14 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Boll. 176 



carious period when the cantankerous Sioux tribes were making their 

 first sullen efforts to become civilized. 



Most important of the trading posts in this group was Fort Recov- 

 ery, reputedly on American Island, originally Cedar Island. It was 

 supposedly so named as the successor of the 1812 Fort aux Cedres of 

 the Missouri Fur Co. ; however — much to the confusion of historians — 

 it enjoyed several aliases, among them Cedar Fort, Fort Brasseaux, 

 and Pilcher's Post (Chittenden, 1936, pp. 141, 922; Wilson and De 

 Land, 1902, p. 326) . AYliatever one chooses to call it, research strongly 

 suggests that, contrary to a widespread but careless assumption, this 

 post was not on American Island but on the right bank of a creek 

 near the foot of the island (Mattes, 1949, pp. 533-543). Established 

 in 1822, this fort achieved distinction in 1823 as the base for the his- 

 toric Ashley-Leavenworth campaign against the unruly Arikara, and 

 was described in that year by Duke Paul of Wiirttemberg (Wiirttem- 

 berg, 1938, p. 432). Ten years later its passing was noted by another 

 European traveler, Prince Maximilian of Wied (Wied-Neuwied, 

 1906, pp. 302-305). 



Well fortified with documentary data, the Garth party searched 

 intensively for signs of Fort Recovery, making numerous test squares 

 and trenches in an ever-widening arc from the point hypothesized 

 in the Mattes report. The negative results despite exhaustiveness of 

 the search led to two possible conclusions: (1) that Fort Recovery 

 had never been destroyed by fire but that the remains were painstak- 

 ingly dismantled by the traders themselves, by Indians, or by steam- 

 boat crews, leaving no trace; or (2) that the actual site had suc- 

 cumbed to the Missouri River. Since the total disappearance of 

 evidence at a site busily occupied for several years is scarcely con- 

 ceivable, the second alternative is the more acceptable one. 



Fort Lookout now engaged the attention of the historical-archeo- 

 logical reconnaissance party. Here the outlook was more hopeful since 

 Fort Lookout remains were reported by local informants to be defi- 

 nitely in evidence. The only difiiculty here was that this evidence 

 was to be found in three different places. A partial explanation of 

 this quandary was offered by a hypothesis in the basic report : despite 

 the common historical assumption, the Fort Lookout trading post 

 (1822-?) and the later Fort Lookout military post (1856) were two 

 quite different establishments, probably at two different locations. 



Fort Lookout military post was established on order of Gen. Wil- 

 liam S. Harney in 1856 and was built under the direction of Capt. 

 Nathaniel Lyon. It was abandoned the following year (Meyers, 

 1914) . It proved to be exactly where the records indicated it to be, 

 on the south boundary of the present Lower Brule Indian Reserva- 

 tion, at the lower end of a wide meadow now called the "Fort Hale 



