PAP ^No." 1st ^^^^ PIERRE II SMITH 129 



actually appointed at that time is not known. He did, however, sub- 

 mit requisitions for goods needed "for trade and soldiers" some months 

 afterward (Galpin to P. Chouteau, Jr., and Co., Fort Pierre, Mar. 

 20, 1857) . It is probable that the Chouteau firm did serve as sutlers 

 thereafter. The intimate dependence of military personnel, and the 

 War Department itself, upon the trading firms is hinted at in such 

 records. Galpin and other Chouteau agents in the vicinity probably 

 provided sutler services until Fort Pierre Chouteau was abandoned 

 by the Army in the spring of 1857 and subsequently, during the Sully 

 campaign of 1863, prior to the removal of Company interests to the 

 first Fort Sully. No pertinent data for the intervening period are, 

 however, known, though these would doubtless provide further light 

 on Fort Pierre II, if they should be found, as in the National Archives. 



Data such as these, of the relation of the traders to the military, 

 illustrate the varied role played by successive trading posts in the area, 

 beyond the primary function of supplying the Indian. They also 

 suggest how military influences upon Fort Pierre II could be ex- 

 plained, without resort to inferring actual military occupation of the 

 post, which is not supported by known records and is, indeed, im- 

 probable. Specifically, the presence among the specimens obtained 

 from the site of regulation military items such as uniform buttons, 

 fragments of ordnance and other equipment, may be readily explained 

 by visits of commissioned and enlisted personnel here, and the 

 probability that the post served as canteen, at various times between 

 1859 and 1863. 



No evidence has been seen, in short, that tends to cast serious doubt 

 on the identification of the site excavated as that of a trading post, 

 specifically Fort Pierre II, used 1859-63. Wliile it is true that no con- 

 temporary documentation now known conclusively links this site with 

 that trading post, the archeological evidence, comprising physical 

 remains of various kinds, cannot be accommodated to an establish- 

 ment of any other kind, such as a military post. Nor are there hints, 

 in known contemporary records, of other trading establishments to 

 which the present physical data can be fitted. 



The precise identity of the site excavated would scarcely call for 

 discussion except for the fact that there had been several commercial 

 posts in the general vicinity prior to 1859, and at least two in the 

 immediate neighborhood, on the evidence of scanty contemporary and 

 traditional record. (It should be noted that all of these posts were 

 commercial in origin, and true trading posts, though the influence 

 upon them of the military occupation after 1855 must be taken into 

 account where its effects can ultimately be observed ; such will unques- 

 tionably be the case at the site of Fort Pierre Chouteau, when that 

 site is excavated.) Traditional evidence, however, is seldom conclu- 

 sive for historical purposes, and does not constitute true primary evi- 



