ,39BF2 ..»...«••••» 102 ihe Rosa Site, 39P03 ® ® ® © © © ® © © © © 107 The Talking Crow Site, 39BF3 . « »©..»©.«. ® 107 The Qacoma Sites, 39LM26 and 39LM27 ...... © © 116 The Fort George Site, 39ST17 © 116 Site 39SL21©. ©©e© © © ©>© © © © eee.ee eoe. 121 The Swan Greek Site, 39W7 121 the Buffalo Pasture Site, 39ST6 ...... 125 The Davis Site, 39C01h © © .. © © © © . © . » 125 The Crazy Bull Site, 29LM220 129 The Larson. Site, 3 9 W 2 .»©.©«© .« ..©..© . 129 the Red Horse Hawk Site, 39C03l|. .©©.....©. ® 133 S ummary .© © ©.© © © © © . © © © © © . © © © © ® . © . 133 The Extended Ooalescent Horizon ...©.©«..*©.© 137 , The Sully Site, 39SLij- ©..© © ..©©© ©.©©.© 136 The Medicine Creek Village Sites, 39LM2 and 39LM222 • 139 The La Roche Site, 39ST232 © 150 The No Heart Greek Village, 39AR2 ....©. © . . 150 The Strieker Villages, 39LM1A, 39IM1B, and 39LM1C . «, 150 The Bice Site, 39LM31 . .... , . ... * ...... 153 The Cable Site, 39LM22lt 153 Sme 39SL202 .©©©©.© © ©. .©.© ©©.... 159 Summary © © @ . * © © © © © .« *©©.©© ©©.©. 159 The Initial Ooalescent Horizon 163 the Grow Creek Site, 39BP11 l6i| The Black Partizan Site, .39LM218 168 The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon 168 the McKensey, Site, 39ER201 ...... 175 The Thomas Riggs Site, 39HU1 175 The Cheyenne River Site, 39ST1 ...... 180 The Ketchin Site, 39ST223 182 The Hickey Brothers Site, 39LMh ...... 182 The King Site, 39IM55 ...... I8it viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
The Calamity Village Site, 39DM231 188 The Sully School Site, 39SL7 *...... 188 The C* B« Smith Site, 39SE29 . . . * ^...... 19$ The Oattle Oiler Site, 39ST22i|...... • 195 The Durkin Site, 39ST238 200 Summary ...... 200 The Initial Middle Missouri Horizon 202 The Sommers Site, 39ST56. 20i| The Hs P. Thomas Site, 39ST12 20k The Dinehart Village, 39LM33 209 The Pretty Bull Site, 39BF12 » .» o 6 e 209 The Grandle^Jones Site, 39HU60 217 The Jiggs Thompson Site, 39LM208 ...... 217 The Swanson Site, 39BR16 ...... 222 The Langdeau Site, 391M209 ...... 222 The Jandreau Site, 39LM225 ...... 222 Summary ...... 226 The St. John’s Site, 39HD213 ...... 226 The Dating and Proposed Chronological Reconstructions . 228
5» NON-CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION ...... 235
Ecological Information ...... 235 Site Occupation and Construction ...... 2U0
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 2^6
Recommendations for Future Research ...... 250
REFERENCES « ...... 257 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1® Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area *..*«.*,«32
20 Explanation of Symbols in Lists of Specimens *.'..<>• 38
3® ' Statistical Characteristics of the Modern Chronologies . UO
Ue Modern Specimens from the Chapelle Greek Area k.2
Modern.Specimens from the Little Bend Area U6
6e Modern Specimens from the Mo bridge Area ...... 5>0
7® Modern Specimens from, the Cherry Creek Area ...... $2
8® Modern Specimens with no Provenience ...... 55
9® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Pierre II, 398T21/ ...... e .. e e e e o o e Q 65
10® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort George, 39i*,T202 . . @ . . • ...... 67
lie Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Sully, 9SL h-5 o ©,#. . . . © .. o . ooo .. . e . . . . 68
12® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39LM51 ..... 70
13® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Historic Lower Brule, Site, 39LM53 ...... 71
Ibo Archaeologieal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth ^ r Ha ge ^ ^ o « ® h.
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Four Bear Site* ,0 © e o a ® a© ® ® o o & ©. o o o © © © 103
16c Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine ^row Sxte^ _ 3 ® ©©©« © © © ® © © © © @ # 10h
17o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Rosa Site^ 39P03 o©©,. ©a © »© ® o e d © e a © © ■» ® © 00 o p lOB
1% X
H S T OF TABEES— Oontlnued
Table Page 18. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Grow SltBj 39BF3. 0 . 0 00 . 0.060 .. 6 o 6 000000 109
19= Archaeological Tree-ling Specimens from the Oacoma Site, 00 f o 6 0 P 0,0 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 000 d 117 20. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma Site, 39EM27 o #,o 0.000 00 . . ooo.o o . 00 00 120
21 o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Fort George Site, 39ST17 . o 000 00 6 oo.o. 0 o o . 0. . 122 22. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 398121$ . » . . . 121$ 23= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swan Greek Site, 3 9 W 7 ,0000.0000 .00 00 0.000 00 126
2ij.o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Buffalo Pasture Site, 39ST6 ...... e . . . 0 . . = 127
25= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis Site,
398011$ 0 6. 0 0 0 00 ,00 00 60 0 0 0 O 0 6 0 0 6 0 130 26. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crazy Bull Site, 391^220 0 0 6 0 0 000060000000000 132
27= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the larson Site, 39V®2 0 00,0 6 O o O O 00 0 6 0 0 0 . 0 OO 0 6 60 131$ 28. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Red Horse hawk Site, 398031$ ...... o ......
29= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, O O 0.0 O 0 o 0 OO 00OO00O0 0OO00O ll$0
30= Archaeological "Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek Tillage, 39EM2 ...... ll$7.
31= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek Tillage, 39EM222 = ll$9
32. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the La Roche Site, 39ST232 * = 151 XI LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
33o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the No Heart Creek Village, 3?AR2 ...... ® a 1$2
3lf.e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Village, 3SLH1A e e e oeetieeioeeeoooooo l^lj*
35® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker ^ J-llage, 3^LHaB 13^
360 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Village, 391*^10 e o oo 00 e e ee-eeeeooeeo lh7
37a Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Bice Site, 3%M 31 o ® e 90 e e ®. o e e <9 000 1^}3
380 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gable Site, 39LH22li eeeoeo o eeoGQOoeeeeeoeeti l60
39» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL202 . . . e . 162
hOo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crow Creek Si US, 39R^* 11 e e » e o ®»ee®»oo eeoeoeeo lO^
hi® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black Partisan Site, 39LM218 ...... 169
hSa Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the McKensey Bite , 39aR201 ® ® ® ® ® o.® & ® ® ® ® ©,.• » ® ® e @ 17o
U3. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Thomas Biggs Site, 39HU1, ® o ® ® o 6 e ® ® e O 9,0 06.00 @ 6 177
44s Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cheyenne River Site,.39ST1 . ® . . , » ® ® ® „ « « „ 0 e 181
Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ketchin Site, 398T223 oooooe®® o® ®e« o e ®, e o ®e© e o 183
lt.60 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey Brothers Site, 39I>Ml|. 18^
klo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the King Site, 39LH93* ®o f> ® 0 0 ©o® © e ®»e©® o.e© o© © e o 187 XXX
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table Page
U80 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Calamity "7xllagc ^ 39L'®31 ® ® ® ® 18^?
ItPo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully School Site* 39SL7t 0 0 6 e # oyeoaeeoeoeoeeee 1^2
5o, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ca B® Smith
Si US * 39SL29 0 e 0 e e ® 0 0 0 ® 0000 .0.0 ®® 0 0 0 196
5i® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cattle Oiler Site*, 39ST22ii. 197
52* Archaeological Tree-Ring SpeciiiBns from the Durkin Site*
39ST238 0 ® 0 0 00 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5^0 0 0 00 0® 20l
53® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers 3^6* 39ST56 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 00® 20j?
5U. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H® P0 Thomas oxte* 39^112 0 0 ® © ©© 0 0 ® © © © ® 0.0 00 .© © ®® 210
55® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dinehart Village* 39IM33 © ® ® o ® ® ® ® ® ©© ® © ® © ® ® © ® 215
56, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Pretty Bull site * 393F12 © © © © © © ® © © ®®®o o® o®.©®©® 218
57* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Qrandle-Jones a Site * 39BU60 © ® ® © ©© © ® © © ® © © © © © ® © ^ © © © 219
58® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs Thompson Site* 3 9 ^ 2 0 8 p®®...©.©,©,©©©©© 220
59® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specmens from the Swanson
Site * 39BR16 0 00 0 0 © ©0 ©0©0 0 0 0 © 000 ®© 223
6o« Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Langdeau Site* 39-L^209 © © ® * ® © © © © © © © ©.»®o © © © ©© 22p
61 ® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jandreau oxbe* 39iM225 © © ® © © © © © © ® © ® © »© © © ® © © & 227
62® Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the St, John’s Site * 39BD213 © ® © ©o © © © © © © © © © p.© ©--© © © 229 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1® Areas of Tree-Ring Research in the Missouri Basin 3
2e The Great Plains and its Subdivisions 12
3® Locations of the Middle Missouri Chronologies «.».*♦. 17
he The Little Bend, Chapelle Greek, and Big Bend Chronologies 31
5® The Mobridge Area and Cherry Creek Chronologies 5l
6e Relationship of Mean Standard Error to Mean Index in Groups 1 and 11 # » » » @ @ « o ®« » ® ® ® 3S
7® Locations of the Archaeological Sites Studied 6h
8® Percentages of Species in the Collections Through Time • • 237
xiii ABSTRACT
In I96U a study of the feasibility of applying the methods of tree-ring research to wood collected in South Dakota was undertaken by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. Some earlier work had been done in this and surrounding areas of the Cen tral and Northern Great Plains. Criticisms of the earlier research necessitated an independent investigation in the area. In anticipa tion of this kind of study, collection of specimens had been under taken in the late ipjjQ1® and has continued to the present.
The research completed during this project demonstrates that tree-ring chronologies can be. constructed in the Middle Missouri area.
Juniper and ash cross date well with each other. Five area chron ologies of varying length and strength have been built on these species using the records contained, in 125» modern specimens. The area within which these chronologies may be applied is certainly £0 and possibly 100 miles in diameter. Double or false rings are a problem in the younger growth of the trees worked with but do not present major difficulties in the mature growth.
Material recovered from archaeological sites was examined in an attempt to extend and strengthen the chronologies. Favorable results were produced for three of the chronologies covering the
Little Bend, Chapelle Greek and Big Bend portion of the Middle
Missouri. Tentative dates were obtained for specimens from 15 of the
xiv XV
sites and material from 13 others was plottedo Several site collec
tions contained no usable species,,
These dates make possible some clarification of the chrono logical reconstruction of the prehistory of the area0 The earliest tree-ring date from a site in the Initial Middle Missouri Borison,
AOB0 11*09# suggests a relatively late development of semi-sedentary patterns in the region,, Thus, the earliest probable time for intro duction of the Village Indian pattern to the Middle Missouri is the early 13th centuryc It is also evident that at least three of the traditions, the Middle Missouri, Goalsscent, and Great Oasis, were contemporary in the area in at least the 15>th and probably the 16th centuries6
Bata on changes in the availability and use of wood by the prehistoric groups indicate a shift from juniper to cottonwood through time0 This shift apparently results from the human exploitation of the relatively small number of slow growing junipers in the area* The increasing reliance, on cottonwood for house construction would account for the smaller size of the structures observed in more recent periods, because cottonwood is not as strong a construction material as juniper*
In the most recent time periods in the Middle Missouri region the length of site occupation averages about 30 years* At earlier periods, site occupancy was probably somewhat longer, although, the samples available from these periods are not as complete* The over all average length of occupation for all periods in the region is about h$ years* As yet, very little information is available on which to base climatic relationships to tree-growth in South Dakota. It is probable that the same relationships to precipitation that have been found in western Nebraska are applicable, but further analysis is required- to verify this assumption® Of major importance to questions of this nature as well as any future tree-ring work in the area is the keeping of adequate collection records. The lack of precise provenience data and both photographic and written records on specimens in the collec tion caused major difficulties during this project. CH6.PT1R 1
INTRODUCTION
The placement of archaeological manifestations In time has been a major problem facing the student of prehistory„ Cultural re mains can be placed in sequential order by stratigraphys seriation, and similar methods that establish the order of occurrence. Dating for these sequences can be provided by the identification of index
artifactss tree-ring studies5 radiocarbon measurements, or a number
of other methods.
Tree-ring dating is one of the more useful methods for dealing with problems of chronology. It not only provides specific dates but
also makes available information of a non-ehronological nature. Sci
entific study of the annual growth rings of trees'began in the south western United States in the first decade of this century. Dr,, A,
E, Douglass, an astronomer, was responsible for these pioneer inves
tigations, His primary interest was in the relationship of tree
growth and sun spot cycles,.-but his studies also considered the re lationship of tree growth to climatic factors such as moisture and
temperature (Douglass 1919£ 9-11}» Douglass1 search for wood that would extend his tree-ring records back in time led him to consider archaeological specimens and resulted in the assignment of dates to material excavated from sites (Douglass 1929: 737-70; 1935)©
1 2
free-Ring Studies In the Central and Northern Great Plains
the study of tree-rings in the Great Plains is a direct out growth of Douglass \ pioneering work in the Southwest«, Early Great
Plains studies were primarily oriented toward the relationship between tree growth and climatic factorse
In 1931 a study of the annual growth increment of trees and the relationship of this phenomenon to climate was undertaken in western Nebraska at North Platte by Harry E„ Weakly (19I1O 2 18-19;
19k3i 816-9)* It was about ten years later that these studies were expandedj following again the southwestern example, to include archae ological materials (Hill and Metcalf 19l|l: 205; Champe 19k6; 23-33;
H„ E„ Weakly I9I4.6 ; 105-10) „ Weakly's initial studies, which involved detailed analysis of the ring widths of some 2000 specimens, estab lished a definite relationship between tree growth and annual precipi tation in western Nebraska* The studies also demonstrated that species of juniper, pine, and oak available in that1 area form distinc tive patterns of ring width that are reliable for cross dating*
On the basis of his initial work and later studies of archae ological materials. Weakly has constructed tree-ring chronologies for several portions of Nebraska* The most important of his chronologies are from the western part of the state* In that area, a chronology extending from A 0De 19h3 back to A,aDs 1210 has been constructed from specimens derived from Ash Hollow Cave in Garden County and modern specimens from an area included in Garden, Lincoln, Custer and Morrill counties (Pig* 1)» The tree-ring dates obtained for the cultural 3
120 M ILES
CANADA
NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA
FORT PECK DAM MISSOURI R GARRISON DAM
MONTANA ^ . M X
R'Ver
MOREAU RIVER SOUTH DAKOTA
IG BEND DAMN
WYOMING FORT RANDALL DAM IOWA
NEBRASKA R/v e r
r i v e r
REPUBLICAN COLORADO
SALINE^R/ver <■& RIVER SMOKY HILL RIVER FIGURE AREAS OF TREE-RING RESEARCH IN THE MISSOURI BASIN KANSAS KEY EZZl RESEARCH BY H E WEAKLY L ’ ] RESEARCH BY G.F WILL I 1 RESEARCH BY H.L. POTTS Hi] RESEARCH BY H.C. FRITTS E 3 RESEARCH BY M. A. BELL CURRENT RESEARCH BY W.F WEAKLY sequence at Ash Hollow Cave,, as a result of the construction of this chronology in combination with other tree-ring dates from the area, have played an important role in the formulation of culture sequences in the central portion of the Great Plains (Champe I9U65 H e B e Weakly
1950; 90-1, 1962; 138-A6; Wedel 1961),
At about the same time as the work in Nebraska was being done, investigations in North Dakota were undertaken by the late George F„
Will, He first constructed a chronology based on two specimens of oak collected near Bismarck (Pig, l) and later strengthened his record by studying some 20 other specimens (Will 1914.6 $ l-2h, 19lt9; I6I4), By combining the tree-ring record contained in specimens from archaeolo gical sites with his modern record. Will ultimately constructed a chronology covering the period from A,D, 19A2 back to A,D, 1 I4O6 , This chronology was used to assign dates to wood taken from ten archaeolo gical sites in North Dakota (Will 19^6 ; 1 1-18 , 19)48$ 68-70), These dates were then utilized to aid in formulation of the cultural se quence in that part of the Great Plains,
The next major study of tree-rings in the Great Plains was my master's thesis presented to the University of Nebraska (¥, F, Weakly
1961), This study was concerned primarily with a limited investiga-. tion of.material from South Dakota for the specific purpose of obtaining archaeological dates, A chronology-was constructed covering the period from A,D, 1958 back to A,D* 1302 and dates were assigned to material from 20 sites® The implications of the dates for the cultural sequence in the area were discussed with emphasis upon their relationships to the material from the Central Plains? espeeially in
Nebraska,,
After review by H« lo Weakly and W 0 8, Galdwell of the Smith sonian Institution some of the dates presented in my master's thesis were further made available in the Missouri Basin Shronology Program
Statement9 lumber 3 (1963)o Since that time I have questioned the chronology and dates presented in my thesis on the basis of the re search to be reported on here,. These objections were presented in a report to the National Park Service3 Midwest Regional Office in Omahas
Nebraska and at the 23rd Plains Conference in Topeka^ Kansas (W0 F* '
Weakly 196S>> 1966$ i n ) «
My criticisms of the work done in South Dakota and Bell's earlier comments on the work of Harry S0 Weakly and George F„ Will
(Bell 19l#8 10h-lGi| l.f$2s 3U3=35l) are presented in detail in a later portion of this report*
■ Tree-Ring Studies in Peripheral Areas
Tree-ring chronologies were also constructed quite early for areas in the present states of Montana by M„ A* .BeH» and Colorado by.
Ho Id PottSo Both investigators were concerned primarily with the relationship between tree growth and climatic phenomena and have not been applied to archaeological dating* loth chronologies are avail able through the United States Army Corps, of Engineersj, Omaha Office, but have not been formally published*
In one other instance the construction of tree-ring chron ologies in the Great Plains has been primarily oriented toward the dating of archaeological remains (Grey 1 9 6 3 s 36-7)® This study was undertaken as a part of the looming Archaeological Society's investi gations of the Big Horn Medicine “Wheel in Wyoming® Dates were ob tained for wood recovered in the excavations that provided a basis for the determination of the time of site construction®
Some work has also been done in the state of Kansas® It has been primarily concerned with relationships between tree growth and climate or simple ring counts using specimens of juniper and elm
(Albertson 1938$ 19^0: 85-95)® In addition, I made a brief study of an oak from the Council Grove area for the Kansas State Historical
Society (W® F® Weakly 196U) =
Slightly to the east of the Great Plains Area proper, in the drainage of the Mississippi River, studies of tree-rings and their usefulness for dating have utilised pine, hemlock, oak, ash, and pop lar (Hawley 19l|l) = In this study no actual' archaeological dates were presented, but the feasibility of obtaining, such was demonstrated and several species were found to be useful® As in the Nebraska studies,
Hawley (I9itl$ U5-9) was able to demonstrate a relationship between climatic phenomena, especially precipitation, and tree growthe A continuation, of Hawley's studies later produced archaeological dates from the area, primarily for the Kincaid site in southern Illinois
(Cole et alo 1951$ 158-61, 233-92; Bell 1952$ 3U5-51)® . A recent study of the possibility of applying tree-ring dating techniques in central Illinois has provided further support for the use of this approach in the Mississippi drainage (Munson 1 9 6 6 : 21(1-5) e Most recently, the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the
University of Arizona has done extensive sampling of trees along the front range of the Rocky Mountains bordering the Great Plainse These samples have been collected as part of an expansion and updating of the Laboratory1 s collections and also to extend its dendroclimatolo- gical stu.dies<, In addition, a number of cores have recently been collected by H 0 0, Fritts of the Laboratory in northwestern Nebraska and southwestern South Dakota in connection with the above studies,,
On the basis of the foregoing review of tree-ring studies in the Central and Northern Great Plains and areas peripheral to them, several items are apparent0 One is the general applicability of the techniques of these studies in the area. Second, a relatively large number of species have, been successfully analyzed including juniper, oak, pine, hemlock, ash, and poplara A third important point is that a relationship between tree growth and climatic phenomena, especially precipitation, has been found. Also to be noted is the fact that criticisms have been raised concerning the work in the area. One result of the present study is the demonstration that some of these criticisms appear to be valid.
The Missouri Basin Tree-Ring Project
The study of tree-rings in the Missouri Basin on which this report is based developed from and forms an integral part of a long term program of study initiated, in the Missouri River Basin following the Second World War, It is one phase of salvage archaeological operations in the United States which resulted from the spurt of dam building and highway construction that took place in this country immediately following that conflictc
History of the River Basin Surveys,, Missouri Basin Project
As recently discussed by Wedel (1967s 589-97) the River Basin
Surveys program and more specifically the Missouri Basin Project was organized by various agencies of the federal government with the encouragement of professional organizations following the Second
World War® The goals of the Missouri Basin Project were the salvage of archaeological and paleontological materials that were to be destroyed as a result of the construction of a series of dams on the
Missouri River and its tributaries* The studies and excavations undertaken by the surveys program organized under the Smithsonian
Institution with fiscal support from the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service have con tinued since 19U6* In its work, the River Basin Surveys has been aided by the cooperation of numerous state and private research or ganizations* The result has been a vast increase in the knowledge of the prehistory of the Missouri River drainage*
The project has located and surveyed hundreds of archaeolo gical sites throughout the Missouri Basin and excavations have been carried out at many of these locations* • As a result, quantities of information on the culture sequences and prehistoric peoples who lived in this area from nearly 9000 years ago up to the Historic period have been obtained. Much of this material is as yet unavail able in published form but it has been well summarized by Wedel (1961,
1961u 1 9 3 “220s 1967s 389-97)*
Development of the Missouri Basin Chronology Program
It was early realized by those working in the area that some kind of cooperative program of chronological research was a necessary part of the studies being done in the Missouri Basin® Such a program was initiated in 1938 as the Missouri Basin Chronology Program® It has been coordinated by the River Basin Surveys office in Lincoln, Nebraska since its founding* The purpose of the program has been to provide a time framework within which to interpret the information becoming available and to provide a clearing house for chronological
information® Two primary avenues of approach have been investigated® The first, radiocarbon dating, has provided about 100 dates® The second initiated in 1961)., is a project of tree-ring analysis to determine
whether this' method is applicable to the dating of archaeological re mains in the portion of the Missouri River Valley in central South Dakota*
In 1961, I carried out a brief study of this problem. It
resulted in the construction of a chronology and in the assignment
of dates to material from a small number of sites in the area (¥, F®
Weakly 1961)® The current study grew out of this earlier one® It
is the result of the recognition that an independent study of tree- 10
ring specimens from the Great Plains should be based on the techniques
developed by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University
of Arizona and carried out under the supervision of the laboratory
staff. Such a study became possible in the Spring of 196^ when the
Laboratory successfully approached the Smithsonian Institution, River
Basin Surveys, Lincoln, Nebraska and the Midwest Regional Office of
the National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska on the feasibility of de
veloping and financing a program of study for material from the
Missouri River Valley in South Dakota.. The results of that study
form the basis of this report.
Definition of Terms
For purposes of clarity it is necessary to define a few of
the terms that are employed by anthropologists for areas with which
this report deals. The spatial units, that is, area, subarea and
region, are those proposed by Willey and Phillips (1962s 1 8 -21).
The Great Plains Area
For anthropological purposes, the Great Plains Area was first
defined by Wissler in 1917* His description was based primarily on
the exploitation of bison as a food source and a number of cultural
attributes shared by the historic tribal units in the area. Wissler*s
Great Plains extended across the heart of the North American continent
roughly from a north-south line through the western boundary of Utah
on the west to the Mississippi River on the east. The northern boun
dary was central Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada and the southern 11 was In southern Texas near the juncture of the Pecos River with the
Rio Grande (Wissler 1938$ 2-9, 220-14) c
Since Wissler*s early definition of a Great Plains Area, the
concept has been used both for cultural and for archaeological re
search in the area but its boundaries have been altered several times
(Kroeber 1939$ 7h-8h; Driver and Massey 1957; Vedel 1 961 )* The most recent of these definitions is the most clearly defined for archae
ological purposes (We del 1 9 6 1 $ 20-145)* Wed el defines an area between
the Rocky Mountains and the 9Utih degree of west longitude and the
Saskatchewan River Basin and the Rio Grande (Fig* 2 )e He further de fines the area on the basis of its internal ecological zones and, following Wissler, on the basis of the relative cohesiveness of the cultural manifestations encountered during the historic period*
Although the definition of subareas is at least partially a result of historical accident, they do represent the prehistoric
cultural configurations and probably also the historic patterns *
This report is primarily concerned with three of the divisions of the areas Middle Missouri, Central Plains, and Northern Plains*
The Central Plains Subarea
The first subarea to be defined is the Central Plains* Its delimitation resulted directly from the relatively early and inten sive excavations carried out in the state of Nebraska starting in
1929 by W* D* Strong (1935)® As a result of this work and continued study in Nebraska and Kansas, Wedel (19I4O: 291) was early able to define an area centering on the state of "Nebraska and including 12
.NORTH DAKOTA1 INNESOTA MONTANA NORTHERN PLAINS SOUTH \ DAKOTA WIS.
WYOMING |
! CENTRAL PLAINS IOWA NEBRASKA
ILLINOIS / IND.
KANSAS COLORADO U v
KEN. SOUTHERN MISSOURI PLAINS ARKANSAS 7 TENN. OKLAHOMA
NEW/MEXICO
MISS.
TEXAS
LA. MEXICO
FIGURE 2
100 200 300 THE GREAT PLAINS AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS SCALE OF MILES 13 immediately contiguous parts of Kansas,, northwestern Missouri and
Xowa0,r He also includes in his discussion material from South Dakota, eastern Wyoming and Colorado* Further refinements of the Central
Plains Subarea have been suggested at various times, but all.of these have essentially utilized Wedel’s original definition with more or
.less minor modifications (Champe, 19lj.6; W„ F* Weakly 196l; I 5 Lehmer and Caldwell 1 9 6 6 ; ^ll-l6 )Q
■ The latter of these redefinitions most alters the Central
Plains concept* Its authors, Lehmer and Caldwell, support the defi nition of the Central Plains as a region in a Northern Plains Subarea
(1 9 6 6 : £ll~l6 )e On the basis of historical precedent, I do not feel this change is justifiable* It results from the current emphasis on work in the Middle Missouri to be defined below and does not help to clarify a confusing terminological problem® It seems to be more reasonable to follow historical precedent and make the Middle Missouri an extension of the Central Plains under the heading of a contiguous area* In addition, many of the cultural traits present in the Middle
Missouri Region appear at the present time to be the result of dif fusion out of the Central Plains thereby further supporting this alignment*
For the purposes of this study then I w i H use Wedel's delimi
tation of the Central Plains as that area bounded by the Rockies on the West, the Missouri River on the east, the Niobrara River Valley
on the north and the Upper Arkansas River Basin on the. south (Wedel
1961: 79)= For all practical purposes this, geographical unit is the same as earlier definitions of it as being ''Nebraska and the areas
immediately contiguous to it" (¥„F0 Weakly 1 961 s l )0
The Northern Plains Subarea
The distinction of a Northern Plains subarea also enters the anthropological literature quite earlye It was first defined on the basis of cultural relationships of historic groups by Kroeber (1939s
80-U)o He distinguished the area as essentially lying north of an east-west line through Pike's Peak and the Arkansas headwaters0 Cur rent archaeological concepts, however, distinguish the area as being that portion of the Great Plains Area lying to the north of the
.Central Plains, i„e0 Nebraska, and divide it into three regions
(Vedel 19615 195)o. For practical purposes .then the Northern Plains
Subarea can best be defined as that portion of the Great Plains Area extending from the Niobrara Basin on the south to the Saskatchewan
River Basin on the north and from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the drainage of the Red River of the north (Fig, 2)*
The Middle Missouri Region
As has been stated above the Northern Plains is divided into three regions by its students =, Two of these regions, the Northwestern
Periphery and Northeastern Periphery, are not of immediate importance to the current study and are defined by Wedel (1961$ 210-77)= The third region, the Middle Missouri (Fig, 2), is the focus of the work presented here. It has been defined as ,can eight-hundred-mile . segment of the Missouri River, roughly from the mouth of the Yellowstone, in western North Dakota, to the southern boundary of
South Dakota, five or six miles below Port Randall Dam" (Medel 1961:
156) o
The southern limit of the region is fairly generally accepted but the northern has been placed at several different locales from as far downstream as Bismarck, North Dakota (%?» Weakly 1961: 1 ) „ Most recently, Lehmer and Caldwell have defined the Middle Missouri as
"e »Ba long and narrow 2one which is limited to the trench and terraces of the Missouri River in North and South Dakota" (1 966 ; 512)c This latter definition is probably the most useful because it includes essentially the entire portion of the Great Plains to the north of the Central Plains in which the Village Indian developments took placeo The Village Indian period being that in which agriculture was practiced prehistorically by groups living in semi-permanent villages0
The Middle Missouri Region then is the main valley of that river in both North and South Dakota,, Geographically it is part of the Northern Plains, but culturally it is in reality an extension of the Central Plains* This study does not deal with material from the whole of the region but is restricted to that portion of it in South
Dakota* More specifically the materials come from that portion of the region between the mouth of the Grand River on the north and the
White River on the south or about a 250 mile long segment of the
Middle Missouri* 16
Local Topographical Names
fwo major features of the Missouri River within the above delimited region are important for this study. The first is that portion of the river known as the Big Bend, It is a large loop of the river between the mouths of the Bad and White rivers in the southern part of South Dakota, The second, the Little Bend, is also a loop and is the point where the Cheyenne River flows into the
Missouri, The general vicinity of these two loops in the river are the locations of the two main chronologies presented in this report
(Fig. 35* One of the other three chronologies has been derived from the vicinity of Ghapelle Creek, a small eastern tributary of the Missouri approximately midway between the Big Bend and Pierre, South Dakota*
A second chronology is from the area just to the south of the Grand
River in the vicinity of Mobridge, South Dakota* The third chron ology in this group is based on material collected from the vicinity of Cherry Creek where it flows into the Cheyenne River in Haskon
County, South Dakota (Fig, 3), This latter chronology has as yet little archaeological application being some distance to the west of the area of main interest in the Missouri River Valley itself*
Organization of the Report
The balance of this report is concerned with a discussion of the study of tree-rings and their usefulness for dating archaeolo gical materials in South Dakota* This is accomplished by considering the methods utilized and the problems involved in the study* 17
CORSON CO.
CAMPBELL CO
GRAND RIVER
SOUTH \ DAKOTA
WALWORTH CO
MOREAURIVER DEWEY CO
POTTER CO FAULK CO
OAHE RESERVOIR
ZIEBACH CO
0'' / SULLY CO
HYDE CO HAND CO CHEYENNE RIVER
STANLEY CO HUGHES CO. ) A
HAAKON CO
B A D R IV E R BUFFALO CO LYMAN CO
JONES CO
JACKSON CO
WHITE RIVER
KEY FIGURE 3
L Jbig bend chronology LOCATIONS OF THE MIDDLE ■ CHAPELLE CREEK CHRONOLOGY MISSOURI CHRONOLOGIES I 1 LITTLE bend chronology WiM MOB RIDGE area chronology 0 5 10______20______30 MILES CHERRY CREEK CHRONOLOGY scale Following thiss the modern chronologies are presented and discussed in detail®
The report then considers the archaeological materials studied, their selection and the results obtained# The implications of the archaeological dates are discussed with reference to current chronol ogical reconstructions in the area and other -dating techniques®
A later section deals with the kinds of non-chronological information obtained in the study® This section covers information of an ecological nature such as the species of wood available in the area® It also deals with the utilization of wood and changes in use through time® In addition, other possible kinds of information are considered including determinations of the length of site occupancy, relative time of house construction and climatological information#
' Finally the results of the study are summarized and certain conclusions drawn concerning the study of tree-rings in South Dakota and the Great Plains in general® A consideration of the value of this approach is presented along with a critical review of other re- ■ lated studies in the area. Proposals dealing with future work in the region are then presented® CHAPTER 2
THE: PROBLEM AMD THE METHOD
Criticisms of the study of tree-rings and the use of archae ological dates obtained in the Great Plains by this method were registered as early as 19^8 (Bell 19^8, 1952)„ He based his criti cisms on the lack of independent verification, the methods employed, the species studied and cross-dating between them, the small number of specimens used for constructing chronologies and the manner in which the archaeological dates were presented* In addition, criti cisms have been made concerning the distance between the location of master chronologies and the sites for which dates have been obtained
(Meleen 1958; lehmer 1950; Hurt 1952; W* Weakly 1966)*
The fact that such criticisms could be raised with regard to some of the Great Plains tree-ring studies had been a major concern of both those working in that field as well as interested archaeolo gists*, It has, therefore, been recognized that an independent study should be carried out to examine the validity of these criticisms and the feasibility of employing tree-ring methods in the area* It has been further felt that such a study should be done under the supervision of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research where adequate checking of results would be possible* Unfortunately, neither the funds nor the personnel were available for a study of this nature until quite recently*
19 20
This report then is an outgrowth of the need for an indepen dent investigation of the use of tree-rings for dating archaeological remains on the Great Plains* It represents the results of a study of the feasibility of applying tree-ring methods to material collected in the Middle Missouri Region* The specimens come from living trees, historic buildings and archaeological sites in South Dakota* Several species are represented in the collections*
The primary problem was concerned with the construction of chronologies based on the modern specimens in the collections* This necessitated an analysis of the material to establish cross dating and the areal extent of application* It was also necessary to earn amine the several species to determine which would carry a chronology and which would cross date with each other*
Once these factors had been resolved, the problem became one of building the chronologies back in time and strengthening them by analysis of additional material* This part of the problem was of crucial importance because the chronologies needed to extend far enough back to be applicable to the archaeological materials* It was necessary that they extend at least into the 18th century to be useful for most of the South Dakota archaeological materials*
The dating of archaeological remains was the second major problem* The prehistoric populations of semi-sedentary peoples had essentially abandoned what is now South Dakota by A*D» 1 8 0 0 „ There fore, the dated chronologies had to extend into at least the preceding century to be useful* Once this had been accomplished, the same kind 21 of approach as was used in dealing with the modern collections had to be followed to build archaeological chronologies and to obtain dates for the specimens used*
Analysis of the collections from selected sites was necessary„
The material from each had to be examined to determine <> again, whether cross dating was present. The various species, especially those found to be useful in constructing the modern chronologies, had to be studied to see if they cross dated with each other and a chronology could be established for the site collection. Finally, the archae ological material had to be studied in relation to the modern to see if dates could be determined. If this could be done, the chronologies could be strengthened and possibly lengthened as a result. Another result would be the assignment of dates to archaeological specimens which could then be used to aid in the interpretation of the pre history of the area.
Procedures
The general approach to the study of the South Dakota mate rials has followed that developed by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring
Research, This has been done so that the rigid.controls used by the
Laboratory in its work in other areas could be applied. Also by doing the work under the Laboratory’s direction and supervision, it has been possible to eliminate most of the possibilities for error which have been pointed out regarding earlier work in the Great Plains, Thus, the study not only makes possible the construction of chronologies for South Dakota, but it also allows an opportunity to make some 22
judgment as to the validity of the earlier Great Plains studies and
the criticisms of them*
Collection
The selection of species for study was based on several con
siderations* Most basic of these is the kinds of trees native to the
area* The available timber resources in the Middle Missouri Region
have been described by Wedel as follows:
The timber that grew naturally in the (Missouri liver) valley was another important resource for its inhabitants„„» It consisted of groves of mixed deciduous trees? chiefly cotton wood, ash, elm, boxelder, hackberry, and oak, all growing on the valley bottoms and the older islands* Here, too, choke- - cherry, buffalo berry, wild plum, and grape supplied edible fruits* Along the unstable stream banks and on newly formed . bars and islands, willows predominated* Stands of tall, straight-growing juniper, especially prized by the Indians for house-building, occurred on some of the islands and stream side bottoms, and, usually in more scrubby form, on many of the north-facing valley slopes (Wedel 1 961 $ 16 0 )*
As this indicates, a fairly large number of possibilities were avail
able from which to choose* However, most of these species were
growing in the valley bottom where stress conditions would be least
prevalent*
Juniper was the most promising* It grows in well drained
locations where it would be most dependent on precipitation* Previous
'work in the plains has indicated its usefulness for chronology
building, and its use by the prehistoric population made it a prime
candidate* For these reasons then the selection of living trees on
which to base the modern chronology was primarily oriented toward
juniper* 23
Other trees were also collected for study Including oak, ash, and hackberry, but the emphasis was on the junipers. In all possible cases full cross sections were obtained. This was possible since most of the trees were within the pool limits of the reservoirs being built along the river and the cutting down of the trees could be con sidered a salvage operation.
The largest portion of the collections was made in 1958 and
1959, Collecting efforts have been more or less continuous since that time. Most of the specimens were collected by crews of the
Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys as part of their salvage operations in the region.
Preparation of Specimens
The first step in preparing the specimens for study was done in the Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Survey's laboratory in
Lincoln, Nebraska, Here a preliminary sort of the material as to species was made and, where necessary, it was cut to reasonable size for transport to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research in Tucson,
Arizona, Upon arrival in Tucson, a record-keeping system and a set of working notes were established for the specimens.
The final preparation of the material for study consisted of sanding. In this step each piece was sanded with a mechanical sander using a series of six graded papers, Number 60 through Number liBO,
This provided a surface that made it possible to examine the ring and cell structure, in the wood. In those cases, mostly archaeological, where the wood was badly decayed or charred a razor blade was used to cut a surface showing the cellular structure® This latter procedure has been described in detail by Douglass (19^3? 6 )»
Techniques of Study
The methods employed in this study conform to those generally accepted by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, They have been adequately described in the literature (Glock 1937)* I will not attempt to go into a detailed discussion of these methods, but rather, will outline the approach as it applies to the South Dakota study.
The first step in the analysis was species identification of the specimens. This was accomplished by visual examination of the wood under magnification and consisted of recognising the different structural patterns of the species. An example is juniper which has small cells, a distinct coloration, and sharply defined and narrow layers of late wood* < This is contrasted with cottonwood which has wide rings with quite large cells, frequently discernible without the aid of magnification, and an over-all effect of a lacy appearance.
The next step consisted of examining full cross sections of wood and constructing skeleton plots of their variation in ring
Wicith'e This forms a two. dimensional picture of the variations of annual growth produced by the trees. In some instances plots were made of several radii as a check on circuit uniformity, but for the most part, this was done visually.
Following the initial examination of individual specimens, comparisons of the variation between samples was done. This procedure established common variability, or cross dating, within the collec
tion with known cutting dates6 This was first established for the
juniper specimens and later also for the ash* The question of cross dating was approached on an areal basis starting with small units and expanding these to determine the area over which one could apply the record obtained0
The final, step in the process consisted of the construction of the master chronologies for the areas delimited* This was done by making composite plots of the records obtained from the individual specimens after making sure that all possible double and missing rings had been accounted for in each* The result was the construction of five distinct master chronologies for portions of South Dakota*
It should be emphasized that cross-dating quality, a function of tree-growth and climate and the factor directly related to the accuracy of tree-ring dates, is not generally as high in the Missouri
River Basin samples as it is in Southwestern specimens* Consequently the precision of the Missouri River Basin tree-ring chronologies and archaeological dates is not of the same order of reliability as can be demonstrated in the Southwest* It is for this reason that I have referred to the results presented here as tentative and perhaps sub ject to modification pending further verification through the future study of additional tree-ring materials.
Statistical Treatment
Further analysis of 67 of the specimens included in the modern chronologies was based on measured ring widths. Using these data. some of the tree-ring characteristics were analyzed in accordance with standard laboratory principles as set down by Gloek (1937) <> Schulman
(195>6) j and Fritts and his associates (Fritts 1963, Fritts and others
1963a, 1963b)o Indices were derived for the individual specimens and these were merged to form the chronologies* Other characteristics including mean sensitivity, serial correlation, and standard deviation were also examined* In addition, an analysis of variance was carried out on a group of ten specimens included in one of the chronologies
(Fritts 1963 )*
The methods described above have made it possible to construct master chronologies for South Dakota* They have also made it pos sible to evaluate some of the characteristics of those chronologies and reach certain conclusions concerning them* This applies to both the construction of modern tree-ring chronologies and the use of wood specimens obtained through archaeological excavation for dating pur poses* The next two portions of this report will present the data obtained by this approach* CHAPTER 3
THE MODERN CHRONOLOGIES
Five separate chronologies have been constructed for South
Dakota, Four of these are centered along the Missouri River and one
is to the west along the Cheyenne River (Fig, 3), The chronologies
have different beginning and ending dates as a result of the time of
collection and the number and length of the specimens included.
To construct these chronologies, 123 specimens were studied
in detail. This number includes ten duplicates so that the chron
ologies represent the results of analysis of 113 individual samples.
The species studied included 103 pieces of juniper, seven of ash,
three of oak, and two of hackberry. Only the juniper and ash were found to contain adequate patterns of growth on which to base the
chronologies. Oak and hackberry lack circuit uniformity and could not be used, but because of the small size of the sample in each case they cannot be ruled out for chronological purposes until further analysis has been done.
The chronologies as they now exist are based exclusively on
juniper and ash and are most heavily dependent on the juniper. Of the 103 pieces of juniper and seven of ash in the collection, 79 of
the juniper and four of the ash specimens were ultimately dated and included in the chronologies. This represents approximately 78% of
27 28 the usable specimens,. In addition, another seven specimens of juniper and ash could be tentatively dated giving approximately 81$ datability in the collection®
The junipers studied were Juniperus scopulorum and Junipefus virginlana® Both of these species are native to the area of the study, but since (l) no data as to species were provided in the col lection records, and (2 ) the wood of the two does not appear to be distinguishable, no separation of them has been made in this study®
The wood is characterized by small cells, a red coloration especially in the older portion and a distinctive “cedar" odor® Annual growth is made up of a lighter colored layer of larger cells in the springwood that varies in width and a very narrow layer of latewood, usually no more than two or three cells thick, that has smaller cells sharply sets off each ring from the next® There appears to be very little variation in the width of the latewood from year to year in the juni per* The younger growth of the first 20 to $0 years is not readily usable for dating purposes® The trees go through a distinctly juvenile period during this range starting with relatively small rings, and once established, a rapid increase in the amount of growth accompanied by generally erratic behavior until maturity® At matur ity, the growth becomes much more sensitive to environment with a concomitant general decrease in ring width® Double or false rings are also a problem during the juvenile period of growth, but essen tially cease to be formed once maturity is reached® 29
The modern collections contained juniper specimens with up to
2$0 annual rings# In one archaeological specimen 319 rings were re corded with no indication of the last ring present being the last year of growth# Most of the specimens came from the higher terraces and rough country, !,the breaks,R bordering the incised valley of the
Missouri Elver# These locations are usually well drained so that the trees growing there would be most influenced by the prevailing envi ronmental conditions#
The ash specimens, Fraxinus spp#, were also primarily derived from similar locations# The species identification is not available in the collection records# Ash evidently has a shorter life span than juniper# The oldest specimen in the collection has less than 70 annual rings# The wood is quite distinctive from that of the juniper#
The ash has more variation in the width of the latewood band than of the springwood# The springwood is made up of quite large cells and grades into the latewood with no sharp break# The latewood is made up of very small compact cells and contains a large number of duets
Interspersed through it# The heartwood of the specimens is much darker colored# No double or false rings were found in the available sample of ash*
The five South Dakota chronologies presented below are based on 81 specimens# Four of them apply to four segments of the Middle
Missouri Region between the general area of Brule County, South
Dakota on the south and the North Dakota border on the north (Fig* 3 )*
The fifth one is based on material from Haakon County, South Dakota to the west of the Missouri River valley# Big Bend Chronology
The modern chronology based on material from the Big Bend is the longest and strongest* It is 332 years in length extending from
A.B, 1963 back to iUD> 1631= With the inclusion of archaeologically- derived materials, it extends back to A eD«, 1531 or a total of ij.32 years (Fig* !(.)„
The collections are derived from an area approximately 30 miles in diameter centering on the Big Bend of the Missouri River*
This area generally lies within the bounderies of Buffalo, Hughes and
Lyman counties* There are 56 pieces of wood from the locality of which nine are duplicates (Table 1 )6 The symbols used on Table 1 and all following ones are explained in Table 2 * Of the hi individual trees represented, U3 are juniper, two are ash, and two are oak*
Forty-one of the juniper and the two specimens of ash could be used in constructing the chronology* The remaining specimens, four juni per and two oak, could not be adequately dated for inclusion in the chronology*
Skeleton plots were made for h9 of the Big Bend specimens and
35 of these were measured* The chronology for this area is based on these plotted and measured specimens (Fig* U)* In addition, certain statistical characteristics were examined (Table 3) that have made possible the comparison of the five chronologies in more detail*
The statistical characteristics of the tree-ring series ex amined include measures of mean sensitivity, mean ring width, stand ard deviation, serial correlation, and variance (Fritts 1963s 2-7j ,-v • : ■ • , , * .f ' -r/l- ,■:■•. ’
.,{%®1 ■'•’S’f 1 1 V.,’;.
20 30 4 o 1550 60 70 80 20 90 1700 70 80
CHAPELLE CREEK FIGURE 4 THE LIT "LE BEND, CHAPELLE CREEK AND blG BEND CHRONOLOGIES
V y W A ^ LITTLE B
r n — rr n P n
i . TTTT Tyrr FT" F F TTT
|1 20 30 1550 60 70 80 90 I 1600 10 20 40 1650 90 1700 90 1800 1950 60
■•I : br ,3 ffable 1 0 Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DM58~1 m i A , Sec a 2 8, 11071, R72¥ Juniper l862p - 1958B PA Buffalo county
DN58-2A SBl/h, Seca 28, T107N, R72W Juniper l866p - 1958B P/M same as Buffalo county DN58-2B
DN58-2B SBl/l*, Seco 28, T107NS R72M Juniper l866p « 1958B P same as Buffalo county DN58-2A
BS 8-itA NElA, Sec. 28, T107N, R72¥ Juniper l866p - 1958B PA same as Buffalo county DN58AB !3N58-itB m i A , Sec. 28, T107N, R72W J uniper I866p - 1958B pA same as Buffalo county DN58 -AA DN58-5 SElA, Sec. 28 , 1107N, R72M Juniper 1877p - 1958B fA Buffalo c ounty
DN58-6 Nil As Sec. 28, 11071, R72W J uniper l869p - 1958B ?A Buffalo oounty
BN58-7 N$lA* Sec. 28, 11071, R72W Juniper I882p - 1958B pA Buffalo county
DN58-9 EL/2 , Sec. 28 , 'F107N, 1%72¥ Juniper 1863? =• 1958B p /m Buffalo county
DNJ>8-l6A Sec. 32, $107N, R72¥ Juniper I8h9p - 1958B p /m Gore Lyman county Sable l e Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Sontinned
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DN58-16B Sec, 32, T107NS R 72W Juniper 1903fp - 1958B P Gore Lyman bounty
DNS8-1 ? Sec, 32, T107N, R72M Juniper (I770fp - 1928v) P Core Lyman county
DN58-18 Sec, ;32, T107N, R72M - Juniper 1737fp - 1912vv p/k Core Lyman county
DN58-36A Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥ Juniper l653p - l8o5vv P/M same as Lyman county DN58-36B
DN58-36B Sec, 3 2 , T107N, R72¥ Juniper I68itfp - 1880B p/k same as Lyman county DN58-36A
DN38-37A/1 Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥ Juniper l688fp - 1796w .p /m same as Lyman county DN58-37A/2 DN58-37B
BN58-37A/2 See, 32, fl07N, R72W Juniper same as Lyman county BN58-37A/1 DN58-37B
BN58-37B Sec,"32, T107N, R72¥ Juniper 1713fp - 1766vv p same as Lyman county DN58-37A/1&2 DN58-38 Sec, 32, T107N, R72¥ Juniper p Lyman county P?able Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Bates Measured Remarks
BN58=39 Sec* 1 6 , ThN, R78W Juniper l86lp - 1938v P Lyman County
BX58-1 Seco 23, 1108N, R73W Ash . 1923fp - 1956v P Core Lyman County mi/kp 'See0 28, $1081, 1731 .. Juniper - 1558b same as Lyman County BX58-7&13 SB/It,'See, 28, $1081, 1731 Juniper l891p - 1958B Lyman County
DX58-6 S C l A / Sec, 28, $1081, 1731 Juniper 1920p - 1958B Lyman County 1 BX58-7 S m A / Seco 28, $1081, Juniper - 1958B same as
Lyman County , ' BX584&13 0X58-8 Seco 23, $1081, R73W Ash ■ 1897p - 1958B p/m Lyman County 0X58-9 Sec, 3, $1071, 1 7 W Oak (l876p - 1958B) P Lyman County
0X58-10 See, "3, $1071, R 7 W Oak (1872p - 1958B) P Lyman County..... DX58-11 Bee, 16, $1071, R76M Juniper 1917P - 1958B P Lyman County table 10 Modem Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Bates Measured Remarks
DX58-12 See, '16, KL6¥ Juniper 1924p - 1958B P Lyman county
DX58-13 SMlA# See, 28 , floSN, B73M Juniper l6
DX58-15 ■SKIA, Sec," 3, T107N, B 7 W Juniper l852p - 1958B ?A Lyman county
DX58-16 S>a/iis See, 3, T107N, B 7 W J uniper 1866? - 1958B ?M i Lyman county ,
DX60-1 m a A , Sec, 3, T107N, R 7 W Juniper 1825? - 1959B P/M Lyman county
DXgp-lA (?) Lyman county Juniper . l635fp - I870v P/M same as DX59-1B
DX39-1B (?) Lyman county Juniper l6U3fp - iStlw ?A same as BX59-1A
DX62-1 m A , Sec, 10, T107N, R 7 W Juniper 1855? - 1935B P/M ' Lyman county
DX62-2 NtEA, Sec, 10, T107N, R 7 W Juniper l631p - 1928B ?A ..Lyman county Table le Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Bates Measured Remarks
BX62-3 Mm / 4 , Sec. 10, T10?N, R f W Juniper I890p - 1937v 'P Lyman county
DX62-lt Ml/4, Sec. 3, 11071, R74W Juniper l859p - 1937v P Lyman county .
DX62-5 Mm/4, Sec. 3 , T107M, R?4W Juniper l674np - 1928B p/k Lyman county
BX62-6A NW2/4, Sec. 10, 1107m, R74w Juniper, 1705fp - 1928B pyk Lyman county
DX62-6B Ml/4, Sec. 10, 1107m,R74W Juniper 1705fp - 1924v p/k Lyman county , ......
DX62-7 Sec. 21, 11081, 172M Juniper 1702p - 19360 P/M Lyman county
DX63-I (?) Juniper 1919p-“ 1963B
DX63»2 ■ (?) ’ Juniper 1873P - 1963B p/k
3911100-1 (?) Lyman county Juniper l854p - 1963B P/M
391000-2 (?) Lyman county Juniper I691p - 1932v P/M
391000-3 (?) Lyman county Juniper I85lp - 1963B P/M
391000=4 (?) Lyman county J uniper I685p - 1937B P/M {Table 1 0 Modern Specimens from the Big Bend Area—-Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
39LMOO-5 (?) Lyman county Juniper I6ii3p - 19U0B P/M
3 % m o o ~6 (?) Lyman county Juniper 1707p - 1963B #
39LMOO-7 (?) Lyman county Juniper l676p - 1 9 3 0 P/M
MisCo 1A Skunk Island Juniper 1900p - 1 9 0 B P same as Buffalo-Hyde county line Misc„ IB
Misc* IB Skunk Island Juniper 1900p - 1 9 0 B same as Buffalo-Hyde county line Misc0 1A liable to Explanation of Symbols in lists of Specimens ifhe symbols used with the inside dates
year - no pith ring present
p - pith ring present
fp - the curvature of the inside ring indicates that it is far from the pith np - the curvature of the inside ring indicates that it is near to the pith She symbols used with the outside date* B - bark present
Q - beetle galleries are present on the surface of the specimens
L - a characteristic surface patination and smoothness, which develops just under the bark, is present
c - the outermost ring is continuous around the full circum ference of the specimen,. This symbol is used only if a full section is. present»
r - less than a full section is present, but the outermost ring is continuous around available circumference
v - a subjective judgment that, although there is no direct evidence of the true outside on the specimen, the date is within a very few years of being a cutting date vv - there is no way of estimating how far the last ring is from the true outside * - the nature of the dating is such that one or more rings may be missing near the end of the ring series, whose presence or absence cannot be determined because the specimen does not contain enough additional rings to provide an adequate check
Dates in parenthesis { ) are tentative
Mo entry in Dates column - no date obtained Table 2— Continued
No entry under Plotted not plotted
P Plotted
M Measured w
Table 3e Statistical Characteristics of the Modern Chronologies
I Q> -p g) Item Chapelle Chapelle Greek Area Big Big Bend Area Combined Combined Areas Cherry Cherry Greek A W Area Mobridge Mobridge Area
Sample sise 35 1 U 10 2 6 67
Mean ring width (mm) 1.01 .98 *99 *98 1*00 1*03
Standard deviation .363 ,1)30 «U25 •1+1+9 *620 •1+75
Mean sensitivity »32 »3lt *37 •35 •33 •29
Serial correlation •ii3 *55 *1+7 *67 *79 •61+
Percentage variation Group I Group IX Groups I & II
Retained by group chronology 5*5 59*2 15*1 Due to tree dif- . ferences 61 5.8 33*2
Due to radial , differences 6e3 0*3 l+o 9 Fritts and others 1965bg 393“U0l)o The relations between the Big Bend ehronology and the other four from South Dakota are dlsomssed in detail at the oonelmsion of this ohapter.
Ohapelle Greek Chronology
The material on which the Ohapelle Greek ehronology is based derives from the area centering on the month of this eastern tribu tary of the Missouri Riverq The locale is about midway between the
Big lend area and Pierres South Dakota in southern Stanley and Hughes counties a The specimens come from an area approximately ten miles in diametero
There are 23 specimens from the Ohapelle Greek area of which one is a duplicateo 411 of the 22 individual trees represented are juniper (Table h)o Skeleton plots were made of seven of the speci mens and 15 were measuredo Five could not be adequately dated or included in the chronologyo
The modern chronology is 2?0 years in length extending from
A 0B q 1963 back to A 0D 0 1693o ' With the addition of arohaeologieally derived materials, this chronology is 362 years, in length extending back to A0B0 l601o On a tentative basis, specimens from other archae ological sites extend the chronology back to A 0D0 1288 or a total of
675 yearsc This latter extension is of such a tentative nature that the portion from A 0B 0 l6@l to A 6Bo 1288 is not included in the chron ology presented here (Fig0 I*), and the dating in this time range can only be used with caution^ fable ho Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Creek Area
Specimen Plotted/ Member Provenience Species Bates Measured Remarks
DM58-19 Sec, 6, n09N, R?6W Juniper 1909np - 1958B M Gore Stanley county
DN58-20 Sec, 6s T109N, R76W Juniper 1900p - 1958B M Gore Stanley county
DM0-21A Sec, 6S fl09N, R76W Juniper Gore Stanley county
BI58-21B Sec, 6, T109M, R?6¥ Juniper (1719fp - 1956v ) P Gore Stanley county
DN58-22 Sec, 16, TltN, R72W' J uniper l865np - 1958B M Gore Stanley county
DM58-23 Sec, 16, ThM, R72W Juniper 1902np - 1958B 1 Gore Stanley county
DN58-2U Sec, 16, R72M Juniper 1755fp - 1958B P/M Core Stanley county
DN58-25 Sec, 16, f W s R78W Juniper I867fp «■ 1958B M Gore Stanley county
DN58-26 Sec, 1$, f # , R77W Juniper 1911tfp - 1957v M Gore Stanley county
DN^8-27 Sec, 15, f W , R77W Juniper 1913np - 1958B M Gore Stanley county fable Ito Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Greek Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DNF8-28 Sec* lit, fiiN, R77W Juniper (l88lfp - 195SB) Core Stanley county
DN58-29 Sec, lii, W , R77W Juniper I887fp - 1958B M Core Stanley county
DN58-30 Sec, 1U3 TI4N, R77W Juniper I85itfp - 1958B M Core Stanley county
DN58-31 Sec, lit, fitN, 1|7¥ Juniper I885np - 1955v Core Stanley county
DN^8-32 Sec, lit, fitN, R77W Juniper 1911np - 1958B M Core Stanley county
DN38-33 Sec, lit, fitN, R77W Juniper Core Stanley county
DN58-UOA Sec, 6, fl09N, R76¥ Juniper l693fp - 1862v v P/M same as Stanley county DN58~itOB
DN^S-kOB Sec, 6, f!09N, R76¥ J uniper l699fp - 1862v v P Same as Stanley county DN58-itOA.
DN£84*1A See, 6, fl09N, R76W Juniper 17ititfp - 18U8B P/M Stanley county
DN98-N1B Sec, 6, fl09N, R76¥ Juniper Stanley county table hm Modern Specimens from the Ghapelle Greek Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience' Species Dates Measured Remarks
HD63-L1 N K L A S Seco 7, T109N, R75W Juniper l866p - 1963B P/M Hughes county
BD63-L2 S B l A s Sec, 3, TIOSNj, R76¥ Juniper 1738p - 1916w Hughes county
HD63-13 SElA, Sec, 19,, T109N, R75W Juniper l807p - 1936B P/M Hughes county Measured rlng-widths were used to examine some of the statis
tical characteristics of the Ohapelle Greek chronology (Table 3)«
No study of'^variance was attempted on this or any of the following three chronologies because of the lack of an adequate sample.
Little Bend Chronology
The specimens on which this chronology is based were collected from the general area of the Little Bend of the Missouri River and
south to the confluence of Okobojo Greek with the Missouri, This area is approximately 20 to 25 miles across and lies about 30 miles north of Pierre* South Dakota, It is centered in Sully and northern Stan ley counties.
There are 27 specimens from the Little Bend area of which 22
are juniper* three are ash* and two are hackberry (Table 5), Eighteen
of the juniper and two of the ash specimens were plotted and nine were measured in constructing the chronology. The remaining pieces* four
of juniper* two of hackberry* and one of ash* either could not be ade
quately dated or were from fence posts of unknown origin*
The chronology based on these specimens is 313 years in length
extending from A 0D0 1959 back to AeDe l61j.6e Mith the inclusion of
archaeologlcally derived specimens the Little Bend chronology is 380
•years long going back to &,D. 1579= In addition* material from other
sites that is tentatively dated pushes this chronology back to A0De
1288 or 671 years. This latter portion is not included in figure k because of its tentative nature. Table 3 presents the statistical characteristics for the Little Bend chronology. fable 5>o Modern Specimens from the little Bend Area
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Bates Measured Remarks
DW58-1 SELA# Sec, 5, T8N, R29E Juniper (l691p - 1875w ) Fence Stanley county , Post
BW58-2 SBa.A, Sec, 5 , X8N, R29E Juniper Fence Stanley county . Post
DE58-3 to.A, Sec, 5, T8N, R29E Juniper ( - l881tvy) Fence Stanley county , Post
BM58-5 . t o A# See, 17, T8N, R291 Juniper 1903p - 1938B P Stanley county .
BM58-6 SMLA# Sec, 17, T8N, R29B J uniper 1853p - 1958B P Stanley county ,
D¥58~7 NMlA, T8N, R29$ Juniper 1921p - 1958B P Stanley.county
BW58-8 l#lA, Sec, 17, T8N, R29E Juniper 190itp - 1958B P Stanley county
DW58-9 Sec, U, T8N, R29E Juniper 1909p - 1958B Gore Stanley county
DW$8-10 Sec, It, T8N, R291 Ash 1917np « 1958B p /m Gore Stanley county
DWg8-ll Sec, it, f8N, R29E Ash 19l8fp - 1958B p /m Gore Stanley county fable 5c Modern Specimens from the Little Bend Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
•0158=12 Sec6 ks T8N, R29B Ash tl928fp - 1958B) Stanley county
BM59-1 ' SElA, Sec. 29, $u 5n , R81W Juniper l6ij.6p - I 8 l 7 w P Sully county
DM59-2A S E L A , Sec. 293 T115N, H81W Juniper l698p - l885v PA Sully county
DM59-3 SSlA, See. 29j fll5N, R01M Juniper I861tp - 1959B p A Sully county i m $ 9 - k S B l A 5 See. 29, R8l¥ Juniper l658p - l 8 2 3 w p Sully county
M 5 9 - 5 GO T115N, R81W Juniper l662p - I 8 l 9 w p Q 1 1 K :|f
DM59-6 NBlA, Sec. 28, 1115N, R81W Juniper (I7l5p - l81|6vv) p Sully county
DM59-7 ' SBlA, Sec. 29, fll5N, R81W Juniper 185% - 1959B F/M Sully county
DM59-8 SSI A, Sec. 29, T115N, Juniper 1725np - l86lvv P Sully county : I :
DM59-9 SElA, Sec, 29, T115N, R8l¥ J uniper I857np - 1959B ?A Sully county 5 ’Table 5# Modern Specimens from the Little Bend Area— Continued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
D39SLOO-1 m i / k } Sec. 16, T113N, B8l¥ Hackberry Sully county
D39SLOO-3 1'JElA, See. 16, T113N, B8l¥ Haekberry Sully county
D39SLCO-6 (?) Juniper I869p - 1958B P/M Sully county
D39SLOO-9 (?) J uniper 1917P - 1958B P Sully county
D39SL00-10A (?) Juniper 1906p - 1958B P/M Sully county
B39SL00-10B SSI A, Sec. 9# T1L3N, R80¥ . J uniper I883p - 1958B P/M Sully county
D39S100-11 (?) Juniper 190iip - 1958B P Sully county Mobridge Area Chronology
The chronology for the Mobridge area is the shortest and least reliable of the four which pertain to areas of archaeological interest* There are only four specimens from the area. One of these is oak and its location is questionable as I have been unable to cor relate the given provenience with available reference maps. The re maining three specimens are juniper and have provided a chronology 6k years long from A,D, 1962 to A,D„ 1 898,
The three juniper pieces come from a very small area just to the south of Mobridge, South Dakota, All of the specimens were plotted and two were measured (Table 6)* Because of the small size of the sample available for constructing this chronology, it cannot be considered useful without the study of additional materials (Fig,
5)o
Cherry Greek Chronology
The 12 specimens from Haakon County that were studied are all derived from the same small locale near Cherry Creek (Table 7), At present there is no archaeological application for the derived chro nology since it is based on material from an area approximately 100 miles west of the Missouri River where the major archaeological sites are located. Of the 12 specimens studied ten are juniper and two are ash.
Six of the juniper were plotted and measured and they form the basis of the chronology. An additional three pieces of the juni per weate'1:’plotted, but could not be adequately dated. One juniper Table 60 Modern Specimens from the Mobridge Area
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DN62-1 KELA j Seco 21, T18N, 130E Juniper 1937p ~ 1962B P Corson county
DN62-2 NSl/ii, Sec. 21, T18N, R30E Juniper 19l8p - 1962B P/M Corson county
DN62-3 NWl A , Sec. 22, T18N, R 30E Juniper l898p - 1962B P/M Corson county
DN63-1 SEl/h, Sec. 17, T19N, R801 Oak (I891p - 1963B) P Dewey county - 40 1850 60 950 60
F GURE 5 MOBRIDGE AREA THE MOBRIDGE AREA AND CHERRY CREEK CHRONOLOGIES I | 1 II I' 'I!
CHERRY CREEK
1 n n
1900
CHERRY CREEK
n
1650 60 1800 fable 7e Modern Specimens from the Cherry Creek Area
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DN58-1QA See* 35 'T7N, R22B J uniper I871£p ~ Ipiiiw p /m Core Haakon county
DN5S-10B Sec, 3/T7N, R22E Ash Core Haakon county
DN58-11 Sec, 3? T7N, R22E Juniper 1910p - 1958B - p /m Core Haakon county
Sec, 3, T7N, R22S Juniper (I897np - 1 9 ^ w ) p Core Haakon county
DN58-12B Sec, 3,-TJN, R22B Juniper I831p - 1907vv p /m Core Haakon county
DN58-13 Sec, 3 , 'T7N, R221 _ J uniper Core Haakon county
DN$8-lhA See, 3, f7Ns R221 Juniper p Core Haakon county
DH58-llj.B Sec. 3,"f7M, R22B Ash Core Haakon county
D N 0 - l g Sec, 3, f7N, R22E J uniper 1929P - 1958B ?M Core Haakon county
DNg8-3M Sec, 3} T7M, R22E Juniper l637fp - 1876w P/M Haakon county Table 7, Modern Specimens from the Cherry Creek A r e a - ontinued
Specimen Plotted/ Number Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks
DN58-3UB Sec^ 3, T?Nj 1221 J uniper 17U2fp - l88hw P/M Haakon county
Sec, 3, T7N, R221 Juniper P Haakon county
& and the two ash specimens could not be used® The resultant chro nology is 321 years long extending from A.Be 1958 to ASB0 1637 (Figs,
5)o Other characteristics of the chronology are presented in
Table 3®
Modern Specimens with No Provenience
Three pieces of juniper with completely inadequate provenience data are listed in Table 8e These specimens were not plottedoor dated and for purposes of this kind of study are useless since they could have been secured from the area of at least two different chronologies or be related to none of them0
Accurate provenience data are extremely important in attempt ing to construct chronologies and these three represent the most dif ficult cases encountered• They do not, however, represent the only ones0 In several instances, the available provenience data have been inadequate making the problem of comparing the ring records more difficult®
Other problems encountered include the lack of adequate site descriptions, photographic records, and species identifications® All of these have increased the difficulty of working with the material®
In addition, adequate collection records would have made possible some further conclusions with reference to the results obtained in examining the statistical parameters discussed below and would have raised the level of confidence in the results of this study® fable 8# Modern Specimens with no Provenience
Plotted/
•I Provenience Species Dates Measured Remarks Ilf
39STOO-1 (Stanley county ?) Juniper
398100-2 (Stanley county ?) Juniper
393166-3 (Stanley county ?) Juniper Discussion, and Conclusions
The statistical characteristics of the tree-ring series pre
sented in Table 3 show some interesting features,, The measures of mean sensitivity* standard deviation* and serial correlation tend to rise from south to northo The measures of standard deviation and
serial correlation are considerably greater for the westernmost
series. The mean ring width does not show any significant change between the five series. These trends appear to fit the model of
increased ring-width variability as one approaches forest border con
ditions demonstrated by Fritts and his associates (1963b), They also fit general trends exhibited by the precipitation patterns and geo
graphical elevations within the study area, Precipitation in the
Great Plains tends to decrease to the north and west and there is
also a general rise in elevation in these two directions.
Given these conditions* it would seem reasonable to propose
that the most northern and western tree-ring series represent con
ditions tending toward those of a forest border situation. Because
of the disparity of sample size between the five series* this can
only be a suggestion, A concentrated program of collection and study with much more complete and pertinent records is necessary to go beyond this point®
Again as a result of disparity in sample size* analyses of . variance could not be made to supplement the above measures except for the most southerly series, Certain characteristics of the juniper used in constructing the chronologies, can* however* be seen as a result of this one analysis® in analysis of variance was made on a group of ten trees9
selected for homogeneity, length of record, and geographical con tiguity* They were divided into two groups of five on the latter basis* Two radii, ane fast and one slow growing, were measured*
The analysis spans a period of 69 years from A0D0 1890 to AoD* 1958=
While %9% of the variation in all radii is retained in the group chronology by Group II, only is retained in Group I*
This at first seems highly inconsistent but several factors appear to be involved* Group II is the most homogeneous geographically being derived from the same section, township, and range* Group I comes from a larger area at least 12 miles square. In addition, the aver age age of the two groups is quite different. Group I has an average age of 173 years, and Group II, only 92 years.
More importantly, however, two of the specimens included in
Group I consistently exhibit low or negative correlations with the
other members of the group. This is further demonstrated by the
graph in Figure 6, which shows the relationship between the mean
standard error and the mean index for both the fast and slow growing radii of the two groups. The distribution of points for the Group II
series, is essentially normal but those for Group I are highly incon
sistent, This latter is the result of a relatively small number of narrow rings fitting the chronology and the majority of the others not doing so* Visual examination of the specimens helped to explain these inconsistencies. The two problematical specimens show evidence
of severe injury and die-back during the period under consideration I and H MEAN STANDARD ERROR F i g . 6 . R e l a t i o n s h i po f m e a n s t a n d a r d e r r o r t o m e a n i n d e x i n g r o u p s EN INDEX MEAN £8 2.0 and very irregular growth throughout the period of analysis,, In other wordsj at least for the period included in the analysis of variance, these specimens cannot be considered to be dated with sufficient accuracy0 Also, extreme care should be exercised in attempting to use similar material for constructing chronologiese It would be prefer able not to use them at alle
The analysis of the material in Group II seems to represent the characteristics of the juniper used in this study more closely*
In this group approximately 60% of the variation in all radii is.re tained in the group chronology^ Approximately '6% of the variation is due to difference among trees and something less than 1% is due to the differences among radii (Table 3)®
On the basis of these characteristics and those observed while plotting the Individual specimens several conclusions may be drawn*
First, the present areal applicability of the South Dakota chronolo gies should be limited to no more than 30 to 100 miles from the im mediate vicinity for which they are derived, with the small figure being preferable* Second, great caution must be observed in using specimens which exhibit evidence of Injury or die-back of whatever origin* Third, while making skeleton plots it was observed that the first 20 to 50 years of growth are of such a juvenile nature as to be almost impossible to work with and as a result, extremely unreliable*
This point was further verified by examining the curves of the 20 year means* In all instances, the first 20. to 50 years showed rapid growth up to a point in this range outside which a normal growth curve could
then be fitted® Fourth, at least insofar as the skeleton plot chro nologies are concerned, there is sufficient similarity between the
chronologies to allow the application of any one of them over a wide
area in a general sense® For accurate dating, however, this use must be much more restricted* CHAPTER h
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGIES
Once the modern chronologies had been established, the next part of the study involved determining whether the tree-ring records . could be applied to the dating of archaeologically derived specimens^
It was hoped that this could be accomplished and that the chronologies could be lengthened and strengthened in the process0
The study has been successful in achieving these goals„ Three of the modern chronologies have been extended and strengthened by the inclusion of the tree-ring records from archaeologically recovered specimens* As an additional result, dates have been determined for these same specimens* The work has involved detailed study and analysis of over 2000 pieces of wood and charcoal from $k selected archaeological sites*
Selection of the sites from which specimens would be examined was governed by several factors* First and most basic of these was the availability of excavated material* Since several Institutions and research organizations have been active in South Dakota over the past 20 years, a great deal of material is available from which to choose* The second factor in selecting the sites to be examined was the probability they would contain specimens from late horizons that could be cross dated with the existing modern chronologies* In this
61 62 manner? wood from progressively earlier occupations could be studied6
This in turn would make possible the continual lengthening of the record and the dating of progressively older materiale Several people were especially helpful to me in selecting those sites that would ful fill these requirementse In particular the personnel of the Smith sonian Institution's River Basin Surveys were of great assistance^
In general the same methods and techniques that were used to study the modern specimens have been applied to those of archaeolo gical origin# The procedures of record keeping, specimen preparation, species identification, and analysis have for the most part been identical# The preparation of specimens for study has been somewhat more tedious because of the often decomposed or charred nature of the wood, but the processes followed have been essentially the same#
Those specimens, especially of juniper and ash, that were found to be the most useful for constructing the modern chronologies have re ceived the strongest emphasis in studying the prehistoric materials#
The following portions of this chapter deal with the work on the archaeological specimens# The information for each site is pre sented in tabular form and a brief statement of the affiliation of the cultural remains from the site is given# The data are organized in the framework of the recently defined Middle Missouri and Coalescent traditions (Lehmer and Caldwell 1966 )# I use the term phase in place ' of the traditional terminology of the Mid-Western Taxonomic System#
The concept of the phase better fits the defined groupings# In terms of overall organization of this report, the most recent material is presented first and progressively older material is then discussed.
Figure 7 shows the geographic locations and relationships of the archaeological sites.
Historic Sites
Data on five historic sites are presented in this section.
Three of these, Fort Pierre 11, 39ST217, Port George, 39ST202, and
Fort Sully, 39SLii5, were military and/or trading posts occupied during the 19th century. The remaining two sites, 39D€>1 and 39IMf>3» prob ably relate to the early reservation period in South Dakota, again in the 19th century.
One tree-ring date was obtained for material from these five sites. It pertains to a specimen from Fort Pierre II and: is of special importance because it extended the little Bend chronology back to AeD, 1379. The outside date, A.D. 1825, fits the known con struction date of the post. Ho dates could be determined for the specimens from Port George, 39BM51 or 39IM53« Final analysis of the material from Port Sully was not completed because of the limitations on the project.
Fort Pierre II, 39ST217
Port Pierre II is a trading post established after A.D. 1855
(Smith 1960s 87). One specimen of juniper available from the site
(Table 9) contains a record extending from A.D. 1579 to A.D, 1825$
The difference between the date of the construction of the post, after A.D. 1855, and the outside date for the timber, A.D, 1825, CORSON CO.
CAMPBELL CO.
GRAND RIVER
WALWORTH CO.
MOREAURIVER DEWEY CO.
POTTER CO. FAULK CO.
ZIEBACH CO.
SULLY CO.
OAHE HYDE CO. HAND CO. CHEYENNE RIVER RESERVOIR
HUGHES CO.
( 8 ) PI E R R E STANLEY CO. HAAKON CO. BIG BEND RESERVOIR
BUFFALO CO.
BAD RIVER
LYMAN CO. JONES CO.
JACKSON CO.
WHITE RIVER
BRULE 11 CO. FIGURE 7 LOCATIONS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES STUDIED TRIPP CO. FORT RANDALL ' RESERVOIR GREGORY CO. Table 9« Archaeological Tree-Ring- Specimens from Port Pierre II, 398T217
Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks
653 East Stockade Juniper lf>7.9np - 1825w P 66 suggests that the timber may have been salvaged from Fort Pierre I which Go H e Smith informed me was built in A»Be 1831» Although this may be the case, the last dated ring on the specimen is not a cutting date, and I can not determine the number of outside rings which might be lost because the specimen has been mechanically shaped*
Port George, 39ST2Q2
This historic post is located on the west bank of the Missouri
River approximately 7 miles south of Antelope Greek in Stanley County,
There are llr specimens derived from this site available for study.
Unfortunately^ all of these pieces were populus and no dates could be obtained, (Table 10),
Fort Sully, 39SLk$
This site is situated near the east bank of the Missouri River not far above the Oahe Dam in Sully County, It was a United States military post from A*D» 1866 to A 0D, l88i| (Mattes I960), There are four juniper specimens available from the site (Table 11), Because of the time limitations on the study, the material could not be studied in. detail and no dates were obtained.
Site 3 % M g l
Site 39IM51 is located near Oaeoma on the Missouri River in
Lyman County, Material recovered from, the site includes metal, china and other historic period artifacts indicating to V, ¥, Caldwell that it was probably occupied during the early reservation period in the Table 100 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from Port George, 39ST202
Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks
1982 North Stockade populus
1983 North Stockade populus 1981 North Stockade populus
1985 North Stockade populus
1986 (?) populus 1987 (?) populus
1988 (?) populus
1989 (?) populus
1990 (?) populus
1991 . (?) populus 1992 (?) populus
1993 (?) populus 1996 (?) populus 1997 (?) populus Table 11# Archaeologic al Tree-Ring Specimens from Fort Sully s 39SLl|.5
Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks
3U8 Sink near married:men1s Juniper quarters
iiah lime storehouse Juniper iias lime storehouse Juniper ,
1U16 lime storehouse J uniper 19th centuryo The one piece of juniper from this site could not be dated (Table 12),
Historic Lower Brule'Site, 39TM53
Site 39LM53 is located several miles downstream from the Big
Bend Dam# It is on the west bank of the Missouri River in Lyman
County# The site is a historic occupation with log buildings# Three specimens, two of populus and one of juniper, were in the collection
(Table 13)® No dates could be determined for this material#
Post-contact Coalescent Horizon Sites
This horizon as defined by Lehmer and Caldwell (1966) included the developments that took place in the Middle Missouri region after the 17th century or in the proto-historic and historic period# One of the main unifying factors of the excavated sites is the presence of European trade goods in the collections from them# Another point most of these sites have in common is the assumed or documented occu pation of them by the Arikara#
Several of the sites discussed here have more than one com ponent# Some of these components correctly belong in other horizons#
These sites are included here because the tree-ring dates from them can best be placed in this horizon and the specimens are generally associated with the related components#
Material from l£ sites is discussed in this section# These sites are located throughout the entire portion of the Missouri River dealt with in this study# The most recent of the sites is the Table 12o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 3%K^1
Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks
7 P3j floor juniper
-F3 = (?) house
-O O Table 13. Archaeological Tree-ling Specimens from the Historic Lower Brule Site, 39 LM53
Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks
91 FI populus
290 F3 populus l£8 F? juniper P
FI - burned, dirt roofed, log building with 3 sections or rooms
F3 = north room of El
F7 = cabin beside FI 72
Leavenworth site, 39009, in Corson County. No dates have been ob
tained for it, but its occupation in the first quarter of the 19th
century by the Arikara is well documented*
The Four Bear site, 39DW2, and the Medicine Crow site, 39BF2,
have also been associated with Arikara occupation* From the first of
these, four specimens have been dated between A„D* 1758 and A0D* 177Uc
Six dates for material from 39BF2 range from A#B„ 1705 to A*D. 1776*
In addition, one other date from the Rosa Site, 39F03, falls in the
second half of the 18th century at A eB @ 1766*
Material from three other sites including the Talking Crow
site, 39BF3, one of the Oacoma sites, 391M26, and the Fort George
site, 39ST17, have provided dates in the later portion of the 17th
and early portion of the 18th centuries* Five specimens from 39BF3
date between A.B* 1671 and A«B0 1707* Ten dates ranging from A0D0 1669 to A,Da 1731 have been obtained from 39LM26, and two tentative dates
of A*D® 1667 and A»D* 1723 come from 39ST17o
Two sites for which no tree-ring dates could be determined have been assigned temporal positions by other methods. A radiocarbon
date of A 39SL2lu Occupation between A.D. 1700 and A.D# 1725 has been proposed for the components of the Swan Creek site, 39WW7, from which the wood samples studied were obtained. Specimens from the Buffalo Pasture site, 39ST6, could not be dated with the available chronologies. A site chronology has been ! 73 established for the material. This chronology will allow internal temporal comparison of the materials® . No dates have been determined for specimens from five of the sites in this horizon® Two of these, the Davis site, 3?G01i|., and one of the Oacoma sites, 39IM27, contained no dateable species® The material from the Crazy Bull site, 39DM220, could not be dated. Final analysis could not be completed on the Larson site, 39W2, and the Red Horse Hawk site, 39C03U, and no dates have been obtained for either of them* The Leavenworth Village, 39009 This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri River a few miles upstream from the confluence of the Grand River in Corson County, The site was occupied by the Arikara during the period from about A sDs l800 to A CD 0 1833= Approximately I4.OO pieces of wood and charcoal were available for study from the site® The great majority of the material was in fragmentary condition and consisted primarily of populus with some ash, willow, and unidentified bark fragments (Table llj.)= No dates were obtained from the specimens in this col lection* The Four Bear Site, 3 9 M 2 This site is situated near the mouth of Buffalo Skin Greek (Le Beau Greek) in Dewey County, The cultural material has been assigned to the Four Bear phase (Hurt and others 1962), It is be lieved that Lewis and Clark saw this site while it was still occupied in October, I80lj. (Hurt and others 1962; v)» Table lit0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009 Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks U320 1227, P2k5 populus L321 1227, F2k5 populus U322 1227, P2k5 populus 1323 1227, F2M populus 132k 2227, F2k3 populus k325 2227, F2k5 populus k326 2227, F2k5 populus k327 2227, populus k328 1227, F2k5 populus if.329 2227, F2U5 populus k330 1227, F2k5 populus k331 2227, F2U5 populus k332 , 2227, F2k5 populus k333 2227, F2k5 populus h33h 2227, F2U5 populul Table llu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3900?— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1*335 1227$ F245 populus U336 X227, F245 populus ii337 1227, F245 populus 4338 1227, F245 populus 4339 1227, F245 populus 4340 1227, F245 populus 4341 1227, F245 populus 4342 1 1227, F245 populus 4343 1227, 1245 populus 4344 1227, 1245 populus 4345 1227, 1245 populus 4346 1227, 1245 populus 4347 1227, 1245 populus 4348 1227, 1245 populus 4349 1227, 1245 populus 6174 1225, populus Table liu Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth Village* 39009— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 6175 X225 populus 6176 X223> populus 6177 X225 ' populus -6178 X225 populus 6179 X225> populus 6180 X225 populus 6181 X225 populus 6182 . X225 populus 6183 X225» populus 6l81|. X225 populus 6185 X225 populus 6186 X225 populus 6187 X220 populus 6188 X225 populus 6189 X225 populus 6190 X225 populus 6191 X225 populus Table liu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Villages 39009— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 6192 1225 populus 6193 1225 populus 619k 3C225 populus 6195 1225. populus 6196 1225 populus 6197 X225 populus 6198 1225 populus 6199 X225 populus 6200 X225 populus 6201 X225 populus 6202 2225 populus 6203 X225 populus 620k X225 populus 6205 X225 populus 6206 X225 populus 6207 X225 populus 6208 X225 populus fable lUs Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3 9GO9—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Plotted Remarks 6209 122$ populus 6210 122$ populus 6211 122$ populus 6212 122$ populus 6213 122$ populus 621U X22$ populus 6290 X22hs F770 populus 6291 222US F770 populus 7172 X8$0 populus 7173 2850 populus 717b 2850 populus 7175 2850 populus 7176 2850 populus 7177 2850 populus \ 7178 • 2850 populus 7179 2850 populus Table llu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39GG9—Continued. Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 7180 X8 £o populus 19896 X1567, P150S ash and Bark (Spp0) 19897 X1567, F15'03 ash and bark (Spp*) 19898 Xl56? $ F1505 ash and bark (Spp,} 19899 11567, 51505 ash and bark (Spp*) 19900 X1567, F1505 ash and bark (Spp*) 19901 11567, Fl5o5 ash and bark (Spp*) 19902 X1567, F1505 ash and bark (Spp*) 19926 X1567, F1510 populus 19927 X1567, F1510 populus 19928 11567, F1510 populus 19929 X1567, F1510 populus 19930 XL567, F1510 populus fable llte Archaeological free-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Tillage-, 39009—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 19931 11567, F1510 populus 19932 20.567, $1510 populus 19933 11567, $1510 populus 19931 11567, $1510 populus 19935 11567, P1510 populus 19936 11567, P1510 populus 19937 11567, F1510 populus 19938 20.567, R510 populus 19939 11567, $1510 populus 199k© 20.567, $1510 populus 19910. 20.567, $1510 populus 199U2 11567, $1510 populus 199k3 20.567, $1510 populus 199k.lt 20.567, $1510 populus 199k5 11567, $1510 populus 199k6 20.567, $1510 populus Table lit* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3900P--Continued Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 199117 21^67, F1510 populus 199118 21567, F1510 populus 199U9 21567, F1510 populus 19959 21567, F1510 populus 19951 21567, F1510 populus 19952 21567, F1510 populus 19953 21567, F1510 populus 19955 21567, 5151© populus 19955 21567, 12510 populus 19956 21567, F1510 populus 19957 21567, FL510 populus 19958 21567, F1510 populus 19959 21567, F1510 . populus 19960 21567, F1510 populus 19961 21567, F1510 populus 19962 21567, F1510 populus 19963 21567, F1510 populus Table 11+, Archaeological TreeSBing Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39Q09—Continued Specimen lumber. Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1996^ 11567, P1510 - populus 19965 30.567, n 5 lO populus 19966 30.567, F1510 populus 19967 11567, F1510 populus 19968 30.567, F1510 populus 19969 11567, P1510 populus 19970 21567, F1510 ' populus 19971 21567, F1510 populus 19972 21567, F1510 populus 19973 21567, F1510 populus 1997b 21567, F1510 populus 19975 30.567, F1510 populus 19976 21567, F1510 populus 19977 21567, F1510 populus 19978 21567, F1510 populus 19979 21567, F1510 populus 19980 21567, F1510 populus Table lib Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illage, 39009—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 19981 11567, F1510 populus 19982 11567, F1510 populus 19983 H567, $1510 populus 1998a H 5 6 7, 5-1510 populus 19985 11567, F1510 populus 20020 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Sppe) 20021 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp6) 20022 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp0) 20023 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp«) 2002^ 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp») 20025 11567, F1512 populus and bark (8 pp.) 20026 11567, F1512 populus and bark (3pp.) 20027 11567, F1512, cache pit Ash wood more recent than pit Table Ik* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—Continued Specimen Humber. Provenience • Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20028 11567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 20029 11567, $1512 populus and bark (Spp0) 20030 11567, $1512 populus and bark (Spp.) 80031 11567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 20032 11567, F1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 20033 11567, F1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 2003k 13.567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 2003$ 11567, F1512 populus and bark.(8pp.) 20036 11567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 20037 11567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) 20038 11567, $1512 populus and bark (8pp.) Table lit® Archaeological free-ling Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20039 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp„) 200U0 XL567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 200141 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 20012 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 200it3 X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 200itU 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 200li.5 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp® > 200W X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 2001+7 XL567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 200W X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 2001+9 X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp®) 20050 X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp,) Sable lk° Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village? 39GQ9—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20051 1 1 5 6 7 s F1512 populus and bark (Spp.) 20052 X1567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp0) 20053 H 567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp0) 20051 30.567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp#) 20055 11567, F1512 . populus and bark (Spp#) 20056 11567, F1512 populus and bark (Spp#) 20057 11567, 51512 populus and bark (Spp#) 20058 11567, F1512 populus 20059 21567, F1512, cache p it ash wood more recent than p it 20060 11567, F1512, cache pit ash wood more recent than pit 20061 11567, 51512 populus 20062 11567, Fl5lit populus and bark (Spp#) 20063 11567, Fl5llt populus and bark (Spp#) Table lii.0 Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—Continued Number Provenience Species J Blotted Remarks - i. * .. - 20061). 30.367* Pl3lb populus and bark (Sppc) 20063 30.367* Pl3lb populus and bark (Spp0) 20066 X1367* Fl3lli populus and bark (Spp,) 2006? 3C1367* Fl3lU populus and bark (Spp0)X JL. U * 20068 '11367, Fl3lb populus and bark (Spp„} 20069 11367, Fl3lb populus and bark (Spp,) 20070 11367* Fi3lb populus and bark (Spp.) 20071 11367, Fl3lb populus and bark (Spp.) 20072 1 l populus and bark (Spp.) 20073 21367, Fi3lb populus and bark (Spp.) 2007b 11367* F1313 populus 20073 11367* F1313 populus 20076 11367, F1313 populus Table lUo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—-Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted. Remarks 20077 21567, 11515 populus 20078 ' 11567, 11515 populus 20079 X1567, P1515 populus 20080 21567, P1515 populus 20081 21567, P1515 populus 20082 21567, F1515 populus 20083 21567, F1515 populus 20084 21567, #1515 populus 20085 21567, #1515 populus 20086 21567, fi5i5 populus 20087 2 1 5 6 7 , Ii5 i5 populus 20088 21567, 11515 populus 20098 21567, I 1 5 1 7 s cache pit ' ash 20099 21567, 11517 populus 20100 21567, 11517 populus 20101 21567, Ilia! populus 20102 21567, 11521 populus 20103 2156?, 11521 populus Table lU* Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens.from the Leavenworth Village, 39C09—-Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 201014 11567, F1521 populus 20105 11567, F1521 populus 20106 11567, F1521 populus 20107 11567, F1521 populus 20108 11567, F1521 populus 20109 11567, F1521 populus 20110 11567, F1521 populus 20111 . 11567, $1521 populus 20112 11567, F1521 populus 20113 11567, F1521 populus 201114 11572, post s a lix 20115 11572, post ash 20116 11572 ash 20117 11572, ash 20118 11572 ash 20119 11572 populus 20120 11572 ash 20121 11572 populus and ash Table liu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3 9G0 9—Qontinued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20122 3.572, 11522 populus and ash 20123 3.572, F1522 populus and ash 2012b 3.572, F1522 populus and ash 20125 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20126 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20127 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20128 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20129 3572, F1522 populus and ash 20130 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20131 3 5 7 2 , F1522 - populus and ash 20132 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash 20133 3 5 7 2 , F1522 populus and ash Table II4.0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth V illage, 39009—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 2013b 11572, F1522 populus and ash 20135 11572, 11522 populus and ash 20136 1 1 5 7 2 , P1522 populus and ash 20137 X1572, Fl52b populus and bark (Spp„) 20138 m572, Fl52b populus and bark (Spp,) 20139 n . 5 7 2, F152U populus and bark (Spp,) 201b0 X1572, P15214 populus and bark (Spp0) 201b! 1 1 5 7 2 , 21523 populus 201U2 1 1 5 7 2 , 21523 populus 20113 11572, P1523 populus 2011tb 11572, F1577 populus 20155 11568, 21529 bark (Spp,) 20156 11568, 21529 bark (Spp,) 20157 11568, 21530 bark (Spp,) 20158 11568, 21530 bark (Spp,) Table lUo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village^ 39G09—Continued Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20159 Xl568? 1153© Bark (Spp0) 20160 X1568, F1535 bark (Sppo) 20161 21568, 11535 bark (Sppo) 20162 21568, 11535 - bark (Sppo) 20163 21568, $1535 bark (Sppo) 2016^ 21568, 51535 bark (Sppo5 20165 21568, 51535 bark (SppQ) 20166 21568, 51535 bark (Spp«) 2016? • 21568, 51535 ' bark (%Pe) 20168 21568, 51535 bark (Spp») 20169 21568, 51538 bark (SpPo) 20170 21568, 51538 bark (SpPo) 20171 21568, 51538 bark (SPPo) 20172 21568, 51538 bark (Sppo) 20173 2 1 5 6 8 , F1538 bark (Spp0) 2017k 21568, 51538 bark (SPP=) 20175 21568, 51538 bark (Sppo) 20176 21568, 51538 bark ( SPPo) Table llj.0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Tillage, 39009—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks I S w ^ 20177 Z1568, 31538 f 20178 215685 F1538 bark (Spp„) 20179 21568, F1538 bark (Spp,) 20180 21568, H538 bark (Sppc) 20181 ' 21568, 31538 bark (Spp,) 1 20182 50.568, 31538 ! 20183 21568, 31538 bark (Spp0) 2018^ 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20185 21568, 31538 bark (Spp0) 20186 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 2018? 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20188 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20189 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20190 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20191 1 21568, 31538 f 20192 21568, 31538 bark (8pp.) 20193 2 1 5 6 8 , P1538 bark (Spp.) 20194 21568, 31538 bark (Spp.) Table lk» Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39^09—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Pates Plotted Remarks 20195 11568, P1538 bark (Spp,) 20273 11650, F1621 popului and ash mixed 20271* 1 16 50, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20275 X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20276" X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20277 X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20278 n65o, $1621 populus and ash mixed 20279 H650, F1621. populus and ash mixed 20280 11650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20281 %1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20282 X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20283 n 6 5 o , F 1621 populus and ash mixed Table lit# Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 3 9C0 9—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20283+ 11650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20285 11650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20286 11650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 2028? X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20288 n65o, F 1621 populus and ash mixed 20289 X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20290 X1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20291 XL650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 20292 n 6 5 o , F 1621 populus and ash mixed 20293 X 1650, F1621 populus and ash mixed 2029lt XI6 5 0 , F1621 populus and ash mixed Table Iko Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—Continued Specimenv » - • >" * ' • *r • • • * . ‘ • ' ’ + * r-. • Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20295 11650, F1621 populus and ash mixed . 20296 1 1 6 5 0 , F1621 populus and ash mixed 20297 21650, 11621 populus and ash mixed 20298 H 650, FI621 populus and ash mixed 20299 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed 20300 X1650, 51721 populus and ash mixed 20301 21650, 51721 populus and ash mixed 20302 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed 20303 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed 2030k 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed 20305 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed 20306 21650, F1721 populus and ash mixed fable lUo Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Leavenworth Villages 39009—.Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20307 Xi65o} F1721 populus and ash mixed 20308 XI6 3 0 , 11721 populus and ash mixed 20309 X1630, 11622 populus 20310 XI6 3 0 , 11622 populus 20312 21630,-11622 populus 20312 2L630, F1622 populus 20313 . 11630, 11622 populus 20314 X1630, 11622 populus 20313 30.630, F1622 populus 20316 11630, F1622 populus 20360 11368, 11349 hackberry 20361 11368, 11349 hackberry 20362 30.368, 11349 hackberry 20363 30.368, 11349 hackberry 20364 30.368, 11349 hackberry 20363 30.368, 11349 hackberry 20366 11368, 11349 hackberry Table llu Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Villages 39009—Continued Specimen lumber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20367 X1568, 31549 hackberry 20368 X1568, F1549 hackberry 20369 X1568, F1549 hackberry 20370 Xl568s F1549 hackberry 20371 11568s F1549 hackberry 20372 X1568, F1549 hackberry 20373 X1568, F1549 hackberry 20374 X1568, P1549 hackberry 20375 ' 30-568, F1549 hackberry 20376 30568, P1549 hackberry 20377 30568, 31549 hackberry 20378 30568, F1549 hackberry 20379 30568, 31549 hackberry 20380 30568, F1549 hackberry 20381 30568, F1549 hackberry 20382 30568, F1549 hackberry 20383 XI568, 31549 hackberry 20384 30568, F1549 hackberry Table Ilia Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39C09*—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 20385 X1568, Fl5h9 hackberry 20386 X1568, F15U9 hackberry 20387 X1568, P15L9 hackberry 20lt06 X1651, F1679, mortar ash 20L07 Xl65l, FI678 , strin g ers and oak post 201.28 X1568, F1533, wood flooring populus, salix in cache pit and bark (Spp0) 20k5h (?) bark (Spp,) 20156 X1500, Midden ash X22j| = House 3h, Lower Village, circular earth lodge X225 = House h i9 Lower Village, circular earth lodge X227 = Midden Test, Lower Village X8*?0 = House, Lower tillage, circular earth lodge Xl^OO = Midden (?) Xl56? - (?) Lower Village XI5)68 = (?) Lower Village fabl© lit* ' Archaeological Sree-Ring Specimens from the Leavenworth Village, 39009—Continued Xl572 = 6th road p atro l out, Lower V illage X1650 = House 20, Upper V illage, circ u la r earth lodge US$1 - (?), Upper Village F2liS = wood in trench in 122? F770 * eharred wood in X22l|. H505 = cache pit in 11567 F1510 = cache pit in 11567 51512 = wood from cache p it in XL567 Fl5lh = (?) in 3(1567 F1515 = cache p it in 21567 Fl5l7 ® wood from cache pit in 21567 F1521 = cache pit in 21567 with post adjacent to North rim 51522 = cache pit in 30.572 F1523 = cache pit in 21572 Fl52it = cache pit in 11572 F1529 = (?) F1530 « cache pit in 21568 F1535 = cache pit in 21568 with wood fragments F1538 = cache pit in 21568 |Table ll*0 Archaeological Tree=Eing Specimens from the Leavenworth T illag e, 39009—Oomtinued P15U9 - wood fragments from cache pit in Xl568 $1577 = cache p its in X1572 51621 = (7) P1622 « cache p it in X1650 51678 = stringers and post in 21651 F1679 • wooden mortar in 21651 51721 - (?) 102 Five specimens attributed to this site, all of juniper, have been studied* Dates have been determined for four of the specimens* The dates range from A0D0 1758 to A0D„ 1775 (Table 15)» There is, however, a question whether these specimens are actually from 39D¥2e The Medicine Grow S ite , 39BF2 This site is located four miles west of Fort Thompson on the east bank of the Missouri River in Buffalo County* It is a three- component s ite which has been te n ta tiv e ly dated between A«D0 1690 and A*D* 1780* The occupation has been identified as Arikara (Deetz 1965)* The dating, cultural identification, and European trade materials re covered would all lead to the placement of the site complex in the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon® There are 55 pieces of wood and charcoal representing 30 dis crete specimens in the site collection® Of the 30 specimens, six are juniper, five are ash, 17 are populus and two are of unidentified species (Table 1 6 )® Six dates, two of which are tentative, have been determined for th is material® The dates f a l l between A®D® 1705 and AoD® 1776 but none of them are cutting dates® A ll of the dated specimens are derived from Area A of the site which contains materials representative of Components A and B® Deetz (1965$ 38-9} has sug gested that these two components date between A®D@ 1720 and A*D» 1780 so that there is quite close agreement between his tentative dating and the tree -rin g dates® fable l5o . Archaeological free-Bing Specimen® from the Four Bear Site 39DW2 Specimen' . Number Provenience Species Pates Plotted Remarks p 2 (?) Juniper l?10fp - l?7l|vv 3 (?) juniper P k (?) Juniper 1723p - 1761}.vv P 21 - 100¥, 100N Juniper 1699P - 1767W P 91 U0¥, 90N Juniper l696p - 1768 w f Table 1 6* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow Site,, 39BF2 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 188 Area A, Feature 1, f i l l populus 227 Area A, Feature 52 in Feature populus 1, fill 0 to If. inches . 2$k Area As Feature 52 in Feature populus 1, fill 6 to 10 inches. 3i*G Area A4 Feature 52 in Feature ash 1, fill 8 to 10 inches 587 Area A, F55 in FI, fill 0 to populus 6 inches 66l Area A, F81j, in P55 of FI populus cache p it 797 Area A, F55, in FI, fill populus 859 Area A populus 938 Area A, F85 in FI bark (Spp?) 952 Area A, F89 in Fl ash 1,0 to 1,5 feet below surface 1298 Area 0, F220, flo o r ash 2365 Area B, XU2, squares J18-19 populus 1,25 feet below surface 21,02 Area B, XU2, squares J18-19 populus F65 ■ ... Table 16„ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow Site 3 39BF2--Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 2672 Area B, XU3, squares 112-13 populus p»5 to 0,75 feet below surface W 2 Area A, P5oo, last wall post populus 5lij.9A-F Area A, F502 populus one specimen 5258 Area A3 F5oU ash l66Unp”1713r P 5268A-0 Area As F5oU juniper (I676np-17l6w) P one specimen 5269A-C Area A, F5oU juniper l66Up-1705w P one specimen 5270A-C Area As F5olt juniper (l681»p-1717w) P one specimen 53WUB Area A, F506 juniper 171hp-1776vv P . one specimen 5608 Area A, F511, entrance post populus 56824-0 Area A, F512 juniper l61i.6p-1768vv P one specimen 6 1 2 1 .... Area A, F522 populus 6II46 Area As F522 populus 69ii9A Area C, F227 populus 69U9B Area G, F227 juniper 691490 Area 03 F227 ash 69U9D Area C3 F227 Spp<>? 7103 Area 0, F229, cache p it populus Table l 6 „ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Grow Site, 39BF2—Continued Feature 1 - circular earth lodge in Area A, entrance to the SW in Feature Feature 52 = ME quadrant of Feature 1 Feature 53 = SB quadrant of feature 1 Feature 5h - SW quadrant of feature 1 Feature 55 = MW.quadrant of Feature 1 Feature 65 = possible cache pit, probably a multi-component rodent burrow in Area B Feature 83 = 5 by 15 foot test across a cache, a continuation southward of Feature 1 Feature 8h - cache pit in Feature 55 Feature 85 - ? in Feature 1 Feature 89 = test trench east of Feature 83, contained burials Feature 220 - circular earth lodge in Area 0 Feature 227 = circular earth lodge in Area 0 Feature 229 = cache pit in Area 0 Feature 500 = circular earth lodge in Area A. Feature 502 = circular earth lodge in Area A Feature 50h = circular earth lodge in Area A Feature 506 « circular earth lodge in Area A Feature $11 - circular earth lodge in Area A Feature 512 = circular earth lodge in Area A 106 Feature 522 = circular ceremonial lodge, entrance to the ME, in Area A The Rosa S ite , 39K>3 The Rosa site is situated on the east bank of the Missouri River southwest of the former Forrest City in Potter County, A sim i larity of the material from one of the occupation areas. Occupation B, of this multi-component site to le Beau phase materials has-been noted, but a definite assignment to that phase has not been made (Hurt 1957s 5-6)o If this assignment is correct, the material would be part of the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon, There are two pieces of wood in the collection from the Rosa site. Both of these are derived from a house assigned to Occupation B, One specimen is juniper and a tentative date of A,De 1766 has been determined for it. The second specimen is pine and could not be dated (Table I?), The Talking Crow S ite , 39BF3- This site is located near the Missouri River south of the Big Bend Dam in Buffalo County, It is a multi-component site most of which are probably related to the Coalescent Horizon* At least one component. Component B, has been tentatively assigned to the Port Thompson phase (Smith 1957? Stephenson 1954)= There are 9k pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from this site. These represent 81 specimens of which four are juni per, two are ash, and 75 are pop ulus (Table 18), None of the mate r i a l is assignable by component on the basis of rea d ily available in formation, Five of the specimens have been dated and provide a range Table 17e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Rosa Site,, 39-P03 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks ' . 1 HI pine P 2 Hls west side juniper (l652p-1766vv) P HI - c irc u la r lodge Table 1 8„ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow Site, 39BF3 Specimen lumber . Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 162 F9# post populus 163 F9 , central support post populus 161|. F9, outer post populus 193 5*9# ^oof ( ? ) ...... populus 2U5A-1 F9, roof timber, east quad0 juniper l593fp-1707w P one specimen 2^5 " F13, post, recent origin populus possibly a fence post k37 FI4,, stockade post populus 108 F2h, exterior cache pit populus 1|.39A F9 ash U39B F 9 populus ItUo F9 , post from North quadrant populus libl F9 , post from outer row populus North quadrant liU2 F9, T6 populus hk3 Fl^,’outer vertical post, populus North quadrant Will Flf>, floor of North quadrant populus 109 WW> F15, roof beam, North quadrant populus fable 18» Archaeological free-Bing Specimens from, the Talking Grow Site, 3 9BF3—-Gonttnued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted • Remarks lih6 Pl5>, roof beam, North quadrant populus ^7 $1^, roof beam populus ^8 Fl5, roof beam. North quadrant populus a ? F15, roof beam. West quadrant populus ^0 Fl5, roof beam, last quadrant populus ItSl FlS, flo o r. West %uadrant populus h!>2 Fl5, roof beam. West quadrant populus a3 FlS populus Ua Fl5, roof? populus a6 $15, roof beam. North quadrant juniper l622p-l671w P a? Fl5, roof beam, North quadrant populus a 8 Fl5» outer v e rtic a l post populus North quadrant a? 115, outer vertical post, populus North entrance 5U7 132, exterior cache pit, ash I637p-l678w P Mound 1 7a F15, North quadrant populus 110 88^ . F27, fence post - populus Table 1 8* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow Site, 3y|BF3—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 886 F2 7 j entrance post populus 88 ?F2 7 , entrance post populus 9ia F3 2 , exterior cache pit. populus Mound 1 9k2 H3, outer post,. .West quadrant populus 1107A-F F39, floor NW quadrant populus one specimen 1129 ‘ F3 9 , floor SB quadrant ... populus 1132 F39, slanting post, outer populus edge, _SW' quadrant 13U7 F6 8 , square 13 populus 1338 F6 8 , T13R1-ML/2 populus 11+89 F6 8 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed populus 1300 F6 8 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed populus 1388 F6 8 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed . populus 1639 F6 8 , Houses 6 and 7 mixed populus 192k F71, Exterior cache pit near populus House 3 198h F62B, exterior cache pit populus near house 3 2111+ F39, corn cache. House 3 juniper l331p=l687w Table 1 8„ Archaeological Tree-ling Specimens from the Talking Grow Sites 3 9BF3—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Plotted Remarks 2115 P68A, southeast quadrant of populus House 6 2116 P68A5 southeast quadrant of populus House 6 .. .. 211? F68A, southeast quadrant of populus House 6 __ 2119 P68A, southeast quadrant of populus House 6, forked beam 2120A-E F68A, northeast quadrant of juniper P one specimen House 6 2121 F68A, House 6.#. edge populus 2122 F69, fortification mound populus 2123 F68A, floorj southwest populus quadrant. House 6 .... 212k F68A, southwest quadrant populus House 6 2125 F68A, southwest quadrant populus House 6 2126 F68A, east .edge of House 6 populus 2128 F68B, northwest quadrant populus House 7 2129 F68B. northwest quadrant populus House 7 Table l 8a Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow Site, 39BF3—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 2130 F68B, northwest quadrant, populus edge of House 7 2131 F68B, northwest quadrant populus House 7 2133 F68B, southwest quadrant. populus House 7 2134 F75s exterior cache pit. populus Mound 1 2136 F68B, House 7 populus 2171 F68B, House 7 populus 2175 F28, southwest quadrant populus House 4 2176 F28 , northeast quadrant, populus House 4 . 2257 F68A, northeast quadrant, populus edge of House 6 3118 F68A, House 6 populus 3507 400030, exterior post populus between houses 3643 F121, southwest quadrant. populus House 8 4394 F171, central block. House 13 populus Table l 8a Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Crow Site, 3 9BP3—Continued Specimen " ’ Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks hh$h F172, butt end of post in populus refuse filled exterior pit W20 Tl5, 12 inch deep test pit populus 5162 F28, southeast quadrant populus House k ... 5207 F28, northwest quadrant populus House k 529 I1 T2, post in outer ring, Test populus in unexcavated house 5295 T2, Test in unexcavated house populus 5296 T2, Test in unexcavated house populus Feature U = Stockade post Feature 9 = House 1 Feature 13 = Post of recent origin Feature 15 = House 2 Feature 2h -ex terio r cache p it Feature 27 = House 3S outside fortified area Feature 28 = House It, Ceremonial lodge Feature 32 - exterior cache pit. Hound 1 Table 1 8<, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Talking Grow Site, 39BF3—Continued Feature 39 = House Feature 623 = e x te rio r cache p it near House $ Feature 68 = Houses 6 and 7 mixed Feature 68A = House 6 Feature 683 = House 7 Feature 69 * Fortification mound Feature 75 = exterior cache pit, Mound 1 Feature 121 ® House 8 Feature 171 * House 13 Feature 172 = House lli. Test trench T2 - Test in unexcavated house T6 * Test in House 1 Tl5 » 12 inch deep test pit from A0D« 1671 to A«D, 1707» These were probably derived from the later components at the site® The Oacoma S ite s, 39EM26 and 39LM27 These two sites are situated near the town of Oacoma in Lyman Countyo They have a mutual boundary® A date of A»D® 175>0 has been suggested for their occupation (Kivett 1952t 59), and the two com ponents have been assigned to the Fort Thompson phase® This latter would place them in the Post-contact. Coalescent Horizon* There are II4I4 pieces of wood and charcoal available from 39LM26 fo r study* This number actu ally represents only 36 individual specimens of which 21 are juniper, nine are populus, five are ash, and one is bark from an unidentified species (Table 19)» All but two of the specimens were derived from circular housesc Ten dates ranging from A.Do 1669 to A0D„ 1731 have been determinedj two te n ta tiv e dates fall in this same time span® From 39LM27, there are 25 pieces of wood and charcoal. These are actually only three individual specimens. All are populus and none could be dated (Table 20), . The Fort George B ite, 39ST17 This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri liver a few miles south of Pierre in Stanley County, Although a final report on the site is yet to be published, it has been described as being a proto-his'boric Arikara site. Tentative dating places the occupation between A,D, 1700 and A,D» 17^2 (Hoffman 1965)» Table 19o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma Site, 3912426 Specimen . Humber Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 93h2 n i Bark (Sppc) 107lt$ fl9 populus 10751A-L F2 populus 1 0 7 5 3 " . House f i l l populus 10755A/1-3 PH, Posts northeast outer juniper l 63Ufp-l68 lvv P row 10755B/1-2 PH, Posts northeast outer juniper l 6ijlnp-l 699 vv P row 1076b PH populus 10773 #11 populus 11002A-G F15, l a 3 feet below surface juniper 128 blA-W F76 populus 15218A/1-7 F90 populus 15218B #90 ash 226011-% #50 juniper I 632p”l 696 vv P 26383A»g #80 ash . P F3 5 -1 F35 juniper P F35-2A & B #35 juniper P P50-1A-K ' #50 populus Table 19o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oacoma Site, 39M26—Oontinueci Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks F50-2 F30 juniper (l632p-17l5w) P same as F3 0 -1 1 FS0- 3A/1 -2 F50 juniper l65lp-1732w P F50-3B F50 juniper P Pgo-hA & b F5o juniper P F30-5A & B f 5o juniper P F30-6A & B F30 . juniper l 376p -l686 w P F^d—7 #50 juniper F5 0 -8 F50 juniper l62hnp-17 Oli.vv P FgO-9A& B F30 juniper I6l5p-1711w P - FgO-lOA & B F30 juniper P FgO-llA & B F50 juniper l 61i6np- 1712w P same as F50-2 F5 0 -1 2 F50 juniper F50-13A-B F50 juniper F8 0 -1 F80 ash P F8 0 -2 F80 ash (I701p-1736vv) P F90—1A—0 F 90 juniper l633P"l669w P 118 F90-2 ' F90 ash Table 19» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oaooma Site, 39M 2 6—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates P lotted Remarks Misc, 14-0 (?) juniper l651np-l693w P MisCo 2 (?) populus Misco 3 (?) populus F2 * circular lodge Fll = circular lodge $15 = (?) $19 = (?) $35 = c irc u la r lodge F50 = circular lodge F?6 = storage p it in F110 F80 = circular lodge F90 = c irc u la r lodge $110 = c irc u la r lodge fable 20o Irchaeologieal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Oaeoma Site, 39LM27 Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks ltO?2 F2, O05 to 1*0 feet populus U335A-Z F5 ' populus U3A3A-K F I, Square N210 populus F2 = circular lodge H = Test square F5 - Storage pit in F2 120 121 There are If? pieces of wood and charcoal making up 13 discrete specimens in the Fort George site collections. Of the 13 specimens, nine are juniper, two are populus, one is ash, and one could not be id en tifie d (Table 21)* Sight dates, two of them te n ta tiv e , have been determined from material in this collection. These dates range from A„De 166? to AeD6 1723, but none are cutting dates. In general the tree-ring dates agree quite well with the proposed period for the occupation. S ite 39SL2U This site is located on the east bank of the Missouri River in the little Bend in Sully Gounty, The site material is unpublished but is described as being similar to that from the Molstad site (Hoffman 1967: k$)o A radiocarbon determination on wood from 39SL2ij. has provided a date of A,D, 1710 ± 80 years. The available informa tion would indicate that 39Sl2lj. is related to the Rost-contact Hori zon, There are two specimens of populus available from the site (Table 22), but no dates could be obtained for these specimens. The Swan Greek S ite , 39’W7 This s ite is situated on Swan Greek in Walworth Gounty south of Mobridge, There are four occupation areas in the site of which one. Occupation A, has been assigned to the Akaska phase and the other three, Occupations B, 0, and D have been assigned to the Le Beau phase (Hurt 1957)® All of the wood material is associated with Occupations B and 0, A date of A«D, 1700 has been suggested for Table 2 1 „ "Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Fort George S ite , 39ST17 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 7 back f i l l ash l 6hhp-l679 vv P 3h F2 , Pl5, stockade post populus 109 F9 , P2 , .not structural (?) x 111 F9 , P21, leaner post juniper l622p-1723vv P 112 F9, P 2 2 , leaner post juniper l 609 p -l667#vv P 250 F3h, roofing j wip er l 601p -l667vv P 252 F3I1, roofing juniper l 6o8 p -l68 hvv P 319B/1 & 2 Fii.7 , square 3 juniper P 3hl Fit?, P10, palisade post populus 603 f llh ,' P16 juniper l 629 p~l668 vv P 795A & B F125, P69 juniper (l63lp-l667w) P 826 F129, pit fill juniper P 1 1 1 8 F173, P33 juniper (l65hnp"l699w) P F2 » fortification ditch F9 = House 1, circular house FSh = circular ceremonial house Flj.7 = palisade 122 Table 21# Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Fort George S ite ,3 9ST1 ?—Continued a-lii = fortification ditch F12f? == House 3» circular house EL29 = cache pit undercutting palisade FI?3 == pit in entryway of House 6 123 Table 22* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL2U Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 189 surface populus 23? F23 PI & PIO, outer posts populus northeast edge F2 * large circular ceremonial lodge H ro £ r 125 Occupation B and a term inal date of A„D0 1725 has been proposed fo r the Le Beau phase occupation at this site (Hurt 1957, 27)* Both the Akaska and le Beau phases are placed in the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon* There are ten pieces of wood in the site collection repre senting eight individual specimens* The material consists of six specimens of populus and one each of juniper and pine (Table 23)a. No dates could be determined for this collection* The Buffalo Pasture Siie3 39ST6 Buffalo Pasture is situated on the west bank of the Missouri River just above the axis of Oahe Dam in Stanley County* It is characterized by the Stanley and Snake Butte phases? both of which have been dated in the 18th century (Lehmer 195k: 119-21)* The Stanley and Snake Butte phases have recen tly been made components of the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon (lehmer and Caldwell 1966)* There are 29 pieces of wood from the Buffalo Pasture site which can be reduced to 21 different specimens* Five of these speci mens are juniper, Ik are populus, and one each is pine and bark of an unidentified species (Table 2k)* A site chronology 126 years in length has been constructed based on four of the juniper specimens* I have not, however, been able to cross-date the site chronology with the dated ones* The Davis S ite , 39C01k This site is on the south bank of the Grand River near its confluence with the Missouri River in Corson County* It has been Table 23# Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Swan Greek S ite , 39 W7 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1 House A* house shoulder pine 2A & B House bn house shoulder populus 3 House k) flo o r populus k Burial A6 populus 5>A & B (?) populus $99 House a t north end of s ite populus 600 House a t north end of s ite juniper 601 House a t north end of s ite populus 126 Table 2ke Archaeologieal Tree-Blng Speelmens from the Buffalo Pasture Site,, 39ST6 Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks T29A-0 $1 , f i l l juniper 53fp-119w P USNM # A13826 1383 * FI, flo o r populus USNM # A13839 1385A-D FA, flo o r populus USNM # A13839 1366 • FA, flo o r populus USH # A13839 1396A & B FA, floor, northeast quadrant populus USNM # A138AO 1588 F13A in FA populus USNM # A138AA 1678 A P19 juniper 63p-123w F USNM § A138A6 I 678 B F19 populus USNM # A138A6 16780-E ' 119 . ... . (?) pine USNM # A138A6 1835 F30, northwest quadrant populus USNM # A13850 is ia F30, southeast quadrant populus USNM # A13851 iQkh F30, southwest quadrant populus USNM # A13852 1998 F30, f i l l populus USNM # A1385A 2066 F30, flo o r populus USNM # A13856 2091 F35 populus USNM # A13859 2280 F57, "boat" (?) bark (Sjpp.) USNM # A13A81 2326 f6oa ' '■ juniper lp -126vv P USNM # A13865 2555 South Stockade juniper A8p - 123w P USNM # 113867 Table 2l|.0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Buffalo Pasture S ite , 39ST6—-Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 26?8A Feature G juniper USNM # 113606 2678B Feature G populus USNM # 113606 MisCo 1 (>) populus USNM # 1413899 51 = circular earth lodge fit = circular earth lodge F13A = cache pit in Pi F19 = cache pit in Fi F30 = circular earth lodge F35 = cache p it in F^O F30 = circular earth lodge F3? = cache pit in F^O F60i = palisade Feature G = cache pit in midden area 128 129 described as being closely related culturally to the material from the Swan Greek Site, 39W2 (Bowers Ipo?)„ This relationship would place the complex in the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon® There are 2j? pieces of populus in the site collection that are representative of 2k individual specimens (Table 25)* Mo dates could be derived for this materiale The Crazy B u ll S ite , 39EM220 ' The Crazy B ull S ite i s in th e neck of th e Big Bend of th e M issouri R iv er in Lyman County® I t has been assigned to th e Choteau Aspect, or phase, and a date near A®B® 1700 has been suggested for its occupation (Frantz 1962)® The cultural affiliation and suggested dating indicate that this site belongs in the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon® There are three wood specimens in the collection from 39LM220 including one each of juniper, oak, and populus (Table 26)® All of the specimens were derived from one house® No dates could be determined® The Larson S ite, 39WW2 The Larson site is situated in Walworth County on the east bank of the Missouri River a short distance downstream from its con fluence with the Moreau River® Bowers (196?) has described the cul tural remains as proto-historic® Although the site is as yet unpub lished, I would place the complex represented in the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon on the basis of its being described as proto-his toric® fable 25o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis Site, 3 9GOII4 Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 178 m , ?5, lot 131 populus 558 XU2, P25, Lot 155 populus 791 XU5(A), PH2, Lot 222 populus 792A & B XU5(A)S P3j Lot 223 populus 793 185(4), P7, Lot 225 populus 798 XUh(A), P13," Lot 225 populus 799 XU5(A)S P17, Lot 226 populus 800 XU5(A), Hear P26, Lot 227 populus 802 XU5, P35, Lot 228 populus 803 XU5(A); P 38 , Lot 229 populus 805 XU5, P261, Lot 230 populus 807 XU5(A), P271, Lot 231 populus 809 XU5(A), P282, Lot 232 populus 818 BJ5(A), P327, Lot 233 populus 819 XU5(A), P332, Lot 235 populus 820 XU5(A), P355, Lot 235 populus 899 XU5(B), P72, Lot 215 populus 130 fable 25>o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Davis Site, 39G01h—Continued Specimen lumber Provenience Species Dates ■ Plotted Remarks 900 XUlt(B), P88, Dot 215 populus 901 XUk(B), P132, Dot 216 populus 902 imk(B), Pli|l, Dot 217 populus 90lt MC b), P155, Dot 218 populus 913 XDk(B}? P182, Dot 219 populus 91k XUk(B), P231, Dot 220 populus 915 XUk," 823k, Dot" 221 populus = cache pit 131 Table 26, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Crazy Bull Site, 39231220 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 202 FI, P2, outer post juniper P 205 PI, Pi;, random post populus 213 P i, P2k) random post oak FI == circular lodge 133 fhere. are llj. specimens in the site collection. Of these lij.5 four are juniper, two are ash, one is willow, and seven are populus (Table 27)<. Because of a general lack of information on the specimens and the structure of this study, final analysis of the Larson site material has not been done. No dates have been determined for these specimens, The Red Horse Hawk B ite, 39C03U This site is situated on the south bank of the Grand River near its confluence with the Missouri River in Corson County* It has been described as a, "moderately large, fortified village of the late period and probably dates w ithin the 18th century" (Bowers 1963 : 118), This description would probably f i t the complex in to the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon* There are kO pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collection representing a t le a s t lj? d iscrete specimens* Of these, one specimen is juniper, three are ash, nine are populus, one is oak, and one is a fragment of bark from ah unidentified species (Table 28)* Final analysis and plotting of this material has not been accomplished* No dates have been determined for these specimens* Summary On the basis of the above data, I would assign a time range beginning A*D* 1673 and ending near JWD* I8ij.0 for the complex of sites assigned to the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon in South Dakota# The 28 tree-ring dates from these sites and the one carbon-lit date Table 27o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Larson Site, 39W2 Specimen " Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks i486 House 1, Plh, Wall (?) juniper - 921A/1 House 1, support post juniper 921A/2 House 1, support post juniper hOSgA House 23, Burial 122 juniper hoS^B House 23, Pit, Burial 122 populus U0850 House 23, Fit, Burial 122 ash h08$D House 23, Fit, Burial 122 ash ho8$i House 23, Fit, Burial 122 sa lix ho85F House 23, Fit, -Burial 122 populus k08$G House 23, Fit, Burial 122 populus it085H House 23, Fit, Burial 122 populus U085J House 23, Fit, Burial 122 populus h085K House 23, Fit, Burial 122 populus 6886 south side populus Table 280 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Red Horse Hawk Site, 39C03A Specimen Sumber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks , , , • ...... House 1 , Lot 6 , Pile on floor ash 96 A-B House 1 3 Lot 366, Roof cover populus 96 G-G House 1, Lot 366, Roof cover ash 133 House 2, Lot 36I1 populus 153 House 2, Lot 36UC populus $ 2 $ k/l-lk House 8, Lot 221 populus 523A/13 House 8, Lot 221 bark (Spp0) 323A/16 House 8, Lot 221 ash 627 House 11, Lot 3U2 oak 736A-D House 12, Lot 333A, Tutish populus post 786 A House 13, Lot 113, 113A Juniper 786B~0 House 13, Lot 113, 113A populus 896 A-B House lij., Lot 230B populus 897 A-l House lit. Lot 2300 populus 1082A-B House 19, Lot 132 populus Table 28* Archae ological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Bed Horse Hawk Site, 39C03U—--Continued House 1 = circ u la r lodge House 2 - circular lodge,- entrance to the southeast House 8 « circular lodge, entrance to the south House 10 = circ u la r lodge House 11 = circu lar lodge, entrance to the southeast House 12 == circular lodge, entrance to the southwest House 13 = circular lodge, entrance to the northeast House lU = circular lodge House Ip = circ u la r lodge 137 a ll f a l l between iUD® 166? and AJQ* 17760 The documented abandonment of one of the s ite s , 39009, in 1832 allows for the end date of A.Do I81t0e The choice of AJ3,, 1675 fo r a beginning date is governed by the fact that none of the tree-ring dates are cutting dates and in point of fact are all at least several years short of actual cut ting or use dates. Final determination as to the time of use ha,s to be done in conjunction with other archaeological interpretation® Since most of these sites have not been reported in published form such considerations can not now be discussed. The Extended Coalescent Horizon This horizon as defined by Lehmer and Caldwell ( 1966 ) includes the general category of phases and sites referred to as La Roche® It would include various defined foci as well as at least one defined aspect, the Chouteau, The authors of this organization have suggested a time period of JUD, 1550 to A»D0 1700 fo r i ts duration (Lehmer and Caldwell 1966 )® I have examined specimens from 11 sites with components of this horizon® Of these } tree-ring dates have been determined for material from one and tentative dates have been assigned to specimens from another. Seven dates apply to wood collected from the Sully site, 39SLl|.«> The date range for this material is from A,D„ 1663 to AeD* I 69 U0 Three tentative dates have been assigned to specimens from one of the Medicine Creek Village sites, 391M2, These tentative dates f a l l between A.De 157L and A.D, 1593o Four specimens from the La Roche s ite , 39ST232, were dated by tre e -rin g methods by the la te George F„ W ill (Meleen 19 i|8 s 31 j Will 19l|8: 69)0 He assigned four dates ranging from A 0D0 lh.38 to A«D* ll^?* These dates cannot be accepted primarily because of the distance in volved between the master chronologies and the location of the sites This distance is over 2f?0 miles and as I have shown the reliability of cross-dating specimens over £0 miles distant from each other is not adequate* I did not have access to the specimens Will dated and the one piece of populus available to me from this site could not be dated* Analysis was also done on material from eight other sites* These include the Ho Heart Greek Village, 39 AR2 «, one of the Medicine Greek V illages, 39LM222, the S trieker V illages, 39IM1A, 39LM1B, and 39LELC, the Bice s ite , 39LM31, the Gable s ite , 39LM22l>, and s ite 39SL202® Two of these, 39 LM10 and 39 SL202, contained no datable species* I have been unable to determine dates for any of the mate rial from the remainder of this group pf sites* The Sully S ite , 39SLh The Sully site is a large village site located approximately 25 miles north of the Oahe Dam on the east side of the MissouritRiver in Sully County* It has not been formally reported on in detail but probably dates in the latter part of the 17th and e arly p art of the l 8 th centuries* It is my understanding that the material from this s ite would be p art of the Extended Goalescent Horizon* 139 There are 103 pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39SLh. representing 95 discrete specimens. Of this latter number,, ten are juniper, four are ash, seven are willow, three are oak, one is pine, 69 are populus, and one is a piece of bark from an unidentified species (Table 29)* Seven dates, two of which are te n ta tiv e , have been determined for this material. The dates.range from AoD, 1663 to A,Do I 69 I1, but none of them is a cutting date. The Medicine Creek Tillage S ites, 39LM2 and 39EM222 Site 39I 19 th century* There are 22 specimens in the collection from 39LM2, seven are juniper, one is ash, and lU populus (Table 30), Three tentative dates have been obtained for this material. One of A,D0 1593 is based on wood from a circular structure and two, A*D« 157U and A0DC l58l, are from a rectangular structure* Site 39LM222 is separated from 39LM2 by a shallow draw* These two sites probably have a common boundary* This site is also multi- component containing the same complexes as 39LM2, There are ten pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39LM222* Of these ten specimens, six are populus, three are ash, and one is juniper (T able 31)* Wo dates could be determined for this material® Table 29o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Bully Site, 39SLU Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 1U68 P11/G2, 12 to 18 inches, ash cache in test square, north edge of village 1535 F20P, 15 inches below surface populus wall post 1600 F23P, 33 inches below surface populus wall post 1831 F28H, fill of 2 superimposed populus lodges, F28 and Fill). 20lt6 F38 , 0 to 6 inches, test in populus lodge, wall post 2096 F38 , 01, cache pit populus 22U6 (?) ' populus 2256 FU6, Cl, wall post from lodge populus 2b36 F53, 12 to 18 inches, midden populus near plaza, northwest edge of s ite 2515 F55, 18 to 2h inches, drying populus rack post, or from old occu pation lodge 2580 F62, Cl, exterior, unassoci- populus ated cache pit fable 296 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, 39S1I),—Continued Specimen lumber • Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 3531 F102, HI, entrance post juniper (I6l8p-l67l*w) 3873 FlOl*, HI, Post 27, 1st en- populus trance post on inside of lodge doorway 3882 PlOl*, HI, Post 31, entrance populus 3886 FlOl*, HI, Post 36, main wall populus 3910 , 6 to 12 inches populus U068 $108, HI, wall post of early populus lodge of 3 superimposed 10-26 $108, HI, 12 to 18 inches, juniper I6l3p»l680vv P earliest of 3 superimposed lodges 1289 $109, 6 to 12 inches, fill sa lix above floor, ceremonial lodge 1*388 $109, HI, entrance post, populus ceremonial lodge 1*683 $109, HI, post 258, wall post populus ceremonial lodge 1*701 FI 09 populus 1*753 $113, HI, wall post populus Table 29«, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, 39SLij.—Continued Specimen. Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks u m m 3, HI, 02, cache pit populus beneath lodge floor 5081 b u rial populus 5l2k F115, burial 3A, aquare Nl- juniper ¥9, covering burial 5213 ‘Pll6, burial 1, square Sl-¥3 ash 32U7A/1-3 P117 oak 52U7B F117 populus 5592 Pl27, 12 to 18 inches, floor pine fill of ceremonial lodge 5662 (?) populus 5670 F218, Burial 2B3 square SI- populus ¥7 & 8 , 5678 'F 218 , Burial 2H, square S2-W8 populus 5697 F218, Burial 3, square Si & populus 2 -m i 5711 F218, Burial 6B. square 81- populus m.2 5717 ' P218, Burial 6F, square 31- populus ¥12 fable 29e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, 39S1U—Oontinued Specimen Number Provenience •Species Dates Plotted Remarks 5722 F2l8, Burial 6, Squares Si populus &.2, m 2 5759 ' F2l8„ Burial 18, Square N2- . populus m o 5762 ' m s, B19 , S10-W9 populus 5767 F218, B21 ' populus 5773 1218 , B21 bark (%>p») 58036 F218, B29B, S8-W19 sa lix 58030 P218, B29 populus 58o6 m s, B29(7), 57 & 8-m9 sa lix 5809 m s, B30, '88 & 9->jk sa lix 5810 m s, B30, 88 & 9~Wk sa lix 5830 m s, B370 sa lix 583k F218 (?) populus 58386 & B m s, B37 juniper (l625fp-l676vv) P 58396 & B m s, B37 juniper l607p~l663w P 58ko F218 , B37 juniper l6o8p-l69kvv P 58kl m s, B37 juniper l6okp-l673w P 587k P219, B3 (?) juniper P Table 290 Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Sully Site, 39SLU—Continued Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Blotted Remarks 5891 F219, B8, S3 & b-HL populus 5892 F219, B8, S3 & b-m populus 590b F219, S3-W3, post in burial ash area 5922 P219s unassociated wood in ash burial area 5923 F219« unassociated wood in populus burial area 5989 F220, HL2, Sl-¥8 & 9 oak 6005 F220, B15B, S2-¥9 & 10 populus 602b F220, B19, SI & 2-¥3 populus 6067 P220, B28 populus 6073 F220, B29 populus 6ll6 F220, H2-¥5s unassociated populus 6lb3 F220, S1-W9, unassociated oak 6817 F202, Post 68, entrance post populus 6820 F202, Post 91 3 main outer populus wall post 7573 F205; Post 26, main wall post populus 757b F205, Post 37) main wall post populus Table 29= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, 39&Lh—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 7575 F205, Post 39) main wall post populus 7750 F206, 18 to 2k inches, floor populus of lodge 8022 F206, CIO, cache pit outside populus lodge floor 8076 F206, Post 215, post outside oak lodge in cache pit area 837 9A & B F 208 , Post 63, outer wall juniper l60Up-l667vv P post 9381 (?) populus 938 I4. Flil6, B1A populus 9386 Flt.16, B1A & B populus 9388 Fitl6, BIG ' sa lix 9631 Fi^Pl, B28C populus 9699A & B Fl|.21, B51A juniper P 97lilA Fl|21, B63B populus 9811 Flj.21, B 90 A populus 9965 Fii.21, B129 - populus 100ii.8 Fli-53, Post 129, entrance post populus 100ij.9 Fi|52, Post 1U3, entrance post populus Table 290 .Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully Site, 39SLlj.—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks Misco 1 P127, HI, Post 132, main wall populus post, ceremonial lodge Misc0 2 F127, HI, Post 9, main wall populus post, ceremonial lodge, outer lin e Misco 3 F127, HI, Post 13l|., west wall populus ceremonial lodge, outer line Misc0 ii F127, HI, Post 125, south populus wall, ceremonial lodge, inner lin e Misco 5 F127, EL, Post 122, south populus wall, ceremonial lodge, inner lin e Misco 6 F127, HI, Posts IOI4 & 106, populus west wall, ceremonial lodge outer lin e Misco 7 F127, HI, ceremonial lodge populus Misco 8 FL27, HI, main wall post, populus west wall, outer line, cere monial lodge Misce 9 . F127, HI, Post 123, wall post, populus west wall, inner line, cere monial lodge Misco 10 (?) populus Table 30o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek Village? 39LM2 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks h3k . h ) Juniper F f2' populus I4.62 F2 populus U68A F2 Juniper P U68B F2 populus 560 F2 populus 577 F2s northeast quadrant populus 581 F2, northeast quadrant populus 632 F2g northwest quadrant populus 669 F2 juniper F 683 A F2 juniper F 683 B F2 populus 7it3 F2S upper floor populus 788 F2j top house3 outer post juniper (I539np-l593v) P Post 1 789 F2. top house * outer post. populus Post 5 795 F2» top house, entrance post. populus Post 37 Table 300 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek Villages 390^2—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 796 F2. top house, entrance post. populus Post 38 801 F2, top house, outer post, populus same as 802 Post h9 (7) 802 F2, top house, outer post. populus same as 801 Post k9 (7) 1077 Fl6, 0e2 feet above floor juniper (l3lUfp-l98lw) P 1168 Pl6, Post 38, entrance post juniper (lg33p-1^7W) P a t step 1170 F16, Post 5>6, Wall post, ash back wall Feature 2 = two circular houses superimposed Feature 16 = rectangular house Table 31» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Medicine Greek Village, 39LM222 Specimen If umber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 21k Fl, fill, southeast quadrant populus 2$k PL, f i l l populus 2^8 S i, P15, random post populus 262 P I, P25, random post populus 152 f 10, f i l l ash 155 F10, floor populus U56A F10, floor ash 156B HO, flo o r populus 257A P10, floor near firepit juniper 157B HO, floor near firepit ash PL ® circular lodge, trenched P10 = c irc u la r lodge 1$0 The La Roche S ite , 39$T232 S ite 39 ST232 lies on the west bank of the Missouri River near P0 L» Greek5 a small western tributary in Stanley County. The site was excavated and described as ancestral Arikara with a probable date near A.D. lU50 by Meleen ( 1 9 I48 ) e This dating was based on tree-ring dates obtained by the la te George Fe W ill (I 9 I4.8 )* Will’s dates for material from South Dakota cannot be accepted and the four specimens with which he worked have not been available to th is study. The La Roche s ite has given i t s name to a group of related phases which lehmer and Caldwell include in their Extended Goalesoent Horizon (1 9 6 6 s 5>l5)o Only one specimen of populus was available from 39ST232; it could not be dated (Table 32). The No Heart Greek Villagea 39AR2 This site is located on the Missouri River near the mouth of Ho Heart Creek in what is now part of Dewey County. The cultural material has been placed in the No Heart Creek complex or Le Compte phase of the Chouteau Aspect (Johnston and Hoffman 1 9 6 6 ). I t would be placed in the Extended Coalescent Horizon. There are three speci mens, two of populus and one of jun ip er, available from th is s ite (Table 33)* No dates could be obtained for this material* The S triek er V illages, 39LHLA, 39 LM1 B, and 39 LM1 C The three contiguous locations included in the Strieker Vil lages have been tentatively assigned to the Chouteau Aspect according to W. W. Caldwell. The sites are located on the north bank of Medicine Table 32= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the la Roche Site* 39ST232 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks kk3 XU2 j, Pitpost from ramada pop til us stru ctu re Table 33» Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimen's from the No Heart Greek Villages 39 M2 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1 House 1, Feature 7 •> populus • Central support post 2 Fortification unit 2 populus U-shaped bastion 3 LaRoche D (?) juniper P Feature 7 = central support post in House 1 Fortification Unit 2 = U-shaped bastion in the NW corner of the site Greek near i t s mouth in Lyman County 6 They probably would be included in the Extended Coalescent Horigon. There are 30 pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39LM1A* All are derived from excavations associated with two houses and represent 20 individual specimens„ No dates could be ob tained for the material which consists of six specimens of juniper# thirteen of populus and one of ash (Table 31*)« From 39 LM1B there are two specimens derived from two houses* One of the pieces is juniper and one is populus (Table 35)« No dates could be determined for this material* One specimen of populus is available from a test excavation in s ite 39LM1C0 This piece of wood could not be dated (Table 36)« The Bice S ite , 39LM31 The Bice site is situated near the Missouri River in Lyman County south of the town of Oacoma* The material from the site has tentatively been assigned by Caldwell to the Chouteau Aspect* This assignment would make it a part of the Extended Coalescent Horizon* Three pieces of one specimen of ash from the s ite were examined* The specimen was obtained from a rectangular house (Table 37)= No date could be determined fo r th is piece® The Cable S ite , 39LM221* This site is located south of Medicine Creek near the Missouri River in Lyman County* According to Caldwell the cultural material is evidently a variant of the artifact inventory described for the Table 3ho Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Village, 39IHLA Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 16 Flj House 1, f i l l and flo o r juniper 17 F I, House 1, f i l l and flo o r populus 36 F l, House 1 , f i l l and flo o r populus ill F I, House 1, f i l l and flo o r populus 138 House 1 , northwest quadrant, populus 0 to 8 inches below surface l 68 A F l, House 1, southeast quad juniper p ra n t, 8 to 16 inches below surface 168B Fl, House 1, southeast quad populus ra n t, 8 to 16 inches below surface 172A-G F l, House 1, horizontal log juniper p 200A • F l, House 1, 0 to 8 inches juniper p below surface 200B F l, House 1 , 0 to 8 inches populus below surface 206 House 1, 8 to 16 inches juniper below surface 213 House 1, outer w all, north ash west quadrant 282 Fl, House 1, northeast populus quadrant, floor fable Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Village, 39 IM1A—-Continued Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 28 k House 1, northeast quadrant, populus below floor 288 House 1, northwest quadrant, populus l 6 inches to floor 312 PI, House 1, northwest populus quadrant, outer wall 313 House 1, horizontal log, populus northwest quadrant, outer wall 326A—J House 1, horizontal logs, juniper flo o r hkz House 2, te s t trench populus m House 1 , F3 populus • . P i = House 1 c irc u la r lodge F3 = fireplace in House 1 Table 35>o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Village, 39MLB Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 11 513, Test in House 7 populus w Prom road cut in House 3 , juniper P possibly a fence post House 7 = c irc u la r lodge House 3 = circular lodge Table 3 6= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Strieker Villages 3911110 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 81 Test in a house ring populus fable 37» Arehaeologlcal free-Sing Specimens from the Blee Site* 39LM31 Specimen lumber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 87 A-0 House 2 * south end* peripher ash a l post House 2 = rectangular house &03 Chouteau Aspect* This description would make it a member of the Ex tended Goalescent Horizon® There are 6I4 pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39EM221},* At le a s t 3k discrete specimens are included in the samples Of the 3h specimenss 18 are juniper, 12 are populus, three are ash, and one is Hackberry (Table 38)„ All of the material origi nates from the excavation of one house* Ho dates could be obtained for any of these specimens* Eight of them have been submitted for radiocarbon dating (Table 38)* S ite 3980202 This site is located in the little Bend area of the Missouri River in Sully County* No report is available on the material from the site, but Caldwell indicates that it is generally related to La Roche* The La Roche complex is part of the Extended Goalescent Horizon* Two specimens of populus from a test in one house are avail able for this site* No dates could be obtained for these pieces (Table 39). Summary The dates from the Sully site and the tentative ones from 39LM2 suggest a range for the Extended Goalescent Horizon from AJ3* 157k to'A*P* I 69 I4.6 Allowing for at least some lost rings from the outsides of the specimens, a period from AeD* lf >80 to A»D» 1700 appears to be quite reasonable for this complex and agrees quite closely with the suggested time range (Lehmer and Caldwell 1 9 6 6 )» The term inal Table 38* Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Cable Site, 39IM22U Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 134 & B PI, Test 1, Square fill populus G-lh ISA $1, Test 1, Square $s f i l l juniper C-lh 1SB FI, Test 1, Square 5? fill populus 204 SI, Test 1, Square 9, fill juniper P = c-ih SOB FI, Test 1, Square 9, fill populus 2l|4 Fl, Test 1, Square 10, fill - juniper P O-lh. 2ltB Pi, Test 1, Square 10, fill populus SSA-I SI, northwest quadrant, fill juniper P c -iu ?S F l, doorway populus 8U f 3 in SI populus Q-lk 101 Pi, P38, outer post populus 0—ll|. lOljA-G fl, P70, outer post juniper C—llj. lOSA-H A , f i l l juniper p io SJ ' F l, f i l l ash 10SK Fl, fill populus lOSL F l, f i l l hackberry 106 Fl populus 160 10? Fl populus Table 38* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gable Site, 391M22k—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 108 A-C PI ash P 109 - SI populus 110 PI populus 1UA-D El juniper P 112A-0 51 juniper P 113 A - PI juniper P 113B PI a sh .. 111+ PI juniper 115 El juniper P 116 PI juniper ? 117A-D PI juniper P 118 ' Pi juniper P 119 FI juniper P 120 FI juniper P 121 Pi juniper P 122 Pi Juniper SI « circular lodge Table 39* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from 39SL202 Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks m F3, P7, outer post populus k9 F3? PIO, outer post populus F3 = circular house 163 date overlaps by 2$ years the range assigned to the Post-contact Ooalescent Horizon* The In itial CoalesGent Horizon Material from two sites studied has been assigned to this hori zon* The specimens involved come from the Wolfe Greek Component of the Grow Greek site* 39BZL1* and from the earlier components of the Black Partizan site* 39111218* This latter site also has components assignable to the Post-contact Ooalescent Horizon* It is* however* my understanding that most of the wood remains come from the earlier components* Ho dates could be determined fo r the Black Partizan specimens* Three specimens from the Crow Greek site are definitely assign able to the Initial Ooalescent component® Of these three* one has been tentatively dated at A»D* ii|.35>* This is not a cutting date* In addi tion* 11 specimens that could not be assigned specifically to this or the e a rlie r component a t the s ite have been te n ta tiv e ly dated between A,B* 1508 and AeD* 1385® A ll but two of them date inside A„Be IhUO* It is my feeling that these dates probably apply to the Wolfe Greek component in view of th e ir d istrib u tio n abound the one assignable date* In addition to the tentative tree-ring dates* a oarbon-lij. date of A Do lls.00 * 1£>0 years is available for material from the Wolfe Greek component's On the basis of the available dating from this one site* 39BFU* 1 would assign a range from AD* lltUO to AD® 1520 to the Initial Ooalescent Horizon, Either this range will be extended to 16k at least A,D« 1$$0 or components of the Extended Coalescent will be found to be somewhat earlier than the present A»D0 lf>80 that I have used as its beginning date* The Grow Greek S ite , 39EF11 This site is located on a high terrace near the confluence of Grow Greek and the Missouri River in Buffalo Countye There are 132 pieces of wood from the site representing 33 individual specimens in cluding 25 of juniper, three of ash, and five of populus (Table hO)* Tentative dates have been obtained for 12 of the juniper specimens, only one of which is definitely assignable to one of the two occu pational components® The cultural material from the upper level in the site has been designated as the Wolfe Greek component of the Campbell Greek phase (Kivett I 9 6 0 ; U)* Three of the specimens, two ash and one juni per, are derived from this component0 The tentatively'dated juniper piece f i t s between A„D0 13U0 and A*D* lh3$ with the latter not being a cutting date* A Garbon-llj. date is available fo r th is component which places it at A0D0 lUOO ± 150 years and a date of A,D* 1500 has also been suggested for the occupation (Kivett 1960; h)® The cultural material from the lower occupational level of the s ite has been id en tifie d as the Grow Greek component and related to the Over phase of the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Kivett I960; hi Lehmer and Caldwell 1966; 5l5)= Only one piece of juniper, not dated, can d e fin ite ly be associated with the Grow Greek component of this site* fable I l O o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Grow Creek Site, 39BF11 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 517PA-B F2 , specimen from outside juniper P one specimen 5978A-Q F25 posthole 127, Outer post populus one specimen southeast quadrant 5979A-1 F2 , posthole 129, Outer post ash one specimen southeast quadrant „ .... 5980A-K F2 , posthole 13b, Entrance populus one specimen post ( 7 ) south side of house 10015A-H FT?, exterior storage pit populus one (?) specimen 107WA-0 F2 1 , exterior storage pit ash one specimen southeast of Fib 11350A-Q F2 2 , Area east of Fib ash one (?) specimen 17298A-H F37, storage pit east of Fib juniper (I3b0p~lb35w) P 96 rings 17299 #37, storage pit east of Fib populus 3881 b FI89 , small storage pit juniper P 68 rings 39311A-0 P2, south side juniper P 56 rings b0795A-G (?) juniper (1365np-l508w) P one specimen 1j,0796A-F F8 2 , Test trench juniper P one specimen W797A-0 F82, le s t trench juniper (1359p-lb26L) P one specimen Table W* Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Grow Greek Site, 39BKL1—Continued Specimen • Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks F82, Test trench juniper (1373P-1H7W) P one specimen W799A-G (?) ' juniper (1319np-lllOvv) t one specimen HOSOOA-B (?') juniper (1313p=lH2vv) P one specimen 10801 (?) juniper P 10802A-B 0 ) juniper (1335p-1112w) P one specimen 10803A-0 (?) juniper (1263p-l507w) P one specimen 10801A-B (?) juniper P one specimen 10805 (?) juniper P 10806 (?) juniper (13lOp-ll35w) P 10807 (?) juniper P' 10809 (?) juniper P 10810A-0 (?) juniper P 10811A-B (?) juniper , P 10812 (?) juniper (1353p-ll33w) P 10813 (?) juniper P 10811A-B (?) juniper P Misco ll-E (?) populus (?) one 166 specimen Table IiOe Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Grow Greek Site, 39BF11—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks Misc* 2 30W90N juniper (1322p-lWvv) P Misc * 3 50W90N juniper (I338p-1385vv) P Feature 2 = House floor with associated features Feature 17 = Exterior storage pit Feature 21 == Storage pit southeast of Feature lit in Feature 22 Feature lit = House flo o r Feature 22 == Area east of Feature lit Feature 37 - Storage pit east of Feature lit in Feature 22 Feature 82 = Ten foot test section in a shallow depression* Upper section contained camp debris, lower contained house remains* Feature 189 - Small storage p it in Midden area 168 The remaining 28 specimens, 23 of juniper, one of ash, and four of populus, cannot be assigned to e ith e r component on the basis of available information0 Of the juniper specimens, 11 have tentative dates fa llin g between A0Da 1385 and AoBs 1508 (Table UO)» All but two of these are dated in the earlier part of the period prior to AeD6 IhUOo The Black Partlzan Site, 39IM218 This two-component site is located in the Big Bend of the Missouri River in Lyman County, The earlier level. Component B, is related to the Wolfe Creek Component at the Crow Creek Site, 39BF11^ Components C and D at the Talking Grow site, 39BF3, and to material from the Lynch s ite , 2j?BDl, in Hebraska, This le v e l would be included in the Initial Coalescent horizon (Caldwell I 9 6 0 , 1966c; Lehmer and Caldwell 1966)» The later level. Component A, is identified with the Felicia phase of the Post-contact Coalescent Horizon. There are 56 pieces of wood from the site representing 52 individual specimens. Of the 52, eleven are juniper, five are ash, 3k are populus, one is hackberry and one is not id en tifie d (Table 1|1). No dates could be obtained for the material in the collection from 39LM218, The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon is the next oldest grouping for which I have material. The intervening Terminal Middle Missouri Horizon is not represented in the South Dakota sites from sTable id* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Slack Partisan Site, 39EM218 Specimen Humber Provenience Species Sates Plotted Remarks ?86 F9 in F2, wall post populus 1100 F5 in F5S burial 1 populus .1102 F5 in F£, burial 1 populus 1519 F?A in F6, p it - populus l8l© F7 in F8, cache pit populus .2332 F6 in FlOj cache pit populus 2362 F6 in F10, cache pit juniper 2369 F7 in F10, cache pit populus 2370 F10, F ll, random post populus 2388 $10, P8l, pointed post populus 2389 F10, F8l,. pointed post populus 2399 F10, P12U, random post populus 2h00 F10, P125, random post populus 2i|01 F10, P135j, random post populus 2l(.03 F10, Plh3, random post populus 2lj.09A & S F10, Pl^l, random post juniper ■ 2i|.09B - $10, Pl5l, random post populus 21*22" F10, PI 6 0 , random post populus 21*29 $10, P168, random post populus fable Ulo Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black Bartizan Site# 391M218—Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates .. Plotted . Remarks 2lt30 F1 0 # P1 7 0 # random post populus 2h32 HO# P177# random post populus 2k33 F10# P180# random post populus 2703 P6 # in ill# cache pit juniper 2989 $16 in $ 1 1 # cache pit juniper 3101 $19 in $1 1 # cache pit juniper 3196A $11# P10# random post populus 3196B $11# P10# random post haekberry 320U $11# P6l# random post populus 39li8A-C FI* in' Fill# cache p it juniper itOU3A - F6 in Fll*# cache pit juniper ll.0li.3B F6 in Fll*# cache pit ash ij.0lf.3C F6 in Fll*# cache pit populus U0ij3D F6 in ill*# cache pit (?) 1*079” Fl in Fll# cache pit populus 1*080 $1 in Fll# cache p it juniper 1*081 F3 in Fll*# cache pit ash 1*082 F3 in Fll*# cache pit ash 1*083 F3 in Fll*# cache pit ash $ Table Ijlo Archaeologieal Tree-ling Specimens from the Black Partisan Site, 3%M2l8~~0ontinaed Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks UoSit = Mis Co 1 through 12B below Misco 1 FI in Fll, cache pit populus Misco 2A F20 in Fll, cache pit juniper Misco 2B F20 in FU, cache pit juniper Misc0 3 $12 in $1 1 , post populus Misco h Fl8 in Fll, cache pit populus Misco 5 F2 in FlU, cache pit populus Misco 6 F? in Fll, cache pit populus Misco 7 Fl in Fll, cache pit populus Misco 8 Fll|., fortification ditch juniper Misco 9 F7 in Fll, cache pit populus Misco 10 F12 in Fll, post populus Misco 11 F10 populus Mise0 12A F3 in Flit, cache pit ash Misco 12B F3 in FlU, cache pit.. populus Table llU Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Black Partisan Site, 39 LM218 —Continued F2 = circular lodge = pit area, basin and bell shaped cache pits F6 = pit area, basin and bell shaped cache pits F8 = circular lodge #10 » circular lodge with associated rectangular structure, F12 Fll « circular lodge F12 * rectangular structure associated with F10 FlU *» test trench Fl in Fll » cache pit P2 in FlU = cache pit F3 in FlU = cache pit PU in FlU = cache pit F5 in F5 » burial 1 F6 in RIO = cache pit F6 in Fll = cache pit F6 in FlU = cache pit F7 in F8 = cache pit F 7 in F10 = pit F7 in Fll = cache pit F7A in F8 = cache pit 172 F9 in F2 = wall post Table ijl. Archaeological Tree-Ring from the Black Bartizan Site9 39BM2l8--£ontinued 512 in 511 = outer posts near entry 518 in 511 = oache pit 520 in 511 = cache pit nk which I have specimens,, Most of the components of the terminal horizon come from North Dakota some distance to the north of the area this study has centered on* For purposes of this investigation I accept the suggestion that the terminal horizon is "*...contemporary with the development of the Coaleseent Tradition'* (Caldwell 1966as 155)« I do, however, feel that the Terminal Middle Missouri Horizon is quite late and for the most part post dates A0D* 1500 if not A*D* 1600 be cause of the dating I have obtained for components of both the Initial and Extended Middle Missouri Horizons* Specimens from 11 sites and components of sites assigned to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon have been examined* Tentative dates have been assigned to specimens from four of these sites* One piece from the McKensey site, 39AR201, has tentatively been dated at A*D« 1501* A group of 15 specimens from the Thomas Riggs site, 39HU1, have been tentatively dated between A*D* lij.66 and A*D* 1539* From the Cheyenne River site, 39ST1, one tentative date of A*D* liihS has been assigned* Seven specimens from the Ketchin site, 39ST223, have been .tentatively dated between A«D„ lii.33 and A»D* ll|,6oe Of the remaining seven sites no dates could be obtained for the material from two of them, the Hickey Brothers site, 39BMlj., and the King site, 39IM55* Final analysis could not be completed on the other five sites and no dates have been obtained for them* These five sites are the Calamity Village site, 39DW231, the Sully School site, 39SL7, the 0* B* Smith site, 398129, the Cattle Oiler site, 39ST22lt, and the Durkin site, 39ST238* 175 The McKensey Site, 39M201 This site is on the Missouri River five miles south and east of the mouth of No Heart Creek in what is now part of Dewey County* The cultural complex has been related to the “general Thomas Riggs pattern11 (Caldwell 1966bs h) and assigned to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)» Eleven specimens were available from this site for study* ill of them were derived from one rectangular house and an exterior cache pit* Included in the collection are six pieces of junipers three of populus, and one each of ash and hackberry* One of the juniper specimens from the house has been tentatively assigned an outside date of AeD0 1501 (Table i|2)» The Thomas Riggs Cite, 39HU1 This site is located in Hughes County approximately 10 miles northwest of Oahe Dam on the east side of the Missouri River* The Thomas Riggs phase is defined for the cultural remains from this site (Hurt 1953)o The complex has recently been made a part of the Ex tended Middle Missouri Horizon (lehmer and Caldwell 1966)* There are I4.2 pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from the Thomas Riggs site representing 36 discrete specimens* Except for two specimens of pine, all are juniper* Fifteen tentative dates have been assigned* The dates encompass the period between A0D0 H 1.66 and AJ)® 1539= Unfortunately, in-site provenience of a limited nature is available for only five of the specimens (Table U3)« Table k2o Archaeological Tree-Sing Specimens from the McKensey Site, 39AE201 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 12 Feature 1 , Wall post, center juniper P of northeast wall opposite ramp 153 Feature 1 , floor of southeast juniper quadrant 17 8 A Feature 1 , southwest quadrant juniper near base of ramp 178B Feature 1 , southwest quadrant populus near base of ramp 1780 Feature 1 , southwest quadrant hackberry near base of ramp 311A Feature 12, cache pit fill juniper 311B Feature 12, cache pit fill populus 326A Feature 12, bottom of cache juniper 326B Feature 12, bottom of cache ash 3260 Feature 12, bottom of cache populus 361- Feature 1 juniper 52 rings Feature 1 - Long rectangular house with entrance ramp in southwest wall Feature 12 = Cache pit 0«,5 feet west of east wall of house Table U3«. Archaeological Tree-Sing Specimens from the Thomas Higgs Site, 3PHU1 Specimen ' - Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1 (7) juniper P 2 (f) juniper (Ih29p-l337vv) P same as It 3 (f) juniper (li|.31p»lf?03w) P same as 10 h (f) juniper (1U29p™1338vv) P same as 2 I Cf) juniper (1331p~lk96vv) P 6 (7) juniper P 7 (7) pine P same as 311 0, B 8 (?) juniper P 9. (?) juniper P 10 (?) juniper (lU3jinp-lU93vv) P same as 3 , 11 (?) juniper P 12 (?) juniper P 13A-G (?) juniper P 1)4 '• (?) juniper P lg' (?) juniper P 16 (?) juniper P 17 (?) Juniper . P Table It3* Arehaeologleal Tree-ling Specimens from the Thomas Riggs Site, 39HU1— Continued Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 18 (?) juniper P 19 (?) juniper P 20 (?) juniper (lii50p»l5Q6w) P 21 (?) juniper P 22 (?) juniper (lij.61i.np -15 29 w) P same as 26 23 . (?) juniper (lliit9fp”l?lhvv) P same as 2k 2k (?) juniper (Iii56fp»l5l6vv) P same as 23 25 (?) juniper ■ P 26 (?) juniper (Ik63np-lg29w) P same as 22 27 (?) juniper (Iit6lp-l323vv) P 28 (?) juniper (1387np-l539w) P 29 (?) juniper (1386np-l?38vv) P 30 (?) juniper P 31A (?) juniper (l38iiP"lii66vv) P 31B-S (?) pine... P 31E-P (?) juniper P 32 ' House 2 juniper P 33 House 2 juniper P Table h3e Arehaeologieal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Thomas Riggs Site, 39HUl--Gontinned Specimen Member Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 3k House 1 juniper P 3$ House 1 juniper . P MisCo 1A-B House 2 juniper (lii37p-10l£vv) P 180 . Hurt (195>3) has suggested a date near AoD. 15-00 for thisrmte- rlale A Garbon-li|. date of A6D8 1228 ± 200 years is also available for material from the site# Additionally, George Fe 'Will dated seven specimens from 39H"U1 using tree-ring methods. He assigned dates be tween AoDo li|.80 and AeDe to these pieces (Will ipUSs 6 9 )# Al though Will’s dates are within the range of the ones obtained by this study, they cannot be accepted because of the distance involved be tween the location of the site and the master chronology, 1 have not had access to the specimens Will worked«, Some of his specimens may have been duplicated in my material. The Cheyenne River Site, 39S11 The Cheyenne River site is on the west bank of the Missouri River near the confluence of the Cheyenne River in Stanley County, It is a multi-component site at least one component of which has been assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase (Hurt 1958)# This assignment would place it in the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon® One juniper specimen representing a center post in a house is available from the site (Table UU)® 1 do not have a specific component assignment for this house or specimen but based on a tentative date for the wood, A«D® liiU8 , it corresponds with others for material associated with the Thomas Riggs phase® Several radiocarbon determinations are also available for material from 39ST1# These dates range from A»D® 920 * -60 years to A6D» 1600 ± 85 years®- Dates were twice obtained on each of two fable hhn ■Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gheyenne River Site, 39ST1 Specimen Humber - Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks F102 in ,F3lt juniper (1280fp-l)4U8vv) f F3U - house F102 « center post 182 specimens from Feature 3k for which 1 have a tentative tree-ring date® One of these was dated at A.D„ 920 + 60 years and AeD» 1175 * 125 years and the other was placed at A0B 0 1077 ± 60 years and A»De 1300 t, 200 yearso Both of the later dates are within the range of the tree-ring series and are probably closer to being accuratec Another Carbon-lit date for material from Feature 2k at the site is AeD* UpQ + 60 years. This date also comes quite close to being in the range of the tree-ring series. Considering the probable loss of rings from specimens submitted for radiocarbon analysis and other types of pos sible error in combination with the tentative tree-ring dates, it seems probable that the Thomas Biggs phase at this site dates to the first half of the 15th century. The Ketchin Site, 39ST223 The Ketchin site is situated a few miles downstream from Antelope Greek on the west bank of the Missouri River in Stanley County, A final report on the analysis of the cultural remains has not been published. The material has been assigned to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a), There are lU specimens in the site collection. Of these lit, ten are juniper and four are populus (Table 1)5) => Tentative dates for seven of the specimens have been determined. The terminal dates fall between A,D, llj.33 and A,D, 3.U60, but none of them are cutting dates. The Hickey Brothers Site, 39IMli- Site 39LMl|. is approximately 7 miles north of the town of lower Brule in the area of the Big Bend of the Missouri River, Mo Table lt5s Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Ketchin Bite, 39ST223 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 120 F3 , fill - populus 121 F3 , roof fill populus 122 F3 , P7, wall post juniper Cl393fp-lk36vv) P 123 .13, P9,. wall post populus 12 U F3, P10, wall post juniper (l3U7p-lU3kvv) P 125 13, P10, wall post juniper (13A?p-1U33vv ) P 126 1*3, P12, wall post juniper P 127 F39 P13, wall post juniper F 128 F3, PlU, wall post juniper (I387p-lli39vv) P 129 #3 , Plit, wall post juniper (l388np-ll|.60vv) P ' 130 F3, P25, entrance juniper . P 131 F3,. fill populus 157 A EU16, wall post juniper (l391p”lU50w) P 157B XU16, wall post juniper Cl352p-lA52vv) P F3 = long rectangular house XU16 = long rectangular house 18U definite assignment of the cultural remains has been made for the mate rial from the site* Two components are presente The material from one has been tentatively assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase and the other is representative of material associated with the Anderson phase (Madison, Caldwell, and Golden 196o)0 The material has tentatively been assigned to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon* The Anderson phase is placed in the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a; lehmer and Caldwell 1966) There are 3k pieces of wood from 39EMl|. representing 1£> indi vidual specimens* Six of the specimens are juniper, five are populus, and four are hackberry* Eight of the specimens are derived from excavations in the site fortifications and seven come from two houses* Ho dates could be obtained for the material from the Hickey Brothers site (Table li.6)0 The King Site, 39005 This site is located near the Missouri River in Lyman County north of the town of Oacoma* It has been described as containing elements of both the Initial and Extended Middle Missouri Horizons (Caldwell 1966a)* There are 23 pieces of wood and charcoal from the site repre senting at least five separate specimens* The material is derived from a cache pit and a house entrance* It includes two specimens of populus and at least one each of juniper, ash, and oak (Table U?)= Ho dates could be obtained for this material* Table lt6» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey Brothers Site, 391Mb Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 82A-S Fb, Post 10 • juniper P 83 " Fb, Post 22 juniper P 8b Rb, Post 39 juniper P 85A-D Fb, Post juniper P 86 ' Fb, Post 61 populus 87 Fb, Post 66 juniper P 88 Fb, Post 7b populus 96 . Post 5 hackberry 99 F10, Post 1, outer post hackberry 100 F10, Post 2, in trench hackberry between Posts 1 and 5> 101 FlO, Post 3j) in trench hackberry between Posts 1 and 5 102 F10, Post b<> in trench populus between Posts 1 and-5 103 F10, Post 5, outer post populus 173 F39, Post 10, random post juniper P 177 F39, Post 12, random post populus Table i|6e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Hickey Brothers Site, 395%— Continued Fk - Bastion, southern part of fortification F$ - North, South transverse trench across fortification ditch F10 = Bast, West test trench through circular lodge P39 = circular lodge Table ij.7c Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the King Site, 39LMf>5 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 3lt FI, Test Trench 1, Square 6 populus 85 . Fl, Test Trench 1, Square 6R1 populus 111A & B F5, Test Trench 3 ash P 131A-T F5, Test Trench 3 juniper P 131B ' F5 ' oak FI = Cache pit F5 - Entrance House 1 188 The Calamity Village Site, 390W231 This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri Erven a few miles north of the confluence of the Moreau River in Dewey County, The analysis of the cultural remains recovered has not been published, Caldwell has assigned the material to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon (1966a), There are ii.2 pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec tion representing 37 discrete specimens. Of this latter number, five are juniper, six are ash, and 25 are populus (Table 1*8)* Detailed analysis and plotting of this material could not be completed. No dates have been determined for the collection from 39DW231« The Sully School Site, 39507 This site is on the east bank of the Missouri River approxi mately 20 miles north of the Oahe Dam in Sully County, The cultural material from the site has been assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase (Hurt 1958), It would, on the basis of this association, be a com ponent of the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon, There are 3k pieces in the collection representing 32 indi vidual specimens* The material includes 21 pieces of populus, ten of juniper, and one of ash (Table 1*95, Detailed plotting and study of this material has not been completed* No dates have been obtained for 39S17, Table ij.8. Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the C a l a m i t y Village, 395*231 T Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 769 & 770 Fil, P20 ash one specimen 771 FU, P37 ash 772 F10, P150 populus 773A & B 510, P153 populus one specimen 77U F10, Pl59 populus 775 F10, P166 populus 776 no, P170 ash 777 , no, P178 populus 778 F13 ' populus 789A-0 F13, P205 populus one specimen 907 ' fl0, Wall, South end populus G/lii 1000 Fli.3, P28, Entrance Post juniper 1005A & B Entrance Post .juniper one specimen 1062 F55, P70 populus 1063 f55, PI80 populus 106U F55, P130 populus 1065 F55, P190 populus Table U80 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Calamity Village, 39DW231-— Continued Specimen " ' Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1078 F£6, P10E populus 1079 Fg6, P20E populus 1080 F56, P76¥ populus 1081 F56, P76A populus 1082 F56, P93W populus 1083 F36, P130W populus 1081|. F56, P150W populus 1085 F56, P169W juniper 1086A & B F56> P189W ash one specimen 1087 F56, P302W ash 1088 Fg6, P312W ash 1089 F57, P20 populus 1090 F57, P25 populus 1091 F57, P25 populus 1092 F58, P328W populus 1093 F58, P3I4II' juniper llijj. F6l in Fii.3 populus 1115 F6l in FU3 juniper Table U8« Archaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Calamity Village, 39DM231— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks HW F6l in Fl3 populus 111? F6l in Fl3 Juniper FU = Bastion on inner palisade F10 = Bastion on outer palisade F13 “ Bastion on inner palisade Fi|_3 “ rectangular house F 0 « outer palisade F56 - inner palisade ¥$7 ~ West bastion, outer palisade F5& = Southwest bastion, inner palisade F6l = cache pit in Flj.3 Table U9= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sully School Site, 39SL7 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 227 (?) populus 319 (?) populus 387 Pit ash li.21 (?) juniper M 3 (?) juniper M l (?) populus h97 (?) populus 6o6 (?) populus 607 (?) populus 698 (?) populus 720 (?) populus 729 (?) populus 771B (?) • populus 937 Ff juniper 938 F7 juniper 939 F7 juniper 1018 ELI populus 1021 Fll populus fTable k $ 0 Archaeological Tree-Eing Specimens from the Sully School Site, 3981— Continued Specimen Number, Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1022 ill populus 1099 F13 populus 1107 F13 populus 1100 F13 populus 118U F13 populus 1263 CD populus 1271 ' F1'3 populus 1377 H 3 ...... populus 1390A~O F10, stockade post juniper 139k Fl0g stockade post juniper 1390 F10, stockade post juniper lkl9 F17 populus 1087 F23, leaner post juniper 1088 F23, leaner post juniper S The Co D, Smith Site, 39SL29 This site is located on the east bank of the Missouri River approximately 20 miles upstream from the Oahe Dam in Sully County and is quite close to site 39SL7« The cultural remains have been assigned to the Thomas Riggs phase (Hurt 195>8) 5 which would make it a part of the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon., . There are 17 pieces of wood and charcoal from the site repre senting 11 specimens (Table 50), of which two are juniper, two ash, and seven populus. Final detailed plotting and study on all of the specimens could not be completed» No dates have been obtained for the material from 39SL294 The Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST221 This site is situated on the west bank of the Missouri River a few miles south of the confluence of Antelope Creek in Stanley County# The analysis of the cultural remains has not been published« There are apparently at least two components in the site because the material has been assigned to both the Initial and Extended Middle Missouri Horizons (Caldwell 1966a)* There are Ifi pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39ST22ii,s These h7 pieces represent 33 discrete specimens of which lit are juniper, four ash, and 1$ populus (Table 5l)« Final analysis and plotting could not be completed on this material and no dates have been determined» Table 50° Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the 0* B, Smith Site, 39SL29 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks U9A F7, test in undefines juniper structure 113 F9, 12 to 18 inches below ash surface 235A $11, 12 to 18 inches below populus surface 291 $1301, exterior cache pit populus 388 ' Flli.05, cache pit populus k57A-G Fill., fill, 0 to Ik inches populus k93 Ilk, southern entry test juniper 15 inches below surface 501 Flk, 13 to lk inches below populus surface 567 Flk, north end, 22 inches populus 572 Flk, 16 inches and below populus 592 Flk, 0 to 19 inches below ash surface fable 50o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the CoB0 Smith Site, 39SL29~~Gontinued F7 = bastion (?) F9 = house (?) Fll = house (?) F13 = house (?) Flit = circular house F1301 = cache associated with F13 FlltG5 ■ cache pit associated with Flit Table 5l<> Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from, the Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST22U Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 560 F8, P182, central roof juniper support 603 F5, cache fill, upper house populus 1130 $13, P9, entrance post, juniper ppper house 1661 1*39, house fill juniper 197h #39, house floor populus 215*6 #39, house fill populus 2259 #39, fill in house entrance populus 226k #39, house floor populus 2266 . #39 (?) post populus 23U:A/l & 2: #83, house fill juniper 23I4I4B#85, house fill ash 23ltU0 #85, house fill populus 23U6A #85, house fill ■ ash 2346B #85, house fill. populus 2351 #85, #22, wall post populus 2352 #85, fill populus Table f>l0 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Cattle Oiler Site, 39ST22lj.-—Continued Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 2353A-D F83 ash 2369 - F88, pit fill populus 2370 F88, pit fill populus 2371 F88, pit fill populus 2k0$ F96, pit fill ash 2li06 F97, pit fill populus 2137 F99, outside cache pit populus 2U71A-D Flj.0, P8, wall post juniper 2U72A-E Fi;0, P19, wall post juniper 2U75 F12l(.p' king post juniper 2li!6/l-k F12lf.? wall post juniper 2k n F130, king post juniper 2ti!8 F130, wall post juniper 2k79 FI30, interior entrance post juniper 2it80 F13O5 entrance post, super juniper imposed house 2i|8l F130, interior entrance post juniper 2U82 F130, entrance post, super juniper imposed house Table■51* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Gattle Oiler Site, 39ST22li— Continued F3 • excavation unit containing 3 houses F5 = cache pit in upper house of F3 F8 = long rectangular house in F3 F13 - long rectangular house F39 = long rectangular house FitO = long rectangular house F85 = long rectangular house F88 = cache pit in F85 F96 = straight sided pit in F85 F97 = outside cache pit with F39 F99 * outside cache pit with F39 F12h = long rectangular house F130 ® long rectangular house M xo VO 200 The Durkin Site, 39SI238 This site is on the west hank of the Missouri River approxi mately 25 miles downstream from Pierre in Stanley County® The cul tural complex has been described as being most like that at the Thomas Riggs site (Jensen 1967)® This assignment would place the material in the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon# Six juniper specimens are available for study from 3981238 (Table 32)® Final analysis and plotting could not be completed for_ this materials, No dates have been obtained for the Durkin site# Summary The tentative tree-ring dates based on 2h specimens from four components of the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon range from II4.33 to AoDo 1539o On the basis of these dates, I would assign the period from at least A0Do lijli.0 to 1530 to this horizon# There are# however# a number of radiocarbon determinations for material from these components that range from A*D» 920 ± 60 years to A0D« 1600 + 83 years# Other radiocarbon dates fall in the 11th# 12th and lipfch centuries# In view of the fact that at least some of these dates are in the range of the tree-ring series, especially when their allowance for error is considered, I am inclined to question the very early ones outside of the dated range# Admittedly the tree-ring dates are as yet only tentative, -.but I doubt that any major change in their ' placement will be made as more work is done in this time range. Addi tionally, if the beginning date for this complex is moved back nearer to A„DS lii.00 some of the other radiocarbon determinations come within Table 52, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Durkin Site, 39ST238 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1 XD3, king post juniper 2 XU35 wall post juniper 3 XU3, South, interior end of juniper entrance ramp U XU!?, wall post juniper 5 XD6, King post juniper 6 XU6, lintel post at entrance juniper XU3 = long rectangular house = long rectangular house XU6 = long rectangular house range0 For these reasons then, I would place the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon between AJX II4.OO and A«D* 1^0, These limits can only be definitely determined through additional research* They do, however,, contrast sharply with the A*D„ 1100 to A*D« 1550 limits pro posed by Lehmer and Caldwell (1966; $!$)<, The Initial Middle Missouri Horizon Lehmer and Caldwell (I966: $1$) have characterized this hori zon as lasting from A„D* 800 to A*D* 1100* It is the earliest mani festation of the semi-sedentary agricultural peoples in the South Dakota area and marks the beginning of what has been called the Plains Village pattern (Lehmer 19$ki 139-itO)* I have examined specimens from nine sites or components of sites assigned to this horizon* Tentative dates have been determined for material from two of these sites* Fourteen tentative dates have been determined for specimens from the Sommers site, 39ST’?60 These dates range from A*D* lU65> to A»D0 1631* Four of them are in the second half of the l5th century, two in the first half and five in the second half of the 16th century, and three are in the first half of the 17th century* That there is an almost 200 yea.r span between the earliest and latest dates from the site is well supported by the cross-dating between the specimens. The assigned dates are, however, highly inconsistent with the proposed placement of the horizon in time* Several possible explanations are available for this phenome non* One is that the dates are correct and the placement of.the hori zon is incorrect, but because of the tentative nature of the dates, 203 this, cannot now be demonstrateds Second is that the tentative dates are incorrect which is also a possibility but cannot be demonstrated for the same reasonsa A third possibility is that more than one com ponent ^ previously unrecognized, is present in the site and the tenta tive tree-ring dates come from a later occupation, A fourth inter esting point to be considered is the 200 year span between the earliest and latest dates. This is inconsistent with the generally recognized short period of occupancy for sites in the area. If the tree-ring dates are correct or nearly so, then the problem is with the archaeological interpretation. My opinion is that this site and the complex it represents is much later in time than has been thought. It probably results from occupation between at least A,D, lUOO and A,D, 1600 and is more closely related to the Extended Middle Missouri Horizon than has previously been thought. One other tentative date from the H,P, Thomas site, 39ST12, gives further support to the dating. This date, A,D, lij.09, also falls with in the proposed period, ■ A site chronology 166 years in length has been established for one other group of specimens from the Dinehart Village, 39LM33, I have been unable to cross-date this chronology with the dated ones. The material from two sites, the Pretty Bull site, 39BF12, and the Jiggs Thompson site, 39LM208, did not contain any datable specimens. Final analysis and dating could not be completed on three sites in cluding the Swanson site, 39BR16, the langdeau site, 39LM2Q9, and the Jandreau site, 39£M225# 20h She Sommers Site, 39315)6 She Sommers site is on the west bank of the Missouri River nearly opposite the confluence of Chapelle Creek in Stanley Countye No formal report has been published on the excavations at this site. It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)* There are 6k pieces of wood and charcoal in the collection from 39SI5>6 that represent 5l different specimens* Forty-three of the specimens are juniper and eight are populus* Tentative dates have been obtained for ll$ of the pieces* The dates range from AaD* II4.65 to AeBs 1631) but none of them are cutting dates (Table 53)® George F, Will obtained dates between &*D. U 4.8O and 150? for three specimens from this site (‘Mill IphSr 69)0 Iven though his dates are within the range of the one obtained by this study, they can not be used because of the distance involved between the site and the master chronology* I did not have access to 'Will’s specimens although they may have been duplicated in the material 1 workede The H* P; Thomas Site, 39ST12 This site is located on the west bank of the Missouri River approximately 10 miles downstream from the confluence of the Cheyenne River in Stanley County, It is a multi-component site, but no report of the analysis of the cultural material has been published. At least one component of this site has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a), Table 5>3e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers Site} 39STj?6 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1 (?) juniper (1322np-l465w) P same as 4 2 (?) . juniper P 3 (?) juniper P h (?) juniper (I331fp-l465w) P same as 1 s a Xtil7, PI, wall post juniper (I426p~l529w) P 3bS xra.7, P2, wall post. juniper P 3h6 1017? P35 entrance post juniper (I371p-l586w) P 3k7 10175 P4? wall post juniper (I508p-l602w) P 3h8 1017, P5, wall post juniper (I5l8p-l583w) P 3U9A-0 1017, P6, king post juniper (I405p»l631w) P 350 1017, P7, wall post juniper P 351 1017, P8, wall post juniper P 352 1IH7, P9, central roof juniper P support 353 2017, P122 juniper P 33% 1017, P124 j uniper (15o4p -i587w ) P 450 1018, fill juniper P 472 1018, floor juniper (I407np-l578w) P 537 1018, east midden juniper Table 53o Archaeological Tree-Ring Speeimens from the Sommers Site, 39ST56— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Oates Plotted Remarks 809A 3018, floor populus 809B XU18, floor populus - 8090 m S , floor populus 918 IU18 juniper (1290p-l5o5w) P1 919 XU18 juniper ( l 3| 8p - l56ovv) P 920 1018 juniper P 921A & B 1018 juniper P 922 1018 juniper . - P 923 1018 juniper (I290p-l609w) P 92h 1018 juniper (1288p-li|87vv) I 925 1018...... juniper ( 1391p - l l96vv) P 1353 1021, F33, cache pit populus l i i o i 1021, PliO, rear wall populus 1992 1070, 197, exterior cache populus 2022 1070, F98, exterior cache populus 2033 1070, wall post North corner juniper - P of house 203U X070, wall post North corner juniper P of house Table 5>3o Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Sommers Site, 39ST56— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 2035A & B./I XU70, wall post North corner juniper P of house 2036 SJ70, wall post juniper p 2037 XU70, wall post juniper P 2038 BJ70, wall post juniper P 2039 ,10170, wall post juniper P 20UO XU70, wall post juniper P 2051A-J XU70, king post, center of juniper P rear wall 2221 XU?5, wall post juniper P 2220B XU75, wall post . juniper P 2222k XU?5# wall post juniper P 2222B XU?5j king post juniper F 3005 XU85, square 10, palisade juniper 3006 XU85, PlUO, exterior cache juniper 3018 XU85 ' populus 927 XU75 juniper P Misc0 1 House (?) previously juniper P excavated Table 53# i-rehaeological Tree-Bing Specimens from the Sommers Site# 39ST56--Oontinued XU17 - long rectangular house XU18 = long rectangular house XU21 = long rectangular house XU70 = long rectangular house XU?5 = long rectangular house 'XU85 = fortification test 209 There are 117 pieces of wood and charcoal In the collection from 39ST12 representing 33 discrete specimens* Of this latter number, U6 are pop ulus,, five are ash, one is pine, and one is a piece of bark from an unidentified species (Table 3Wo One tentative date has been determined for a specimen of ash* It has a terminal, but not a cut ting date of A.D* 1U09® The Dlnehart Village, 39IM33 The Dlnehart Tillage site is located on the Missouri River in Lyman County two and one-half miles north of Highway 16* The cultural remains from the site most closely resemble the material from the Thomas Riggs phase and the Over phase* They have been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a), There are 60 pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec tion representing 22 Individual specimens* Nineteen of the specimens are juniper, one is populus, and two are not identified (Table 33)» A. site chronology 166 years in length has been constructed using four specimens that cross date with each other, I have not been able to date the site chronology* The Pretty Bull Site, 39BF12 This site is situated just above the Big Bend Dam on the east bank of the Missouri River in Buffalo County* It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a), A final re port on the material from the site has not, as yet, been published. Table Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H„ P0 Thomas Site, 39ST12 Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 78 Area 2, 101, ?3 populus llh Area 2, XD1 ' populus 1 0 Area 2, Z131, Fh populus 172 Area 2, SOI, F7 & 8 populus 180 Area 2, XU1, F? & 8 populus 600A-B ZU1, FI *■:- populus 633A-E BJ1, FI, west half populus 63k XtO., 51, northeast quadrant, populus fence post . 637 XU, FI, south edge, east populus member of fallen timbers 61a XOl, FI, southeast quadrant, populus north.side of F33 666 XEL, F23 populus 686A-G 201, F25 ... populus 7 0 201, P35 and F36 populus 770 201, FI, fill ash 791 201, FI, fill populus XU1, FI, floor 819 populus 210 823 XU2, F2, southwest quadrant populus Table $k» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the He P0 Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 875 HJ2, F2, F32, fill populus " 930 1U2, F2, F47> fill bark (Spp„) 952A-J XU2, F2, fill populus 976A-M XD2, F2, fill populus 977A-D XU2, F2, fill populus 998A-M X02, F2, fill. populus 1048 • XD3, F3, entrance post populus north ..side of entrance. 1049 XU3, F3, northeast quadrant, populus fence post 1052 XU3, F3, northwest quadrant populus 1060 ZU3, F3, southeast quadrant populus 1061 XU3, F3, southeast quadrant, populus northeast of F£l, fence post 1062 XU3, F3, southeast quadrant, populus peripheral post 1063 XU3? F3, southeast quadrant populus peripheral post 1067 XU3, F3, southwest quadrant, populus center post 1068 XU3, F3, southwest quadrant, ash (I365p™lit09w) ( west of F19, peripheral post Table Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H e P„ Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued Specimen ' Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1069 BJ3, ^3# southwest quadrant, ash fallen timber 1099 XU3, F3, west side of populus vestibule trench 1102 203, F3, P2 ash. llltf XU3, .?57 • populus 1238 XU3, P3, refuse populus 1239A-C XU3, F3, refuse populus 1269A & B XU3, F3, refuse populus 1303 m3, F3, fill populus 1318A-S #3, F3, fill populus 1318T m 3, F3, fill ash, 13k0' m3, F3, fill populus 1356A & B m6, F6, midden over parts populus of #6 15U8 mil, Fli, northwest quadrant, populus fill 1556 mil. Fit, northwest quadrant, populus fallen timber 1669 mu, FU, fill populus 1730A-E m5, F5, fill populus Table $k« Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the H„ P, Thomas Site? 39ST12— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 17U9 XU55 P5j northwest quadrant pop ulus fill 1767 XUS? F5s southeast quadrant populus squared post 1768 F5s southwest edge, populus roof timber 1791 XD3, southwest quadrant pine square post 1931 xmu, H77, bull-dozed fill populus ■' Area 1, X01, PI -.House 1 Area 1, XU2, F2 = House 2 Area 1? XU3, P3 = House 3 Area I, 203, F19 - (?) Area 1, XU2, F32 = (?) Area 1, XU2, PU7 = (?) Area 1, XU3, F51 = (?) Area 1, XU3, F37 = (?) Area 2. 201 = test trench Table 5Us Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the BU 'f0 Thomas Site, 39ST12— Continued Area 2, lUl, F3 - cache pit Area 2, Xtil, Fij. = post hole associated with F7 and F8 Area 2, XUit, Fij. = House 62 Area 2, Stt# = House 73 Area 2, XU1, F7 = soil level in section Area 2, XU1, P8 = soil level in section Area 2, ML, P23 = (7) Area 2, XU1, F25 = (?) Area 2, XU1, F35 = (?) Area 2, XttL, F36 = (?) XXJ6, F6 =" midden XUlit « House 77 Table 55 «> Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dinehart Village, 39LM33 Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates • Plotted Remarks 37A & B XUF2/PH1 juniper P 381 & B XUF2, PH2 juniper 39 XUP2, PH3 juniper 64p-l66w P X-dates W/66,77,79 401-0 XUF2, FH4 juniper 411-0 XUF2, PH5 juniper P 631-D XBF2, PH15 juniper p 651-0 XUF2, PH16 Cf> . 661 & B XUF2, PHI? juniper 5lp-l46w P X-dates W/39,77r79 731 & B XIF2, PH20 juniper 74 XUF2, PH21 juniper 75 XDF2, PH24 juniper 76 XUF2, PH25 (?) 771 & B XUF2, PH27 juniper 26p-l46w P X-dates W/39,66,79 78 XUF2, PH28 juniper 791-0 XUF2, PH29 juniper lfp-88vv P X-dates W/39,66,77 80 XUF2, PH30 juniper P Table 5.5o Arehaeologloal Tree-Ring Specimens from the Dlnehart Village# 39M33— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 81 XUF2? PH31 juniper 82A-E XUF2? PH32 juniper 83A-F IUF25 PH33 juniper 8 It ' XUF2, PH39 juniper 85A-F XUF2, Pfflil juniper P 196 XUF2, F19 in F3 populus XUF2 - long rectangular house F3 - (?) in X0F2 P19 = fill of F3 217 There are 1? pieces of wood from the site* Fourteen of the specimens are populuSj one is ash and two could not be identified as to species (Table 56)o The one piece of ash could not be dated* The Grandle-Jones Site, 39HU60 The Grandle-Jones site is on the east bank of the Missouri River near the confluence of Chapelle Creek in Hughes County* No formal published report is available on the cultural remains at this site* It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)* There are five pieces of populus in the collection from 39HU60 (Table 57)* Because of the nature of the material, no dates'could be obtained* The Jiggs Thompson Site, 39LM208 This site is on the west bank of the Missouri River in the Big Bend in Lyman County* Analysis of the cultural material from the site has not been published* It has been assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)» Two radiocarbon determina tions are available for material from the site* Both of these pro vided dates of A*D, 1280 * 120 years* There are 3h pieces of wood and charcoal in the site collec tion accounting for 21 individual specimens* Of these, 13 are juni per and eight are populus (Table 58)* Final plotting and analysis of the material from 39LM208 could not be completed and no dates have been obtained* fable £60 Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Pretty Bull Site, 39EF12 Specimen Sumher Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 300 21, backdirt ... populus h32 XL, H80B75, 6 to 12 inches populus $01 XL N90BU5, 6 to 12 inches populus $72 ■ XL, N95B!j5, 6 to 12 inches populus $77 XI, H95BU5, 12 to 18 inches populus $88 XL, 195E50, 12 to 18 inches ash 6 1 0 XL, 195®1l5, posthole . ... populus 70$ . XL, 1105B70, 12 to 18 inches populus 76? XL, 1110165, 12 to 18 inches populus 769 XL, EL10E65, 18 to 2k inches populus 788 XI, 1115135, 6 to 12 inches populus 88U XI, 6 to 12 inches populus 896 XI, 12 to 18 inches populus 927 XI, 121, cache pit populus 928 XI, 121, cache pit SEP. ? 938 XI, 122, cache pit populus 939 XI, 122, cache pit SEP, ? Table 57= Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the G-randle-Jones Site, 39HU60 Specimen Mumber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 86U House 3, Post 5 populus 1106 Feature 2, Post 75», Outer populus post 2062 Feature 13, Post 80, Leaner populus post 2063 Feature-13, Post 103, .Outer populus post 2066 Feature 13,' Post 128, Outer populus post House 3 = circular lodge Feature 2 = circular lodge Feature 13 = circular lodge Table 58„ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs Thompson Site$ 39EM208 Specimen Number Provenience Species Plotted Remarks - - ■ 76A-1 P2, fill. juniper 88 F2, house fill populus 108 f29 floorj base of north populus wall, 1**3 feet from east wall 136 F7 in F2 juniper 196 F10 in F2 juniper 203A-0 F2, PH7, outer post juniper 20lj. F2S PH8, outer post juniper 207 F2, PB23, outer post juniper 219 P2, PH37, outer post juniper 223 F2, fill juniper 238 FI*, fill populus 367 F16 in Fl* populus 3881. & B F17 in Fl* populus 1*93 F21 in Fit populus 331* F23 in Fl* populus 3761 & B Fl*, PH30 juniper 377 Fl*, PH32, outer post juniper Table £8* Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jiggs Thompson Site, 39RM208— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 380 Fh, PH3h, outer post juniper 3 82A - 0 Fh, PH33, outer post juniper 390 Fh, PH101, random post juniper 638 F28 in Fh populus F2 = rectangular house entrance to the south Flj. = rectangular house entrance to the southwest F? = cache pit, southeast quadrant of F2 F10 = cache pit, below house floor, northwest quadrant F2 F16 = cache pit, southwest corner of FI4 FI? = cache pit, southeast quadrant of Fh F21 = cache pit in Fh F23 = cache pit in northeast quadrant of Fh F28 « cache pit in northeast quadrant of Fit 222 The Swanson Sitea 39EB16 This site is situated near the east bank of the Missouri River a few miles north of the town of Chamberlain in Brule County„ The cultural remains described for the site (Hurt 1951) and other indica tors have suggested that it was probably occupied between JLD® lUOO and JLBe lh50 (Hurt 1953) o Caldwell (1966a) has placed the complex in the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon*, There are 35 pieces of juniper from the site representing 19 discrete specimens (Table 59)« Final detailed analysis of the mate rial has not been completed* Ho dates have been obtained for 39BRl6„ The langdeau Bite, 39IM209 Site 39LM2Q9 is located in the Big Bend on the west bank of the Missouri River in lyman County* The analysis of the recovered material has not been publishede The cultural assemblage has been identified with the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)* Two radiocarbon determinationss ASD6 1000 * 65 years and A«,!)<, 1100 * 55 years5 are available for material from this site* Ten pieces of wood and charcoal representative of seven speci mens are in the site collection* The material consists of six juniper specimens and one of pop ulus (Table So) Final analysis of the col lection has not been completed and no dates have been obtained* The Jandreau Site, 39KM22g This site is located near the neck of the Big Bend on the west bank of the Missouri River in Lyman Countye A formal report of Table 5>9» Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swanson Site, 39BR16 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 1/1 West wall. Test Trench one juniper 1/2 & 3 West wall. Test Trench one juniper one specimen 1/h & 5 West wall, Test Trench one ■ juniper one specimen 1/6 & 7 West wall. Test Trench one juniper one specimen 2/1 & 2 Test Trench 1 juniper one specimen 3/1 & 2 Post 1, House 1 juniper one specimen li/l & 2 House 2, right side juniper one specimen h/3 & It. House 2, right side juniper one specimen U/5 & 6 House 2, right side juniper one specimen V ? & 8 House 2, right side juniper one specimen k/9 & 10 House 2, right side juniper one specimen U/il House 2, right side juniper 5/1 & 2 House 2, right wall juniper one specimen 6 A & 2 House 2, left side juniper one specimen 7/1 & 2 House 2, Post A juniper one specimen 8/1 & 2 House 2, Post P juniper one specimen 9/1 & 2 House 2, Post D juniper one specimen 10/1 & 2 House 2 ■ juniper one specimen Table 59„ Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Swanson Site, 39BR16— Continued Specimen Number Provenience Species Bates Plotted Remarks 11 House 2, Post G juniper Table 60e Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Langdeau Site, 39M209 Specimen Number Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 8^9 F7? PH3G, outer post juniper 863 P7, PH60, outer post juniper 1260 Fll, house fill juniper 1338 F?6 in Fll populus 1361 Fll, PH19, outer post juniper 1373A-D FU, PH38 and PH39, outer juniper posts. ... - 1379 Fll, PH70, outer post juniper F7 = long rectangular lodge entrance to the southwest Fll = long rectangular lodge entrance to the south F76 = small pit in southwest quadrant of Fll 226 the cultural content of the site has not been published<= The material has been aligned with the Initial Middle Missouri.Horizon (Caldwell 1966a)O There are Ik specimens in the site collection of which ten are juniper and four are populus (Table 61)„ Detailed analysis and plot ting of the pieces has not been completed0 Ho dates have been obtained for 39IM225» Summary The available tentative tree-ring dates for the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon range from A0D0 lliOp to AeDs 1631a The proposed dating of the horizon between AsDa 800 and A0D0 1300 is completely in consistent with these tree-ring dates0 On the basis of the tree-ring dates, I would give maximum limits to this complex between A*D* 1300 and AoD0 l350e The later dates from 39ST56 probably represent a com ponent related to some other horizon* This dating raises some major questions concerning the reconstruction of the prehistory of the area* Some of these problems are dealt with in detail in the final section of this chapter* The St* John's Site, 39HU213 This site is located on the east bank of the Missouri River in the southeastern corner of Hughes County* B» Jensen has ex- - plained to me that the site has produced artifacts most similar to those from the Great Oasis sites in southwestern Minnesota, and that Table.61, Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the Jandreau Site, 391M22J? Specimen Humber Provenience Species Dates Plotted Remarks 385> mlF9 , floor between wall and populus 397 F9, Pit, random post juniper 398 F9, P6, random post juniper W 7 F9, P25, outer post populus lt08 F9, P29, outer post juniper k09 F9, P30s outer post juniper ia o F9, P3f), outer post juniper hl6 F9, Ph3, outer post juniper U17 F9, Plj.6, outer post juniper Itl9 F9, Pi|.9, random post juniper h22 ■ F9, P72, random post populus 1^3 F9, (?) juniper 767 F5, cache in east wall of populus square 7 of F3 768 F^, P2, square 7 juniper F3 = excavation unit P? = cache pit in F3 F9 = rectangular house Flit, = cache pit (?) in F9 228 radiocarbon and ^guess’* dates for Great Oasis range from 1000 BeG0 to proto-historic Omaha* Fifteen pieces of one specimen of juniper were provided from 39HU213 (Table 62)„ A tentative date of A0De lU32s which is not a cutting date, has been determined® This date would place a component of a third complex or horizon in the Middle Missouri Region during the period in which the Extended Middle Missouri and Initial Opales cent horizons are placed by the dating presented in this report® The Dating and Proposed Chronological Reconstructions Until the recently proposed systemization of Middle Missouri prehistory in the framework of traditions and horizons (lehmer and Caldwell 1966$ Caldwell 1966a) most reconstructions for the area have been couched in terms of the Mid-Western or McKern Taxonomic System® This latter system utilized concepts of component, focus, aspect, phase, and basic culture to exemplify succeedingly higher level of relationship between the archaeologically recovered cultural remains* As originally defined these units did not necessarily include space and time coordinates, but were based on the number of elements various cultural entities held in common® Use of these concepts has been in consistent® Any survey of the literature dealing with the Great Plains describing the numerous foci, aspects, and phases will quickly demonstrate the inconsistencies of definition and application of the terminology® Some researchers have insisted on sticking to the original definitions® Others have defined !f their foe us66 on the basis of space, time, shared characteristics, or any combination of these fable 62a Archaeological Tree-Ring Specimens from the St» John’s Site, 39HU213 Specimen Number Provenience Species .Dates Plotted Remarks 516A-Q ira.8 juniper (1365p-lii32vv) P XD18 = Test pit at southern edge of the site 230 factors. The result has been confusion especially for the non- specialist and in some instances for the specialist as well* The first major attempt to bring reason to the developing chaos was by Stephenson (I9$hs 15-21)* He reported a proposed organi zation of the Central Plains and Middle Missouri cultural manifesta tions in the framework of the Mid-Western Taxonomic System with the addition of a relative chronological framework. In his reconstruction he equates in terms of relative time the developments in the Central Plains and the Middle Missouri from the earliest to the most recent of the village dwelling groups* Following this early presentation, other investigators modified the scheme or introduced their own concepts to the organization of the Middle Missouri material (Lehmer 195k)s but in general Stephenson's outline was followed, Stephenson's organization stood more or less intact with various investigators shifting the relative position of one or another groupings as their own research applied until 1961, At this time, Wedel (1961) offered a new and complete synthesis of the prehistory not only of the Central Plains and Middle Missouri, but of the entire Great Plains area* He also equates the developments between, the Cen tral Plains and the Middle Missouri especially during the period after A,D, 1000* Essentially he equates the chronology for the period in which agriculture was successfully practiced by semi-sedentary groups living in villages for the two areas* Most recently, a new system of organization based on the terminology of Willey and Phillips (1962) has been suggested for the 231 area by Lebmer and Caldwell (1966s 311-16)„ They follow an initial limited approach of this kind for the area by Deetz (19635* Their original statement has sinoe been supplemented by additional defini tive ones on the Middle Missouri Tradition (Caldwell 1966a) and Cen tral Plains Tradition (Brown 1966)» These reconstructions again equate the chronological developments for the nVillage Indian" period. In view of the dating presented in this report, I believe that the underlying chronology for all of the foregoing reconstruc tions must be critically examined especially for the earlier horizons with which they deal* One of the first factors to be looked at is that the earliest available tree-ring dates from the Central Plains (Champe 19^6) place the occupation of the western part of this area by semi-sedentary groups as early as the beginning of the lljth century. That the sites from which these dates are derived represent a well established pattern would indicate a much earlier date for their in troduction to the Central Plains probably being as early as A.D. 1200 or even A.D. 1100. In contrast, the earliest dates I have been able to obtain for similar early horizons in the Middle Missouri Region would place the development there in the first part of the 13th century or 100 years later than comparable tree-ring dates from the Central Plains. Again, however, the dating should be pushed back probably as much as 100 to 200 years to allow for the establishment of the pattern. Even this would still leave roughly a 100 year period between the earliest possible dates in the Central Plains and those for the Middle Missouri. 232 It has to be recognized that the dating for neither area is as yet adequate, but given the available data, the contemporaneity of the developments in the two areas is open to question* For these reasons, 1 think the developments in the Middle Missouri should be seen as being somewhat later and drawing their impetus from the logi cal source to the south in the Central Plains. Or in other terms, the Middle Missouri Region is an extension of the Central Plains and was penetrated more slowly by the developing agricultural economy that was taking place- in the latter area. The next problem to be dealt with in the Middle Missouri is concerned with the period in which both the Extended Middle Missouri and Initial Coalescent horizons make their appearance. This period from approximately &.D. IZ4.OQ to A.D* 1550 sees the continuation of the Middle Missouri Tradition in the area and essentially contempor aneous with it the.introduction of the Coalescent Tradition. Inter estingly enough, many of the sites from both traditions are fortified during this period, although, this is not an entirely new trait for the area. Another point of interest is the date I have obtained for the St. John's site, which represents yet another tradition, that would place it in the same time span. In other words the period from A.D. lij.00 to A.D. l350 was one of major shifts either of population or cultural influences into the Middle Missouri area. Generally the Coalescent Tradition sites have been associated with the movement into the area of Central Plains peoples who ultimately are identified with the Arikara. In similar manner, the sites of the Middle Missouri 233 Tradition have been associated with groups who ultimately became known as the Mandan or Hidatsa, Neither of these identifications have been adequately demonstrated for the earlier portions of the chronology* If <, however, a truly outside group, such as the Coalescent, did move into the area, the emphasis on fortifications is easily explainable. In like manner one can explain the contemporaneous northward movement of both traditions through time in terms of the dating* A last impor tant result of this interpretation, that the Coalescent is truly in trusive and probably from the Central Plains area, adds more weight to the conclusion that the Middle Missouri is in point of fact peri pheral to the Central Plains» The period A.D* l5?5 to A«D* 1700 sees the final elimination of the Middle Missouri Tradition in the South Dakota portion of the area and its removal to an extreme northerly location* By the same token, the Coalescent Tradition sites come to dominate the entire South Dakota area. This same northward trending movement of the tra ditions continues into the final period, A.D* 1700 to A.D* 1830, and by the end of this period both traditions cease to be found in South Dakota* It is my contention, then, that as future analysis of the ■ Middle Missouri data is carried out more emphasis and attention should be given to the unity with and relationships between these ■gomplexes and those recognized for the Central Plains proper* Instead of viewing the Middle Missouri region as a separate entity, or almost separate, it should be regarded as a slender northward extension of 23h the Central Plains and the pattern that exists there# This is not to say that influences and even peoples may not have penetrated the Middle Missouri from other directions nor that the region did not develop its own characteristics. It is certain that the two major traditions in the Middle Missouri did interact and that they are archaeologically distinguishable is well demonstrated. It is simply that they should be looked at more closely in terms of their surround ing cultural environment. Unfortunately as yet these ideas can neither be proven nor disproven. Even the chronological data on which 1 base my reconstruc tions is still very tentative, especially for the earlier periods, and a great deal of work remains to be done in this area. In addi tion, there is the problem of some of the very early dates obtained by the radiocarbon process. At present their unreliability is obvious simply by comparing the disparate determinations obtained for the same piece of wood. Should further verification of these dates be obtained or should the tentative tree-ring dates be shown to be in accurate, my interpretations would similarly have to be altered. Also involved in the problems in the Middle Missouri is the mass of unanalyzed data and the lack of published reports. These factors along with the totally inadequate provenience data for many of the specimens reported on here add further problems for my interpretations. CHAPTER 5 HOM-CHROHOEOGICAL INFORMATION Other kinds of information may be derived from the study of tree-rings besides that of a strictly chronological nature dealt with in the proceeding chapters* Some of these other kinds of informa tion, such as changes in relationships through time, are associated with chronology* There is also information of an ecological and cultural nature that may be obtained* This chapter deals with the non-chronological results of the South Dakota study* The material is presented under two main headings* The first section is concerned with those conclusions of an ecological nature that have been derived or may be expected from future studies in the area* The second sec tion presents conclusions concerning cultural usages and relation ships* Ecological Information Information of an ecological nature pertaining to the avail ability of species and their use by the prehistoric populations in South Dakota is one of the main results of the study* Of the large number of locally available plants listed by Wedel (1961: l60-l) as being native to the area, seven have been identified in the collec tions, These seven, juniper, ash, cottonwood, willow, pine, oak, and hackberry, are all well represented as being utilized by the . 235 prehistoric populationse In addition a few pieces could not be iden tified as to speciese The collections also contain sufficient numbers of pieces of bark to indicate that this material was utilized* All of the identified species have been found to come from both structural and non-structural contexts* The majority of the wood studied from all of the sites where there has been adequate provenience has come from house remains* No exact figure can be arrived at on these re lationships because of inadequate provenience data on all but one or two sitesa There is some evidence of a change in the preferential use of two of the kinds of wood, juniper and cottonwood, through time, and of an increased appearance of both in non-structural contexts through time. Again, however, this cannot be clearly demonstrated with the available information. The most striking example of changes in the ecological re lationships of the area afforded by this study results from the evi dence for the percentage of wood used. There is a major decrease in the percentage of juniper specimens in the site's from early to late (Fig, 8), In the earliest group of sites juniper accounts for 58$ of the recovered wood and in the latest group only 9$, Exactly the opposite trend is evident in the amount of cottonwood recovered with the earliest group of sites containing 3h$ in their collections and the latest group having 75$® There is also a major increase in the percentage of other kinds of wood in the collections from the latest period. At this time 26$ of the recovered wood is of species other 237 90 80 / z z * 70 \ \ N V / / 60 / / / / / / 50 ✓ 40 < o ^ S 30 20 10 US*, • " ...... : --other ...... 0 INITIAL EXTENDEDINITIAL EXTENDED POST- MIDDLE MIDDLE COALESCENT COALESCENT CONTACT MISSOURI MISSOURI COALESCENT HORIZON ig. 8. Percentages of species in the collections through time. 238 than juniper or populus. Prior.to this period these other species had never accounted for more than 3% of the collection at any period (Fig* 8)* Several explanations for these changes are possible® One is that the juniper was simply logged out through time and as it became less available other woods had.to be used in its place® Since juni per is a relatively slow growing tree and probably never was a major component of the available timber, this explanation seems the most reasonable® Other possible factors in the observed changes could be either differential preservation or recovery® The first, preservation, does not apply to the juniper because not only does the percentage in the sites decrease but the actual number recovered decreases sharply® The rise in the percentage of cottonwood in the collections may be partially due to preservation since it .decomposes relatively rapidly, although a fairly large number of specimens have been recovered from the early sites® It is probable that the factor of differential re covery is also negligent® This would imply selective sampling of the wood remains in the field® Such selective sampling is probably not the case because most of the archaeologists working in the area are not familiar with wood identification® k last possibility is a change in the cultural preference for the wood. At this time there is no evidence for such a change and there is actually some for a continued preference for juniper for building (Wedel 196l; 160)„ For- these reasons, then, the best explanation is that through time juniper be came less available as a result.of its exploitation and other kinds of wood had to be used in its place® 239 One probable effect of this change in the kind of wood avail able and used would be on house size and construction* If, as the data indicates, juniper was replaced primarily by cottonwood, I would expect smaller structures to be built. Cottonwood, is not nearly as strong a wood as juniper and would not support the same amount of weight. It is probable then that at least.one of the factors affecting the observed decrease in house size, especially in more recent periods (Deetz 1965? 31-32) is this change in available construction material. One other area of interest to the prehistorian that tree-ring studies have been able to provide information on is climatology, I have not been able to analyze the ring series studied with reference to climatic relationships but can draw at least some tentative con clusions® Throughout the area under study, the climate today closely resembles that described by Wedel for the northern part in the vicinity of Mobridge (Wedel 1955s 75)» Generally the temperature extremes vary from well below 0° to over 100° degrees, and the frost-free growing season averages 100 to 120 days in length* The annual precipitation would average close to 16 inches® Harry 1® Weakly has demonstrated a high degree of correlation between annual tree growth and precipi tation for juniper from an area with similar climatic conditions in Nebraska (HSB® Weakly 19^0: 18-19, 19h3° 816-9), If one assumes that the same relationships apply in South Dakota, an examination of the chronologies presented in Figures Ij. and 5 shows several periods of below normal growth. Further analysis of the assumed relationships is required because if these periods do actually represent drought 2U0 conditions3 they would be periods in which one would expect consider able difficulty for the village dwelling agriculturalists in the area. Site Occupation and Construction On the basis of the dating presented for material from 17 sites it is possible to make a preliminary statement on the length of the site occupation. The time span for the 13 sites from which more than one date is available varies,from seven years for 39ST6 to 166 years for 39Sf56o The average length of time for all of the sites if allow ance is made for more than one component at those sites where appli cable is 1|5<.2 years. The average for each of the five horizons is variable, but this is probably more related to the available sample than actual differences in the duration of site occupation® The average for the Post-contact Goalescent Horizon for data from six sites representing eight components is 30.9 years. The average for the Extended Goalescent for two sites is 2$ years and for the Initial Goalescent for one site with two components is 61,5 years. The two horizons of the Middle Missouri Tradition for which data are available are the Extended Middle Missouri, with the average for two sites of 50 years, and the Initial Middle Missouri, with the average for a probable three components ffom two sites being 81.3 years. The sample from the Post-contact Goalescent is the most ade quate. The average of 30.5 years for the occupation of these sites is comparable to the generally accepted time span of 20 to 30 yea,rs given to the occupation of sites in the Middle Missouri Region, The data for the earlier horizons indicate a longer period of occupancy 210. for their sites. Although this may generally be true, the samples are inadequate for these earlier horizons. Information is available from 11 of the sites that makes pos sible a statement as to probable time of house construction and repair at them. At site 39BF2, two dates, A»D, 1705 and 1717, come from one house. Feature 50Uo Since neither of these dates represent cutting dates but the latter one appears to be closer to being one, this house was probably built in the 1720's. This dating would place it in Component B of the site. One date each of A,D, 1776 from Feature 506 and A,D* 1768 from Feature 512 would indicate these houses were probably built in the 1770’s and 1780*s respectively, thus placing them both in Component A (Deetz 196$s 39)« The dates for 39BF3 suggest that one house. Feature 15, with dates of A,B, 1671 and A*D* 1678 was probably built about 1680, The information from two other houses, Feature 68A with a date, of A*D* I687 and Feature 9 with one of A»D„ 1707 would indicate these were built near 1690 and 1710 respectively. In addition dates of A,D0 1678 and A,D, 1687 from cache pits, when looked at in combination with the dates from two of the houses, would indicate a concentration of activity at the site between A,B» 1680 and 1690, Dates have been obtained from four of the houses at 39B426 that indicate most of the activity at that site took place after A,D, 1700, From the house in Feature 50 seven dates, A„D, 1686, 1696, 170l|., 1711, 1712, 1715, and 1732, have been derived. Because these dates cluster in the second decade of the 18th century, the house 2h2 was probably built during that decade in 1715 or later. The two much earlier dates may represent reused timbers or be the result of a high loss of outside rings from the specimens. The late date of A.B. 1732 probably comes from a repair timber, and would indicate use of the structure for at least 15 years. There are two dates from Feature 11, A.D, 1681 and 1699, that point to the house having been constructed near A.D* 1700. In addition, a date of A.D. 1669 from Feature 90 and A.D* 1736 from Feature 80 supports use of these two houses in at least the 1670's and 1730's respectively. Of the four houses represented, three were in use after A.D. 1700 and two of them after 1715* A group of three dates from posts in the fortifications at 39ST17, A.D. I667, 1668 and 1681;, indicate that the site was fortified in the 1670's or 1680's. In addition, two dates of A.D. 166? and 1723 from Feature 9 indicate that this house was probably built after 1670 and was in use in the 1720's. One specimen with a date of A.D. 1699 from a cache pit in another house supports the use of that house near or after 1700. The site was probably first occupied in the l670's and was in' use for i;0 to 50 years* By contrast, the range of dates in the site chronology from 39ST6 for material from the fortifications and two houses spans only seven years. This short time range probably indicates a very short period for the construction of this.site. The majority of dates from 39811; are for material associated with burials. These dates, A.D. 1663, 1667, 1673, 1676, and. 169)4, span 30 years and suggest that the site was in use during at least 2h3 the last three decades of the 17th century* Two other dates from Feature I0I4, A.D. I67U and 1680, indicate construction of this house in the IdSO’s* At 391M2 there are two dates from Feature l6t A*D* 137k and 1581e They support construction of this house in the l^SO’s* One date of AeDe 1^93 from Feature 2 relates the occupation of this struc ture to the last decade of the 16th century. In combination these dates indicate occupation of the site during at least the last two decades of the 15>0Q’s« The dates from one house at 39ST223 show a distinctive cluster in the lii.30’s and suggest that the house. Feature 3, was built near A,D, lUUO and occupied until at least II4.6O, The dates from this structure are A»D* lU33? lh3k} 1U36, 1U39, and llj.60* Two dates of A,B, 1U50 and lh$2 from the house in XU16 indicate construction in the ll4.5>0 !s and further support occupation of the site from at least A.B0 II4I4.O to 1U60, The range from the two houses for which I have dates at 39ST56 is somewhat confusing because of the long time span of over 100 years for both. Those from the house in 3CIH7 cluster in the 1580 * s and probably indicate construction at that time. The dates are A„De 1529? 1583) 1586, 1587, 1602, and 1631, The very early date at 1529 is probably explainable as ring loss or reuse of timber and the two late ones may be repair timbers. This would indicate use of the structure over approximately a 50 year period. The dates from the house in XU18 do not exhibit any pronounced clustering. These dates 2 kh are i.JD0 lij.87, lk96t l505s 15»60, 1^7B, and 1609= Unless two periods of construction and occupation are represented and separated by the break between 1505 and 1560, the house was probably built in the late 16th or early 17th century. At 39M33 four dates from one house have a span of 78 years in the site chronology. Three of the dates are separated by only 20 years and probably represent the relative time of construction. The very early date is probably the result of ring loss or reused timber® Datep have been determined for material from six other sites but no estimates of the time of house construction or site occupation can be, made for these sites® In four of the cases only one date is available from the site® The other two lack adequate provenience data to establish the relationship of the dated specimens from the site to each other or to specific structural features® On the basis of the foregoing discussion of nonchronological findings* one item is to be especially noted® This is the importance of detailed provenience data® 'Where such information has been avail able* interpretation of the dates beyond the purely chronological meanings becomes possible® As a result of having this information* it has been possible in 11 cases to make some judgment as to the date of construction or use of various features® It has also been possible to make suggestions concerning the possible reuse of timber in a few instances* but no final conclusions can be reached until a detailed description of the features concerned is reported® In addition to these considerations, it has been possible to arrive at some tentative estimates'for the length of site occupancy in the areaQ CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In the spring of I96I1. the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, in cooperation with the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service and the River Basin Surveys program of the Smithsonian Institution, undertook a project to determine the feasibility of applying the methods of tree-ring analysis to material from South Dakota. It was planned that if these techniques could be applied and tree-ring chronologies constructed, the study would be expanded to include archaeologically recovered specimens in the hope of lengthening and strengthening the chronologies and of obtaining dates for the prehistoric material. This report is based on the re sults of the study of tree-ring specimens both modern and archaeolo gical from the Middle Missouri Region in South Dakota. The project had demonstrated the feasibility of constructing chronologies based on wood, especially juniper and ash, from the area. Chronologies have been constructed for five areas based on modern specimens and three of these have been lengthened and strengthened by the inclusion of records from archaeologically derived specimens. For archaeologists, one important product of the research has been the determination of dates for material from 15 sites in South Dakota. Undated chronologies have also been constructed for an 2I4.6 2k7 additional two sites0 Although some of the dates presented for this material are still tentatives they provide the most solid basis avail able for chronological reconstruction of the prehistory of the area* 1 have outlined such a reconstruction in light of these dates* Five horisons of the two primary traditions in the area have been assigned temporal limits* In the Middle Missouri tradition, the Initial Middle Missouri Horizon has been dated between at least A0B0 1350 and A0B 0 l$0Qo The Extended Middle Missouri Horizon is dated between A<,B0 li^OQ and A0D0 1550* fhe three Ooalescent Tradition horizons have also been assigned temporal limits* The earliest of this traditions horizons, the Initial Ooalescent, falls between A*D* lUhO and A0D* 1^20* The Extended Ooalescent Horizon fits between AoB* 1580 and A*D* 1700 and the final expression of this tradition, the Post-contact Ooalescent Horizon dates from A*B* 1675 to A01* I8I4.O* The study has also provided information of a nonehronologieal nature* Ghanges in the availability and use of the wood by the area's prehistoric inhabitants have been demonstrated* Through time Juniper became less available and cottonwood was increasingly utilized by the peoples in the area* This change has been further related to a de crease in house size because of the lesser strength of the cottonwood* The change has been shown to be a result of the interaction of the human element and the ecological environment* The decreased avail ability of juniper is related to its slow growth and heavy exploitation by the local population* It has also been possible to arrive at estimates of the length of site occupation* The most adequate of these estimates, that which applies to the most recent period, is 30op years. There is, however, evidence that sites were occupied for somewhat longer periods in the earlier portions of the chronology. Still other applications of the data have, where adequate, made possible estimates of the time of construction of excavated features and their relationship to each other. The examination of the over 2000 specimens incorporated in the study has established the feasibility of applying the methods of tree-ring analysis to material from South Dakota. Chronologies have been built and dates have been determined for archaeological material. In addition, much of nonchronological interest has been derived. As with all preliminary investigations of this, nature, the results must be considered tentative to a degree. Although the work has achieved its primary goals, the material studied has involved problems and some areas have yet to be investigated. One of the pri mary areas to be looked into is the relationship of tree growth in South Dakota to environmental conditions, especially those of climate. Much additional work needs to be done before the early portions, in side A.D® 1500, of the chronology are secure and before the dating of the pertinent specimens can be definitely demonstrated. The species of wood with which I have worked contain problems that need additional investigation. The wood is much more difficult to work with than that normally used for chronological purposes in other areas, especially in the Southwest. Almost all examination has to be done under high magnification and even then the distinction 2k9 of double or false rings is extremely difficult in the young growth of the junipers on which most of the South Dakota chronologies are based® Other problems still exist concerning the area of applica bility for the chronologies* At the present time, this area cannot be extended over $0 to 100 miles with any degree of confidence, and the shorter distance is to be preferred® For the foregoing reasons, the results that have been pre sented here must be considered tentative„ It will only be with the completion of further studies on these various problems that a final conclusion on the validity of the results can be judged. Until such investigations can be made, not only the results presented here but those reported for other areas of the Great Plains must be considered tentative. The only area for which anywhere near adequate informa tion is available now outside of South Dakota is western Nebraska, Several of the questions and problems raised here have been investi gated in some of the work done in that area. Even there, however, additional research is needed, A. final problem of great significance does not directly apply to the construction of chronologies or the application of tree-ring methods in the area* It has to do with the interpretation of the results obtained by these techniques. The problem is that of inade quate provenience supplied for this study. This has been true not only for the. archaeological material but the modern collection as well* In only a very few instances is a photographic record available 2£0 for the modern collections* The detailed in-site provenience neces sary for dealing with the archaeological specimens runs the gamut from excellent to nonexistent* In general where the specimens have been more recently obtained, the records are somewhat better, but none is as yet truly adequate* The first place to start in attempting to improve the possible results of any future tree-ring research in South Dakota is with the collection of the .specimens* It is mandatory that not only adequate collection records be made, but that the tech niques of recovery, preservation, and stqrage of the material be im proved* Recommendations for Future Research The results of this study warrant additional tree-ring anal ysis in the Middle Missouri Region and the Great Plains in general* Such studies should be oriented toward verification of the findings presented here and expanding the usefulness of the information* This latter should include; investigations of tree-growth and its rela tionship .to environmental conditions, the area over which the chrono- c logies are applicable, construction of new chronologies covering other portions of the area, and analysis of the available material from sites and locations not included in this study* I believe, that a long range program of tree-ring research should be initiated in the Great Plains* A laboratory for this kind of research should be established and staffed with qualified personnel for this purpose* The planning and organization of such a laboratory 251 should look toward problems other than those that are purely chrono logical, although this may be its initial orientation. It could be primarily directed toward obtaining information of an archaeological nature, but should ultimately include investigations related to other disciplines such as botany and forestry. For these reasons, it should ultimately be associated with an academic institution and should defi nitely cooperate with all organizations and institutions interested in applying tree-ring research to their problems. Essentially a regionally oriented organization similar to the Laboratory of Tree- Ring Research at the University of Arizona should be the goal. Such a laboratory should be associated with and have a close working re lationship with the Tucson organization. This would allow the Great Plains laboratory to keep abreast of the Southwestern developments and help to avoid possible errors* The reasoning behind this suggestion is that by having such a regionally oriented laboratory there is a much better chance of having both continuity and uniformity in the research* Establishment of a laboratory in an academic institution would allow continuity by having the advantage of being able to train students in this kind of work*. It would also provide a centralized depository for the speci mens and a standardized set of procedures and records could be de veloped* This standardization should be attempted no matter what the location or orientation of the research facility* A systematic set of records should be organized and the specimens from all cooperating institutions should be centrally located in order to be available for study. 252 The organization of the proposed laboratory should initially involve at least one and preferably two people trained in tree-ring research plus clerical assistance* In this way a system of con tinuous checking of specimen work and the other phases of chronology building and dating could be maintained» Also adequate records could be established and kept up* It is preferable that those doing the specimen work have had at least minimal training at the Eaboratory of Tree-Ring Research and.ideally that they be experienced in working with Great Plains species* Under no circumstances should totally in-* experienced personnel undertake such a project without close super vision* The physical requirements for a laboratory are minimal. First is space in which to work and to meet the storage requirements for the collections on hand* Such space should be large enough to accomo date more storage than is immediately required so that additional collections may be handled as they arrive, A minimum of equipment consisting of tools for preparing the specimens for study, optical equipment, especially microscopes, a measuring machine, and clerical items would be needed. Access to a computer should also be con sidered so that pertinent analyses of the data may be accomplished* The initial outlay for a minimum of equipment would be the major expense in establishing a laboratory* These recommendations should be considered as the ideal for future undertakings in tree-ring research in the Great Plains, There are, however, certain more immediate and basic problems that deserve 253 attention. These have to do with suggestions for the improvement of collection procedures and with the ultimate amount and value of the information that can be retrieved. One first step that should be immediately taken is a program to make those working in the Great Plains more aware of the possibil ities and requirements of tree-ring research# This program should emphasize not only the chronological information that can be derived, but also the none hr onolo g ic al data that can be ascertained# In-, addi tion, the limitations of the methods should be made clear# The basic requirement for getting at nonchronological information is recognition of the fact that wood recovered from archaeological sites is in every sense a cultural artifact and must be treated as such* The wood does not represent just a post or wood from house fill as most have been described in the records I have worked with* The specimen is wood, but it has been altered and used by people and as such is an artifact* Therefore, it deserves the accurate, careful, and complete documen tation that would be given to any other artifact. This documentation must include complete provenience, description of associations, struc tural unit represented if applicable, and a photographic record* Description of the artifact as a post or a beam is not adequate* Coincident with documentation, excavators must become aware of the importance of proper methods of recovery and preservation of their wood artifacts# A piece of charcoal or charred wood should be properly wrapped and tied so that it will not disintegrate into dust. Methods of recovery- and preservation have been extensively dealt with 2$h in the literature and cannot be too strongly emphasized® There is currently being prepared at the laboratory a manual describing its minimum requirements for accepting specimens® This manual deals primarily with the kind of information that should accompany material submitted for analysis6 I would recommend that as soon as it becomes available its requirements should be adopted as the standard for re cording all wood excavated in the Great Plains,' In order to make sure that the people involved in archaeolo gical exploration and research in the Great Plains are aware of the importance of proper techniques for handling wood artifacts, a state ment concerning these procedures should be prepared and made available to all cooperating institutions in the area. This statement should cover all aspects of the information that should accompany specimens. It should include suggestions on the proper methods of handling, preparation, and storage of the material. For example, no attempt should be made to clean the wood by heavy brushing because this will likely remove outer portions containing minimally present rings or evidence of bark. All charcoal and charred specimens should be wrapped in cotton in the field, securely tied, sacked, and clearly labeled with all pertinent information® When necessary charred mate rial should be treated with paraffin and gasoline to prevent deteri oration, Decayed wood and even relatively solid specimens should be adequately wrapped and tied to prevent the loss of minimally present rings and further decomposition. In addition to a statement de tailing this kind of information, it would also be advisable to hdve 255 a qualified person visit excavations in progress to demonstrate the techniqueso It also seems advisable to organize some'kind of program to help keep cooperating groups aware of new techniques for the re covery of information. This could either be done through a publica tion such as the Plains Anthropologist or some similar outlet that would have wide distribution* If these recommendations concerning the treatment and recovery of wood artifacts are followed, a major increase in the amount and value of the information obtained should result with little or no additional cost* Continued and expanded research that follows the accepted methods of tree-ring investigations elsewhere should add considerable to the interpretive information deriving from archaeolo gical investigations in the Middle Missouri and the Great Plains in general* Another area in which immediate steps are possible is an ex- panded and more intensive collection of modern specimens® Here again, the emphasis should be on obtaining accurately documented samplese The efforts in this direction should be oriented toward strengthening the chronologies presented in this report and developing new ones for other areas of interest. The approach should be aimed at obtaining statistically valid samples that can be utilized not only for the con struction of chronologies but also to determine the parameters of tree-growth, the relationship of these to environmental factors, and ecological data that might help to explain certain related cultural problems. Along with such a program, an attempt should be made to 256 collect a representative sample of the woody plants in the area for comparative purposes and for species identification. This kind of collection should include all available species and be comprehensive enough so that both the aylem and the phloem tissue can be identified both in natural and charred condition. Such a collection would be of great value in identifying the material in the archaeological col lections. Most of the above recommendations can be instituted within the framework, of already existing research programs. They are pri marily concerned with the application of more acceptable methods of recovery and handling of wood artifacts® As along range goal I am recommending the establishment of a regional center for tree-ring research in the Great Plains and a greatly expanded program of col lection and study* The value of these recommendations lies in the more complete interpretive data that would result from continued tree-ring studies. The feasibility of this kind of research in the Great Plains has been established and an example of the kinds of information that can be ' obtained has been presented in this report. It is my opinion that any investment in tree-ring analysis in the Great Plains would be more than repaid by the resultant increase in chronological control alone. The derived nonchronological data would also be a major asset in our attempts to understand the prehistory of the area. REFERENCES ALBERTSON, F* W, 1938 Studies of a 189-^ear-Old American Elm Tree in West-Central Kansas, Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vole lilj, p* Sfe ” Topekae'" ™ 19l|0 Studies of Native Red Cedars in West Central Kansasc Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol* hj, pp0 "83-93% Wichita* ANOHMOUS 1962 Missouri Basin Chronology Program, Statement lumber 3* Smithsonian Institution, Missouri Basin Project, Lincoln® BILL, ROBERT E. I9I1.8 Review of Tree Ring Studies in North Dakota, by George F« Will0 American Anthropologist, Vol* 50, No* 1, pp6 103- 108 « Menas ha.* 1932 Dendrochronology in the"Mississippi Valley, In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James■B, Griffin, pp« 3U3-55T* The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, BOWERS, ALFRED W* 1963 Investigations in the Mobridge Area, South Dakota, Plains Anthropologist, Vol, 8, No, 20, p, 118, Lincoln, 1967 Field Reports 196U Excavations of the Davis and Larson Sites, Near Mobridge, South Dakota, Plains Anthropologist, Vol, 12, No, 36, pp, 20H-205, Lincoln* BROWN, LIONEL A. 1966 Temporal and Spatial Order in the Central Plains, Plains Anthropologist, Vol, 11, No, 3k$ pp, 294-301* Lincoln, CALDWELL, WARREN W, i960 The Black Partisan Site (39LM218), Big Bend Reservoir, South Dakota: A Preliminary Report* Plains Anthropologist, Vol* 3, No* 10, pp* 33-37* Norman* 237 258 CALDWELL, mSRSN ¥„ 1966a The Middle Missouri. Tradition Reappraised„ Plains Anthro pologist, 7ol« 11, No« 32, ppe lj?2~l$7* lincoln0 1966b Archeological Investigations at the McKehsey Village (39AR201) Oahe Reservoire Plains Anthropologist, Vol„ 11, lo» 31, PPo 2-38, Memoir Mo* 3® Lincoln® 1966c The Black Bartizan Site® liver Basin Surveys, Office of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Publications in Salvage Archeology, No* 20 Lincoln, CHAMPS, JOHM 1* i9U6 Ash Hollow Cave| A Study of S'tratigraphic Sequence in the Central Great Plainse University of Nebraska.Studies, Mew Series No, 1* Lineoln0 COLE, MI COOPS!, and ROBERT BELL, JOHN BENNETT, JOSEPH CALDWELL, NOEMAN .EMERSON, RICHARD MacMEISH, KENNETH OER, . ROGER IHLLIS • 1951 Kincaid, A Prehistoric Illinois Metropolis® The University of Chicago Press, Chicago® DEBT2, JAMES 1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics« Illinois Studies in Anthropology, No® He The University Of Illinois Press, Urbana. DOUGLASS, ANDREW S® 1919 Climatic Cycles and Tree-Growth Is A Study of the Annual Rings of Trees in Relation to Climate and Solar Activity® Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No® 289, Vol., 1= Washington, 1929 The Secret of the Southwest Solved by Talkative Tree-Rings@ The National Geographic Magazine, Vol, 56, No, 6, PP. 736- 770. Washington, 19H3 Notes on the Technique of Tree-Ring Analysis. IV; Prac tical Instruments, Tree-Ring Bulletin, Vol. 10, No, 1, pp. 2-8. Tucson, ' DRIVER, HAROLD S., and WILLIAM C. MASSE! 1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians, Trans- actions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. H7, Pt, 2, *"pp© 165-H55,' Philadelphia^ 259 m m T Z s WENDELL 1962 O r a z y Bull Site (39111220)5 Big Bend Reservoir? South Dakota. Plains. Anthropologist^ Vple. 7j, No® pp. 36~it20 Lincoln® EEETTS, HAROLD 0." 1963 Computer Programs for Tree-Ring Research® Tree-Ring Bulletin^ Vol® 25» Nos® pp. 2-7® Tucspn FRITTSj, HAROLD 0o s DAVID G. SKHH, CARL A. BUDELSKY, and JOHN ¥. CARDIS ...... , ...... , ..... 1965a The Variability of Ring Characteristics within Trees as Shown by a Reanalysis of four Ponderosa Pine® Tree-Ring Bulletin, Vql® 27# Nos® 1-2# pp® 3-18® Tucson®. FRITTS# HAROLD 0®, DAVID Q a SMITH# JOHN V® CARDIS#* and CARL A® BUDELSKY. , ...... „ ...... ,. 1965b Tree-Ring Characteristics along a Vegetation Gradient in Northern Arizona® Ecology, Vol® ii.6s No® U# pp® 393-UlO® Durham® CLOCK# WALDO S® 1937 Principles and Methods of Tree-Ring Analysis® Carnegie Institution of Washington#.Publication No® U86® Washington® GREY# DON ’ 1963 Big Horn Medicine Wheel Site# h8BH302® Plains Anthro pologist, Vol® 8# No® 19# pp® 27-liO© Lincoln® HAWLSI# FLORENCE 19hl Tree-Ring Analysis and Dating in the Mississippi Drainage® The University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology, Occasional Papers, No® 2® Chicago® HILL# A© T»# and GEORGE METCALF 1914.2 A Site of the Dismal River Aspect in Chase County# Nebraska® Nebraska History# Vol® 22# No® 2# pp® 155-226® Lincoln® HOFFMAN, J„ J0 1965 Excavation of Fort George Village (39ST17) in the Big Bend Reservoir of South. Dakota® Plains.Anthropologist^ Vol® 10, No® 27# pp® kS-U7 ® Lincoln® HOSEMAN, Jo Jo 1 9 6 7 Molstad Villageo River Basia Surveys s Office of Anthro pology, Smithsonian Institution^ Publications In Salvage ikrelaeelogyjy Mo0 ko LinGolno ~ 1URT3 HSSI1X R = s J R o 1951 Report of the Investigation of the Swanson Site5. 3 9HRl6 s Brule Gountys South lakota0 fhe South Dakota Archeological Commission, Areheologleal Studies9 Circular No0 3o Pierre* 1952 Report of the Investigation of the Be alp Greek Site,, 3 9GR1 , and the Bills Greek Site, 39GR2s South Dakota, 19hl, 1951o The South Dakota Areheologleal Gommlssion. Archeological Studies, Circular Mo0 ho Plere? 1953 Report of the Investigation of the Thomas Riggs Site, 3 9HU1 , Hughes County,.South Dakota, 1952* .The South Dakota Areheologleal Commission, Areheologleal Studies, Circular Noo 5% Pierre<> 1957 Report of the Investigation of the Swan Greek Site, 3 9^W, Walworth County, South Dakota, 195h"1956o The South Dakota Areheologleal Commission, Areheologleal Studies, Clreular No* 7o Pierre, 1958 Thomas Riggs Focuss Additional Data, Paper presented at the Sixteenth Plains Conference for Archeology, 1958* Lincoln, HURT, WESLEY R,, JR., WILLIM G, BUCKLES, BUGS® FUGLE and GEORGE A, AG0GBJO . . . ' . .. 1 9 6 2 Report of the Investigations of the Four Bear Site, 39DW2, Dewey County, South Dakota, 1958-1959* The W, H, Over Museum, State University of South Dakota, Archaeologicai Studies, Circular No* 10* Vermillion* . . JENSEN, RICHARD 1* 1967 Ixeavations at the Durkin Site (3 9ST2 3 8), South Dakota* Plains Anthropologist, Vol* 12, No*.36,..p* 205* Lincoln* JOHNSTON, RICHARD B*, and JOHN J. HOFBIAN " 1 9 6 6 An Analysis of Four Survey Collections from Armstrong County, South Dakota, 39A12. (No Heart Creek Site), 39ARk, 39AR5 and 39AR7* Plains.Anthropologist, Vol* 1 1, No* 31, pp* 39=75, Memoir No* 3* Lincoln 261 KI'TSTT, MARVIN F* 1952 The Oacoma Sites5, 39LM26 arid 39LM27j, Lyman Countys South Dakota® Manuscript,, on file at the Smithsonian Institution^ River Basin Surveys, Lincoln® i960 " Wolfe Greek Gomponent .of Grow Greek Site, 39BF11® Pro ceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences., p® lw. Lincoln® KROEBSR, ALFRED L® 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America® Uni versity of Galifornia Press® Berkeley® LEBMBR, DONALD J® 19$k Archeological Investigations in the Oahe Dam Area, South Dakota, 1950-51o Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 158, River Basin Surveys Papers, No® 7® Washington® LSHMBE, DONALD J*, and WARREN W® GALDWELL 1966 Horison and Tradition In the Northern Plains® American Antiquity, Vol6 31, No® h, PP» 5ll-5l6® Salt Lake City® MADISON, LEE: 0,, WARREN ¥® GALDWELL, and B® GOLDEN i960 Archeological investigations at the Hickey Brothers Site, 39LMh, Lyman Gounty. South Dakota® Manuscript, on file at the Smithsonian Institution, River Basin Surveys® Lincoln® MATTES, MERRILL J® I960 Historic Sites Archeology on the Upper Missouri® Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 176, River Basin Surveys Papers» No® l5® Washington J MBLESN, ELMER E® I9I4.8 A Report on the Investigation of the La Roche Site, Stanley County, South Dakota® University of South Dakota Museum, Vermillion® MUNSON, PATRICK J® 1966 Midwestern Dendrochronology and Archaeological Dating® Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science9 Vol® 59l~No® 3, ppT ^2llD2l[5^I '"Urbana™ 262 SCffiHMdN, EDMUND 1956 Dendroclimatic Changes in Semiarid Amerioa« University of Arizona Press® Tuoson6 smith5 c a r e h e s . 195? The Fort Thompson Focusa The Shannon Foeus, and The Campbell Focus® Paper presented at the Fifteenth Plains Conference, for Archeology $ 195?® Lincoln® SMITH) Ge HUBERT I960 Fort Pierre II (39ST21?)9 A Historic Trading Post in the Oahe Bam Area, South Dakota®. Bureau of American Ethnology* Bulletin 176, Biver Basin Surveys Paperss Moe lSQ Washington® STEPHENSON^ BOBERT Le 195b Taxonomy and Chronology in the Central Plains-Middle Missouri River Area® Plains Anthropologists No® 1, pps 15-21® Lincoln® STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN 1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology® Smithsonian Mis- cellaneous Collections* ¥ol® 93# No® 10® Washington® WEAKLY) HARRY B® 19b0 Tree-Rings as a Record of Precipitation in Western Nebraska® Tree-Ring Bulletin, 7ol® 6, No® 3, pp® 18-19® Tucson® 19U3 A Tree-Ring Record of Precipitation in Western Nebraska® The Journal of Forestry, Pol® hi. No® 11, pp® 82.6-819® Washington® I9I4.6 A Preliminary Report on the Ash Hollow Charcoal® In “Ash Hollow Gave; A Study of Stratigraphic Sequence in the. Central Great Plains)“ by John L® Champe, Appendix 1, University of Nebraska Studies* New Series No® 1® Lincoln® 195c 'Dendrochronology and Its Implications in the Central Plains® In “Proceedings of the Sixth Plains Archeological Conference (I9h8))“ edited by Jesse D®. Jennings, University of Utah Anthropological Papers9 No® 3,1, pp® 90-9b# Salt Lake City® mSKLT, HARRI Eo 1962 Bendrochrdnology and Archeology in Nebraska* Plains Anthropologist 3 ?ol0 7$ No* 16, pp6 138-iit6o Mnoelzio iS A K L I, WARD Fo 1961 free-Hings and Archeology in the Central Plains0 Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska, Dineolno I96I1. Dendrochronology in the Central Plains0 Kansas Anthro pological Association Newsletter , 7ol, 9,. Mo0 2G0 Topeka0 1 9 6$ Final Progress Report First Year, National Park Service Contract Number lh"10”0232"903 1966 Progress Report on a Bendroehronologieal Study of the Missouri River Basin Project* Plains Anthropologist, ¥ol0 11, No* 32, p0 171» Lincoln* W1DEL, WALDO R0 19)4.0 Culture Sequences in the Central Great Plains* Smith sonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 100, pp* 291-3^4* Washington* 1955 Archeological Materials from the Vicinity of Mobridge, South Dakota* Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin lj?7. Anthropological Papers^ No* h5o Washington* . 1961 Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains* University of Oklahoma Press, Norman* 1967 Salvage Archeology in the Missouri liver Basin* Science, Volo 156, No* 3775» pp* 589-597* Washington* WILL, GEORGE F* 19h6 Tree-Ring Studies in North Dakota* Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 338, North Dakota Agricultural College* go o .... . 19A8 Additional Notes on Dendrochronology in the Dakotas* Plains Archeological ..Conference Newsletter , Vol* 1 , No* h, pp* . 68-70* Lincoln* ~ ~ " 19A9 Dendrochronology in the Dakotas* In ’’Proceedings of the Fifth Plains Conference for Archeology,11 edited by John 1* Champe, University, of Nebraska, Laboratory of Anthro pology, Notebook Number 1* Lincoln* WILLEY, GORDON R., and PHILIP PHILLIPS 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology^ The University of Ghicago Press, Chicago* WISSLER, CLARK 1938 The American Indian, An Introduction to the Anthropology of the New Worlds 3rd ed0 Oxford University Press, New York.