{"id":513,"date":"2026-06-03T16:24:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T20:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/?p=513"},"modified":"2026-06-03T16:24:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T20:24:01","slug":"oahe-dam-archaeology-39co5-fort-manuel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/2026\/06\/03\/oahe-dam-archaeology-39co5-fort-manuel\/","title":{"rendered":"Oahe Dam Archaeology: 39CO5 \u2013 Fort Manuel"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Lotte Govaerts<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(This post was originally published on the Rogers Archaeology Lab blog on February 25, 2025. You can see the original post archived here<\/a>. I have added a few sentences to the section about Manual Lisa. The information contained in the original did not include errors, but was incomplete enough to be misleading, as it was missing information on the Missouri Fur Company after the 1812\u20131813 expedition. I have also added a link that was missing from an image caption in the original post.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This blog post is part of my series on the historical archaeology of the River Basin Surveys (RBS). In the next few entries in this series, I will be focusing on individual sites within the Oahe Dam reservoir area. Although RBS archaeologists investigated many Native American sites in this area, in this series I focus on those sites labeled as \u201chistoric sites\u201d by the people who investigated them in the mid-twentieth century<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my dissertation, I compare six trade post sites on the Missouri. The earliest of these posts is Fort Manuel, which was given site number 39CO5 by RBS investigators. This was one of several posts established by Manuel Lisa. It stood on the west side of the Missouri, on a terrace just upstream from the mouth of Hunkpapa Creek, in what is now Corson County, South Dakota.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Black
Artist’s interpretation of Fort Manuel, based on archaeological findings. Reproduced from Smith and Ludwickson 1981, i.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

History of Fort Manuel<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Lewis and Clark Expedition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

After the United States acquired the Louisiana Territory, Lewis and Clark famously traveled up the Missouri to the Pacific coast and back and brought back reports of much beaver and other fur-bearing animals. American companies were eager to go out and exploit this resource. These Americans were of course not the first to trade manufactured goods for furs and skins on the Missouri, but they significantly expanded the scale of the trade over the course of the nineteenth century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Handwritten
A few lines from a letter written by Meriwether Lewis to Thomas Jefferson on September 23, 1806: \u201cThe Missouri and all it\u2019s branches from the Chyenne upwards abound more in beaver and Common Otter, than any other streams on earth, particularly that proportion of them lying within the Rocky Mountains.\u201d Reproduced from Library of Congress<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Manuel Lisa and the early US trade on the Upper Missouri<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A few different phases can be distinguished in the US\u2019 trade efforts on the Upper Missouri. The earliest of these can be situated in the period between the Louisiana Purchase and the changes that took place in the 1820s, which I\u2019ve discussed previously<\/a>, and especially the period before the war of 1812. Manuel Lisa was an extremely prolific trader during this first phase. He was born Manuel de Lisa in Spanish New Orleans, possibly in 1772.[1]<\/sup><\/a> He had worked as a trader and storekeeper before he came to St. Louis in the late 1790s. There, he appears to have been employed in the retail trade and involved in outfitting trade parties. He managed to obtain a license to trade with the Osage on the Missouri (Douglas 1912, 239\u2013244).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manuel Lisa was one of several St. Louis traders interested in the Upper Missouri after the Louisiana Purchase. His first expedition up the Missouri left in the spring of 1807. The party was made up of some 50\u201360 men,[2]<\/sup><\/a> which included several veterans of the Corps of Discovery (Wood nd<\/a>). Their party was not the only one to journey upriver that summer: Among the other parties, which left St. Louis together a few weeks after Manuel Lisa\u2019s departure, was one led by Pierre Chouteau and another led by Nathaniel Pryor; the latter was tasked with returning Mandan chief Sheheke and his family to their village.[3]<\/sup><\/a> Only those two parties made it to the Arikara villages, but were attacked there and retreated back to St. Louis (Douglas 1912, 252\u2013253). Lisa\u2019s party reached the confluence of the Yellowstone and Bighorn Rivers in what is now the state of Montana in November (later than intended, as they had hoped to arrive early enough for fall hunting) and established Fort Raymond, which was named after Lisa\u2019s infant son.[4]<\/sup><\/a> The fort continued operating as Manuel Lisa returned to St. Louis in the summer of 1808 (Douglas 1912, 257; Wood nd).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Manuel Lisa. Oil painting by unknown artist, 1818. Missouri Historical Society, 1979.97.1 (Reproduced from Discover Lewis & Clark<\/a>) <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Shortly after his return, he established the St. Louis Missouri Fur Company.[5]<\/sup><\/a> The first expedition of the newly organized company left in June 1809. In addition to their fur trade endeavors, the party also finally escorted Sheheke home. The company was paid $7,000 for doing this by the US government (Douglas 1912, 259). A description of the expedition appeared in General Thomas James\u2019 Three Years Among the Indians and Mexicans<\/em>. James describes the party as consisting of 350 men at the start. The party established a fort near the Mandan and Hidatsa villages on the Knife River. The fort has been referred to as Fort Mandan, and it was located approximately 10 miles upriver from Lewis and Clark\u2019s Fort Mandan. It was described by Bradbury in 1811 but no trace of it has been found (Wood nd; Bradbury 1817, 151).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A group from Fort Raymond also established two additional trade posts in 1810, both named Fort Henry: The first Fort Henry was located at Three Forks, the other Fort Henry on Henry\u2019s Fork. Both were short-lived. A relief party for Fort Raymond did not arrive until 1811. By the time it reached the fort, the employees there had built up an extensive stock of furs (Wood nd).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upon the party\u2019s return to St. Louis, the company was reorganized into the Missouri Fur Company. The newly reorganized company sent out another expedition the next season. The 1812 expedition built two forts: One for trade with the Sioux, at Cedar Island in what is now southeastern South Dakota. The other, near the Grand River Arikara villages<\/a>, was Fort Manuel, the topic of this post (Wood nd).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Grayscale<\/a>
The locations of Manuel Lisa’s and the (St. Louis) Missouri Fur Company forts in the Upper Missouri Basin, 1807\u20131813. Reproduced from Wood, nd<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The war of 1812 complicated trade on the Missouri for US companies. The British forged alliances with multiple tribes in the region against the Americans. In March 1813, Manuel Lisa abandoned Fort Manuel and retreated to Cedar Island, before returning to St. Louis. Presumably Fort Raymond was also abandoned around this time (Wood nd).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some disagreement exists in the literature on whether the company made a profit during this season. Douglas describes \u201ca surplus of about nine thousand dollars\u201d (Douglas 1912, 371), whereas Wood states \u201cthe winter\u2019s proceeds did not repay the company\u2019s outlay for this expedition\u201d (Wood nd) adding that, among other reasons, the price of beaver pelts dropped around this time. Either way, Manuel Lisa was removed from the board of the Missouri Fur Company even before he returned from this last expedition. The company was dissolved shortly after and Manuel Lisa went into business once more using the same business name, the Missouri Fur Company (Douglas 1912, 373\u2013374).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manuel Lisa was appointed sub-agent for the nations on the Missouri above the mouth of the Kansas during the war, in 1814. He resigned his commissions in 1817 with a rather long-winded and self-congratulatory letter (Douglas 1912, 380\u2013383). He embarked upon several other short-lived trade ventures in the years before he died on August 11, 1820 (Douglas 1912, 375\u2013395). After his death, the Missouri Fur Company\u2019s shareholders drew up a new four-year partnership agreement. Joshua Pilcher was in charge of the company\u2019s trade on the Missouri, while Thomas Hempstead managed business in St. Louis (Sunder 1968, 33). Unable to compete with the other companies of the early 1820s, the Missouri Fur Company was disbanded in 1824 (Sunder 1968, 58\u201359)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John C. Luttig and the expedition journal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Manuel Lisa\u2019s 1812\u20131813 expedition is described in two documentary sources known to researchers: One is the journal kept by the expedition\u2019s clerk (Drumm 1920). The other is an account of Manuel Lisa\u2019s life by an anonymous author that quotes personal recollections of John Dougherty, who was a member of the 1812\u20131813 expedition and later became Indian Agent on the Upper Missouri (\u201cSenor Don Manuel Lisa\u201d 1838; reprinted 1966, cited in Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 3 and in Anderson 1976, 141).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The expedition journal, kept in the Missouri Historical Society\u2019s archives, was known to researchers before its author was identified. Stella Drumm investigated the manuscript and concluded, based on the language and spelling, that the author was most likely of German descent. She found two German names in the list of expedition members; one of them was John C. Luttig. A comparison with other documents in the archives bearing Luttig\u2019s signature confirmed that he was the author of the journal (Drumm 1920, 11\u201312).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"John
John C. Luttig’s signature. Reproduced from Drumm 1920, 128.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

John C. Luttig, originally from Baltimore, was an auctioneer. It was in that capacity that he came into contact with the fur company and with Auguste Chouteau. Luttig was employed as the 1812\u20131813 Missouri Fur Company expedition\u2019s clerk and kept the journal from May 8, 1812, when he joined one of the boats leaving St. Louis, until March 5, 1813. The journal ends abruptly before the abandonment of the fort, and it is unknown if additional entries ever existed. After his return to St. Louis in 1813, Luttig was employed as a trader in various other places until his death in 1815 (Drumm 1920, xvii\u2013xxi).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Establishment, operation, and abandonment of Fort Manuel<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Luttig, the site for the fort was selected in August 1812, \u201cat the third point\u201d upstream from \u201cthe Arikara Village\u201d, at a distance of approximately 12 miles (Drumm 1920, 66). Although the fort is sometimes referred to as \u201cFort Manuel Lisa\u201d or \u201cFort Lisa\u201d, Luttig described a naming ceremony on November 19, 1812, and listed its official name as \u201cFort Manuel\u201d (Drumm 1920, 94).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the expedition journal, Luttig provides weather updates and describes day-to-day fort activities, mainly hunting expeditions and trade activities. One passage in the journal has been of particular interest to researchers. On Sunday, December 20, 1812, a woman at the fort died \u201cof a putrid fever\u201d. Luttig describes her as a Snake (Shoshone) wife of Toussaint Charbonneau, \u201ca good and the Best Women in the fort, aged abt 25 years\u201d and mentions that \u201cshe left a fine infant girl\u201d (Drumm 1920, 106). Toussaint Charbonneau had more than one Shoshone \u201cwife,\u201d but this journal entry is generally interpreted as describing the death of Sakakawea, who famously served as a guide and translator on the Lewis and Clark expedition (See Anderson 1976).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Bronze
Statue of Sakakawea in the US Capitol. Public domain, reproduced from Wikimedia Commons<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No reason for the abandonment of the fort can be found in the journal. Although in late February 1813, an employee was killed, apparently by a Sioux war party, and the journal describes an atmosphere of general anxiety, the attack on the fort they were expecting didn\u2019t materialize and things were calm and quiet in the early days of March, at the very end of the journal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThursday the 4th<\/sup>. Last night about 3 inches of snow had fell cloudy and cold Morning, in the afternoon 4 Mandans arrived from their village on their way to the Rees, no news.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFriday the 5th<\/sup>– snowstorm last night and continued snowing all this Day, the Mandans pursued their Route.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The abandonment of the fort and the voyage back to Cedar Island and\/or St. Louis are thus not recorded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Site identification and archaeological investigations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Because Fort Manuel was short-lived and because Manuel Lisa and the Missouri Fur Company established several other forts around the same time, some confusion exists in the literature about the name and location of Fort Manuel.[6]<\/sup><\/a> However, based on Luttig\u2019s journal, a definitive identification could be made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The site of Fort Manuel attracted some attention from archaeologists even before the Inter-Agency Salavage Project[7]<\/sup><\/a> and RBS started, at a time when the archaeological investigation of \u201chistoric\u201d sites on the Plains was still relatively rare. In addition to the site\u2019s importance during the earliest phase of US trade along the Missouri, its association with Sakakawea was an important factor as well. As I\u2019ve discussed previously (Govaerts 2016, but also more accessibly here on the blog<\/a>), in the 20th<\/sup> century, the American public became very interested in the persona of the Native teenage girl who carried her infant from her home on the Missouri all the way to the Pacific coast and back. Because so little is known about her actual life, the myth of Sakakawea eclipsed any real history as soon as the story started gaining in popularity. Her story was appropriated by various groups over time and came to symbolize various ideas and concepts in dominant American culture.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The South Dakota State Historical Society made some effort to pinpoint the site in the 1920s (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 4). Its location was confirmed by William Duncan Strong, who conducted test excavations at the site in 1938. This work has not been published and his field notes were unavailable to subsequent researchers. He referred to this work in a different publication briefly, to identify the ceramics he collected there as \u201cCheyenne\u201d (Strong 1940, p. 376, cited in Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 4).[9]<\/sup><\/a> Much of what is known about this work comes from a 1938 letter written by L.G. Lippert, Superintendent of Standing Rock Reservation, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.[10]<\/sup><\/a> The letter, which was accompanied by a site map, explained Strong was certain about the identification of the site, as he had traced the stockade (and determined that each side was somewhere between 166\u2013170 feet long [ca. 50\u201352 meters]). The letter also makes clear that one of the major objectives of this field work was to find the graves of those who died at the fort, even though, as Smith and Ludwickson point out (1981, 6) that of the five people whose deaths are mentioned in the journal, only one (a man killed during a raid) was specifically described as having been interred, and he was buried at some distance from the fort (Drumm 126) .[11]<\/sup><\/a> One potential grave was excavated and found to have been previously looted (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 6). Allotments were established<\/a> in the immediate vicinity of the site and two houses stood very close to the site at the time Strong investigated the site. They were demolished in 1941 (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 10).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on Strong\u2019s findings, a reconstruction of Fort Manuel\u2019s stockade was built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1941. The work was completed through the Indian Emergency Conservation Work Program, part of the Civilian Conservation Corps. This reconstructed stockade was found to have been placed approximately six feet outside the fort\u2019s original stockade, presumably to avoid damaging the unexcavated parts of the site. By 1952, most of it had collapsed or had been removed (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Black-and-white
Undated photo of the stockade reconstruction at the Fort Manuel site. Source: South Dakota State Historical Society \u2013 South Dakota Digital Archives<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 1946, RBS crews designated the site as an earth lodge village associated with the trade post, based on Thad and Hecker\u2019s 1944 publication on village sites rather than field survey (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, xv\u2013xvi). It later became clear that no village site was associated with the trade post; however, one or more Plains Village sites clearly existed on this terrace at some point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 1956, a brief investigation was conducted at the site by the State Historical Society of North Dakota, under the direction of Raymond Wood and Frederick Hadleigh-West. Their team excavated 12 test pits at the site. This work corroborated Strong\u2019s identification of the site as Fort Manuel (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 9\u201311).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A more thorough investigation followed in May and June 1965, by a team lead by G. Hubert Smith. The work continued in July 1966 and at least some site visits occurred after that time also. Smith was working on a manuscript describing the work at Fort Manuel when he died in 1972. John Ludwickson put together the different sections of Smith\u2019s unfinished report and added an overview of the artifacts from the site. The report, therefore, was not published until 1981. It mentions the collection of artifacts from a feature eroding into the riverbank in 1968 but does not provide any additional detail on this work (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 12, 51, 61, 65, 66). Later repatriation reports make it clear that human remains and associated objects were also collected at this time. Human remains were repatriated to the Cheyenne River Sioux in 1994; unassociated funerary items were determined to belong to the Three Affiliated Tribes (Department of the Interior 2017<\/a>). More recently, additional human remains removed from 39CO5 were determined to belong to the Standing Rock Sioux and inventoried for repatriation (Department of the Interior 2023<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During this phase of the investigation, the entire area inside the stockade was stripped, as well as some additional land outside. The remains of seven buildings were uncovered inside the stockade. Four were identified as dwelling houses, one was a probable storehouse, one a blacksmith shop, and the last one a possible stable or barn. It is unknown if any other buildings existed within the fort, but no evidence of any such buildings has been found. Window glass was recovered but no evidence of any adobe brick or stone masonry was found associated with the structures. These investigations also found that Fort Manuel had two unusual circular bastions (Luttig\u2019s journal uses this word [Drumm 1920, 108, 117]), on the NE and SW corners of the stockade, rather than the more typical square blockhouses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Black-and-white
Excavations at Fort Manuel, 1965. Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 139.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

During the 1960s field work, excavated soil was not screened but it was examined closely, and any objects identified in it were collected, except for a few determined to be of very recent origin (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 13). Several different occupations predating the fort were noted based on the presence of ceramics (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 51), but no features belonging to any of these occupations were described; these occupations were likely near the location of the fort rather than in the exact same location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1985, a crew undertook a cultural resource inventory of an area of Lake Oake in Corson County for the US Army Corps of Engineers. They investigated 39CO5, which by that time had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They determined that the Fort Manuel component as well as the later allotment occupation had been destroyed due to the site\u2019s proximity to the lake but recommended further investigation of the Plains Village component of the site (Sanders et al. 1987, 71\u201379).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another reconstruction of some of the buildings of Fort Manuel now stand near the site, along with a historic marker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Artifacts from 39CO5<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Some of the other trade posts we\u2019ve discussed on the blog here were abandoned intentionally, with enough time to pack up everything that could be used elsewhere. Because we don\u2019t know the exact circumstances of Fort Manuel\u2019s abandonment, we don\u2019t know if this is the case here. Regardless, the artifact assemblage from 39CO5 is fairly typical for a trade post, except that the number of glass beads is low, even considering the short lifespan of the fort. Because the soil was not screened during any of the excavations described here, the number of beads recovered would naturally be far lower than the number of beads actually present at the site. However, very similar methods were used in the investigation of other trade posts on the Missouri, and at each of the other 5 sites I investigated for my dissertation, glass beads are the largest artifact type group, by far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For my analysis, I examined 956 objects from Fort Manuel, of which 98 were glass beads.[12]<\/sup><\/a> That\u2019s only just over 10% of the total analysis sample. The percentages for the other sites range between 36 and 54%. The reason for the discrepancy is not clear. It may be the result of a difference in methods employed between crews, but the short occupation of the site may also play a role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Glass bead percentages at six different trade post sites.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

At 39CO5, the largest artifact category is architectural material. Within that category, the most plentiful artifact type is window glass (171), even before nails (118). Investigators also collected some chinking, daub, wood construction material, and door hardware. Relatively many objects fall into the \u201cleisure\u201d category; these objects are mainly smoking materials. However, because the assemblage includes objects from nearby older occupations, it is difficult to determine how many of these pipe fragments should be counted as belonging to the fort occupation. For this reason, I have also run comparisons that exclude that entire artifact category. I encountered a similar problem in the Kitchen\/Table category. Out of the 200 objects in this category, 152 are locally produced ceramics. Of the 48 imported objects, the vast majority (45) are ceramics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Black-and-white
Imported ceramics excavated from 30CO5. These partially reconstructed items are identified in Smith and Ludwickson 1981 (Plate 17, 148\u2013149) as \u201creconstructed creamware bowl\u201d (A), reconstructed creamware plate\u201d (B), \u201chand-painted pearlware bowl (interior and exterior)\u201d (C), redware apothecary jar (D) and \u201cblue transfer-print pearlware\u201d (E-F).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

More detail about artifact counts will be included in a future summary of my comparisons. This concludes my overview of the history of Fort Manuel and the investigations of the site. In the next installment in this series, I will discuss Fort Pierre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> His tombstone lists his year of birth as 1772, but this date has been called into question, as documents exist in which Manuel Lisa describes his brother Joaquin as his older brother. The New Orleans church register lists Joaquin\u2019s date of birth as December 21, 1774 (Douglas 1912, 235)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Raymond Wood uses the approximate number 50-60 (Wood nd<\/a>). According to Douglas (1912, 250), the expedition consisted of exactly 42 members. This number appears not to include those members who joined during the voyage as they transferred from a party on its way back to St. Louis)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Sheheke was a Mandan chief who, along with his wife and son, had accompanied Lewis and Clark to the east coast and met with President Thomas Jefferson. Attempts to return these Mandans to their village had not yet succeeded (see Potter 2003).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Although efforts have been made to recover archaeological traces of Fort Raymond, it has never been found. The river channels likely changed since its construction and may have destroyed the site. Its location was drawn on a map by William Clark, based on descriptions by returning participants of the expedition, including Lisa himself (Wood nd).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> The articles of co-partnership list Benjamin Wilkinson, Pierre Chouteau Senior, Manuel Lisa, Augustin Chouteau Junior, Reuben Lewis, William Clark, Silvester Labaddie, Pierre Menard, William Morrison, and Andrew Henry (Douglas 1912, 257\u2013258; Wood nd) .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> For example, at the time of this writing, the Wikipedia entry for \u201cFort Lisa\u201d<\/a> appears to confuse Fort Manuel and Mandan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> The Inter-Agency Salvage Project (IASP) was a collaboration between various agencies, organized to salvage archaeological (and paleontological) sites that were threatened by the many dam projects planned across the United States after the Flood Control Act of 1944. The RBS conducted excavations as part of the IASP (see previous blog posts in this series).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> For a detailed study of the Sacagawea myth, its genesis, and evolution, see Kessler 1996.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Will and Hecker (1944, 86, 125, cited in Smith and Ludwickson, 7) later identified the ceramics collected by Strong as Arikara, though it should be noted that their interpretation predated the extensive investigation of earth lodge village sites that followed the Missouri dam projects, so little basis for such an identification existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> A copy of the letter is included with the RBS files on 39CO5 held by the National Anthropological Archives, Box 292, Folder 1, 39CO5-R30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> As Anderson (1976, 149\u2013150) points out, Sakakawea may not have been interred at all, but rather placed on a funeral scaffold, as was common among the tribes living on the upper Missouri in the first half of the nineteenth century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> For a number of reasons, I did not compare the full artifact assemblages from these sites: I subtracted materials determined to be intrusive and did not compare artifact categories with objects that are difficult to quantify. Therefore, the numbers I use in my analysis differ from any previously published artifact counts. For example, the Fort Manuel site report discusses 101 glass beads (Smith and Ludwickson 1981, 44\u201345), while I only include 98 in my analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anderson, Irving W. 1976. \u201cFort Manuel, Its Historical Significance.\u201d South Dakota History<\/em> 6 (2): 131\u201351.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bradbury, John. 1817. Travels in the Interior of America, in the Years 1809, 1810, and 1811: Including a Description of Upper Louisiana, Together with the States of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, with the Illinois and Western Territories, and Containing Remarks and Observations Useful to Persons Emigrating to Those Countries<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2017. Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2023. Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE, and the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, TN<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Douglas, Walter Bond. 1912. Manuel Lisa<\/em>. Missouri Historical Society<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drumm, S. M, ed. 1920. Journal of a Fur Trading Expedition to the Upper Missouri, 1812-1813<\/em>. St. Louis: Missouri Historical Society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Govaerts, Lotte E. 2016. \u201cTransformative Consequences of Garrison Dam: Land, People, and the Practice of Archaeology.\u201d Great Plains Quarterly<\/em> 36 (4): 281\u2013308. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1353\/gpq.2016.0050<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

James, Thomas. 1953. Three Years Among the Indians and Mexicans<\/em>. R. R. Donnelley.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kessler, Donna J. 1996. The Making of Sacagawea: A Euro-American Legend<\/em>. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Potter, Tracy. 2003. Sheheke: Mandan Indian Diplomat: The Story of White Coyote, Thomas Jefferson, and Lewis and Clark<\/em>. Farcountry Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanders, Paul H., Dori M. Penny, Michael L. McFaul, Keith H. Dueholm, Kurt P. Schweigert, and Thomas K. Larson. 1987. \u201cA Cultural Resource Inventory of Portions of Lake Oahe, Corson County, South Dakota.\u201d Omaha, Nebraska: US Army Corps of Engineers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSenor Don Manuel Lisa.\u201d 1966. Missouri Historical Society Bulletin<\/em> 23 (1): 52\u201358.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith, G. Hubert, and John Ludwickson. 1981. Fort Manuel: The Archeology of an Upper Missouri Trading Post of 1812-1813<\/em>. Special Publication of the South Dakota Archaeological Society 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strong, William Duncan. 1940. \u201cFrom History to Prehistory in the Northern Great Plains.\u201d In Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections<\/em>, 100:353\u201394. Washington.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sunder, John E. (John Edward). 1968. Joshua Pilcher, Fur Trader and Indian Agent. Norman\u202f: University of Oklahoma Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will, George F, and Thad C Hecker. 1944. \u201cThe Upper Missouri River Valley Aboriginal Culture in North Dakota.\u201d North Dakota Historical Quarterly<\/em> 11 (Jan.-April): 5\u2013126.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wood, W. Raymond. nd. \u201cLisa\u2019s Fur Trade Forts.\u201d Discover Lewis & Clark. https:\/\/lewis-clark.org\/fur-trade\/lisas-forts\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Previous posts in this series<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Historical Archaeology?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the River Basin Surveys Shaped Historical Archaeology<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Fur Trade<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Military Frontier<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Upper Missouri River Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Indian Agencies<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garrison Dam<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lake Sakakawea and the Woman it was Named After<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garrison Dam Archaeology: Village Sites<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32MN1 \u2013 Fort Floyd<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32ML2 \u2013 Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garrison Dam Archaeology: 32ML1 \u2013 Fort Stevenson<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oahe Dam<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oahe Dam Background: The Great Sioux Reservation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oahe Dam Impacts: Cheyenne River Reservation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oahe Dam Impacts: Standing Rock Reservation<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In my dissertation, I compare six trade post sites on the Missouri. The earliest of these posts is Fort Manuel, which was given site number 39CO5 by RBS investigators. This was one of several posts established by Manuel Lisa. It stood on the west side of the Missouri, on a terrace just upstream from the mouth of Hunkpapa Creek, in what is now Corson County, South Dakota.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":515,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7,8,16,12,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-archaeology","category-collections","category-collections-research","category-field-work","category-historic-sites","category-history","has-thumbnail"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=513"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":528,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513\/revisions\/528"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lottegovaerts.net\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}