In the spring of 1974, Mr. David Price, formerly of Cambria, Minnesota, brought to our attention a previously unrecorded site of the Cambria Focus. Controlled surface collecting began immediately with small scale excavations following that summer. One of four storage pits encountered that year provided charcoal for three samples; which, when processed, yielded dates which are interpreted to mean an occupation at about 1100 A.D. Further excavations in 1975, provided good floral and faunal samples as well as large ceramic and lithic collections. Carbonized corn, squash, and sunflower seeds have been identified but no beans. Faunal analysis indicates considerable exploitation of fish and of a riverine environment in general. Ceramics differ from those described from the Cambria Site (21BE2) in several respects although the assemblages are quite similar.

Michael Scullin, Prof. Anthropology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
1981/1990/1998/2003

A mound of earth about 15 meters in diameter and about 1 meter high is found at the prese nt entrance to the field. Another probable mound, almost obliterated by cultivation, lies 57 meters northeast of the larger mound. This second mound is all but undetectable from the ground yet shows up quite clearly on old aerial photographs.

The first field season began in the spring of 1974 -- prior to planting -- with a controlled surface collection within a 10 meter grid system in the area of greatest artifact concentration. Good weather was to our detriment as planting commenced well ahead of time and this project was only partially completed, and that which was completed (about 80%) yielded completely ambiguous results. The farthest northwest corner of the field had not been plowed since the gullying mentioned previously, and it was in this area that the first 1.5 meter pits were dug. Soil in this field is extremely black (gummy when wet, blocky when dry). Excavation was done in ten centimeter levels, and material was screened through one quarter inch (6 mm) hardware cloth except for that which was subsequently washed and fine screened. (Map of excavated areas)

The first pits turned up scattered, firecracked rock at thirty centimeters (approximately) and little else, but between 35-45 centimeters two closely adjacent storage pits (features 1 and 2) became evident. Feature 1 also turned out to be one of the most productive, in terms of numbers of artifacts, of all of the 17 pits ultimately excavated. At the bottom of this pit were two carbonized logs from which the C14 dates were taken. These dates, averaging 1040 A.D. (uncorrected 1105 A.D., 1065 A.D., 950 A.D. all +/- 80. Teledyne) are interpreted as indicative of occupation at some point between 1050 and 1100 A.D. -- an entirely satisfactory and anticipated date given the ceramics recovered. Two other storage pits were excavated within the 38.25 square meters excavated that year. Incredibly hot and dry weather characterized the midsummer.

The 1975 field season began on 1 April when the site was under snow cover. Only photographs could be taken, and the small mound noted on the aerial photographs was also located. By the last week of April spring had finally arrived and the first item was to test the large mound with minimal intrusion. A .75 meter x 16 meter trench was cut into the mound; which was, by virtue of its location, not thought to be a burial mound, but rather a possible base for a structure.

The mound had been plowed for over a century and is a "foot or two" lower than originally remembered by its owner. Accordingly, it must be quite a bit larger in diameter than it once was. We found no evidence of its function. The dark soil of the A horizon was increasingly thick towards the center, which suggests to me that surface soil had been heaped upon surface soil. A cluster of firecracked rock was found at 60 cm about 8 m from the estimated center of the mound. No other cultural material was found. Removal of the plow zone on the top of the mound revealed nothing (an estimated 30-60 centimeters having been removed by previous tilling).

At the about the same time a concentration of firecracked rock was observed on the surface along the north edge of the field. Testing here resulted in the discovery of a buried, stone lined hearth which was slowly being picked apart by plowing. As excavated it was 28 cm beneath the present surface and 1.75 M by 1.1 M in length and breadth. It was constructed almost entirely of granitic cobbles 10 to 15 centimeters in diameter. No cultural material other than the hearth was found. There were abundant ashes in the spaces between the stones. The feature, although its original size could not be determined, resembled cobble-lined pits excavated by Barrett at Aztalan (1933). It may have functioned as a corn roasting pit.

The small mound in the center of the field was tested with a post-hole digger. Although no cultural material was identified we again found that the A horizon tended to deepen toward the center -- a condition exactly the reverse of that found when a natural knoll is scalped by continued cultivation.

A test trench was dug along the edge of an old meander that Morgan Creek had cut into the south side of the terrace upon which the site is located. Fragments of bone and lithic materials were fairly abundant on the surface in that area, but the trench yielded nothing except perhaps the indication that modern erosion has been quite severe along this relatively steep slope. Perhaps as much as .75 m of topsoil is gone and the C horizon is now the surface (this is very clearly shown on aerial photographs).

In 1975 we rented the northwest corner of the terrace upon which the site was located (.6 acre or 2500 square meters), and the 1974 grid was extended into this area. Excavations began where they had left off in 1974, but we quickly discovered through a series of test pits that there was little to be found further out in the field. The remainder of the season was spent close to areas excavated the previous year (i.e. in the northwest corner).

Based upon our previous experience we decided not to screen soil removed from the plow zone (the first 20 cm). All features were excavated in ten centimeter levels, soil from features was screened through one quarter inch hardware cloth except for that retained for water screening.

Ceramics:

Shay's survey (Knudson 1966 and Shay 1967) and analysis of the material collected by Nickerson and Wilford is the only detailed description of the Cambria ceramics. All previous researchers had to rely on the brief descriptions published by Wilford (1945, 1955). Knudson's typology is presented here in the form of a key.

Fifty years ago Don Lehmer (1951:13) in his report on the Dodd site noted:

Some workers might argue for more types, separating, for example, the braced rims with horizontal cord impressions from those with diagonal cord impressions. Such a division could be carried on to separate sherds with diagonal impressions running in one direction from those in which they run in the opposite direction, to separate those sherds with diagonal impressions on the exterior only from those in which the impression runs over the lip, and so on ad nauseum. In the writer's opinion, such a procedure would obscure the information which is gained by classifying the material in the first place.

This is very much a problem with Shay's analysis. By choosing a "splitter" approach to ceramic taxonomy some cultural relationships are obscured which I think to be of considerable significance.

Briefly, her Linden type consists of 4 varieties, however only one -- Linden Linden -- is uniquely Cambrian. Linden Nicollet, Linden Searles and Linden Cottonwood all seem to me to fit much more comfortably as a Cambrian variant of Sanford Ware (Ives (1962:13-15). This in turn would argue for some rather significant links to Mill Creek -- far more significant than hinted at by Shay.

The material used by Ives (1962:36) to illustrate Sanford Ware looks very much like Cambria material. Neither the "turkey foot" nor "flag and dot" ("running deer") motifs, however, appear on Cambria Focus material to my knowledge. Interestingly the "turkey foot" is one of the more common designs at the Jeffers petroglyph site. The Mill Creek ceramic design is possibly a stylized corn plant or, more probably, a stylized thunderbird design.

Secondly Shay's Judson type with its four varieties (only one rimsherd of which, a "Judson Judson," turned up at Price) is essentially Foreman Ware -- again described by Ives (1962:18-20) and Lehmer (1951:18-20). This ware which purportedly demonstrates a close link with the Brandon Site in South Dakota (Knudson, 1967:278) constitutes a distinctly minor ware at Cambria (and even more minor at Price) but constitutes a sizable 21% of the ceramics found at Brandon (Ives, 1962:18). It should be noted that pots with the "S" shaped Foreman rim have Cambrian design elements on the shoulders.

Thirdly, her definition of a second ware considered characteristically Cambrian, Mankato IncisedMankato.Incised.JPG">, is flawed by her inclusion (by definition) of all plain rims as Linden Linden -- thus forcing her to include an obvious Mankato Incised as an "aberrant Linden Linden". This is the problem of relying almost totally on rim features for typing.

The fourth ceramic grouping, Wilford's "C", provides the eastern link while the Sanford and Foreman wares provide the western. This is South Central Minnesota's tangible bond to Cahokia, a Cambria variant of Ramey Incised. Although Wilford (1945:39) says quite emphatically, "Cambria is not a Middle Mississippi site, and type C pottery is not Middle Mississippi pottery, for it is grit -- rather than shell tempered . . ." it seems to me that the makers thought of it as Middle Mississippi. There is the distinct possibility that Ramey and its regional variants was "special" and had distinctly special functions (Porter 1974). Two virtually identical Cambria-Ramey pots and a fragment of a third were recovered and restored (detail of a handle). All were excavated from a single storage pit (Feature 14). Decoration was linear and not curvilinear as is usually the case. A large fragment of a Mankato Incised jar was also found; the rim was undecorated.

Lithics:

In general the lithics from Price resemble the material from Cambria, but the selection of tool types is smaller. This (and the fact that no storage pits intersected) I interpret to be a function of a brief occupation. Points resemble those from Aztalan and Cahokia but also those described as "Desert" and "Bitterroot" by Swanson (1972:fig. 51 and 52) which are found in Idaho (and elsewhere). I mention this specifically because such triangular, side-notched points are typically thought of as "eastern" but were, in fact, used over a very wide area. These small, triangular, side notched points therefore seem to be more "generic" than "specific" to a particular cultural group. Several points with convex bases and shallow side notches resemble the Besant Points from the northern Great Plains.

End scrapers occur at about half the frequency of points. Unlike the points which are generally made of locally available oolitic chert the scrapers are frequently made of exotic materials, in particular the grey Grand Meadow Chert quarried about eighty miles east of the site is favored. Some Knife River Flint (chalcedony) from west-central North Dakota was also used. There were also several spokeshaves made from opportunistically shaped flakes and little modified.

Watrall (1968a:6), in his analysis of lithics from the Cambria Site writes that oolitic chert is exotic -- it is not -- it occurs in great abundance in local river gravels, some glacial outwash, and in sandstone outcroppings. There are several large workshops located near Mankato. Because of its oolitic structure this local chert does not usually lend itself to the production of relatively smooth edges. It is most frequently used for projectile points and knives. Knife River Chalcedony is comparatively rare but seems to have been highly regarded. All edges of worked pieces were frequently used for one purpose or another. Virtually all of the Knife River material was found in the form of finished tools -- scrapers.

Ground stone was scarce with only one celt fragment, one large grindstone, and three paint pallettes constituting the entire inventory. Abrasive stones -- arrow shaft smoothers of ferruginous sand stone and faceted abraders of white sandstone were fairly common. The paint pallettes (see Link, 1976:31-36) were of Sioux quartzite. One was placed in an ultrasonic cleaner containing tap water. Immediately the water was clouded with ochre which was subsequently tested by Professor Robert Henne then of the Department of Chemistry, Minnesota State University, Mankato who reported it to be an iron oxide.

Blue Earth Focus (Oneota) sites are noted for their distinctly high frequencies of several categories of stone implements not found or seldom found at Cambria. The nearest Blue Earth Focus site is near Amboy, Minnesota, about 22 miles (35 km) south of Cambria. In all probability thousands of pounds of grindstones and hundreds of pounds of manos have been picked up on the Oneota sites which are particularly large and abundant just south and west of Winnebago, Minnesota (Dobbs 1985). Thousands of scrapers, generally of the grey flint previously identified as Grand Meadow, litter the sites. Although Grand Meadow scrapers turn up at Cambria sites the numbers are far smaller and their frequency in the total scraper count is much less. The impression is of the Oneota, at least of the Blue Earth Focus, being more "lithic." I think a reasonable explanation for the absence of grindstones and "manos" at Cambria is that the Cambria peoples probably used wood mortars and pestles to process corn. Why there are so few celts and axes I can't explain unless few were lost or discarded during what I interpret to be the relatively short occupation of the site.

Bone:

Bone preservation below about 50 cm was superb. All recovered material was examined by Dr. Orrin Shane of the Minnesota Science Museum. Most interesting were the extremely high frequencies of fish, turtle, and river associated mammals. The impression is very much of a group of people long accustomed to exploiting aquatic and riverine species (such as beaver). Bison does not seem to be high on the dietary list although historic butchering/processing practices show how much bison can be brought home with nary a trace for the archaeologist (Wilson 1924). Buffalo shoulder blade hoes and squash knives were apparently common enough tools, but other bison bones were scarce.

Bone tools were extremely scarce. Two "spatulate" tools ("tongue depressors") are probably leather working tools for smoothing seams and turning out corners. They are made from split ribs. Their usual interpretation as "quill flatteners" does not strike me as reasonable -- Indians today flatten quills by holding them in their mouths for awhile to moisten them and then flatten them with their teeth. No awls, bodkins, punches, fishhooks, pot hooks or any of the other reported tools from Cambria (Watrall, 1968b) were recovered.

Two deer mandibles such as are frequently found in sites of this time period were undoubtedly used to scrape boiled corn from the cob as the Iroquois did (Waugh 1916). The widespread notion that these are sickles is undoubtedly wrong for two reasons. Firstly the wear pattern produced by use shows that they were held in a manner more consistent with scraping than with cutting. Secondly it is doubtful that the Indians would use molars as cutting tools when a stone knife is much more effective (I have tried this).

The only unusual item is the carved turtle shell with a three "horned" figure flanked by rectangles. Two bone beads, two mussel shell beads and a notched Prunum apicinum shell (native to the Gulf and southeast Atlantic coasts) were found. A human tooth (one of three found) was notched on two sides apparently for use as a decorative item.

Floral Materials:

Considerable quantities of charcoal and many carbonized seeds were found in the fill from the storage pits -- particularly in the ashy portions. Leonard Blake and Hugh Cutler (1973) examined some carbonized corn from the Cambria site and described it thus:
Nearly all of the roughly 80 carbonized corn kernels are from 8-rowed ears of the Eastern 8 Row corn race, or Northern Flint. Kernels vary from very wide and short (5.8 mm thick, 11.5 mm wide, 7.1 mm high) to medium sized kernels (mostly about 5 mm thick, 9 mm wide, 6.8 mm to 8 mm high).

This race of corn is relatively late, usually after 1200 AD, although there are occasional specimens from sites much earlier. After 1300 AD it became the dominant corn in most of the northern and northeastern states.

In all probability this applies to the Price corn as well. The carbonized corn looks remarkably like flint/flour corn from Hidatsa and Arikara gardens at Fort Berthold, North Dakota. I have grown this corn since 1976 and it matures in about three months in the Mankato area.

Features:

By far the most common and obvious features of Cambria Focus sites (as well attested to by both Nickerson's and Wilford's unpublished reports) are the storage pits. All pits encountered at Price were more or less bell shaped apparently of similar design to those of the Hidatsa in central North Dakota so well described by Gilbert Wilson (1917:87-97). Although variable in size a typical pit might run 110 cm deep and be 120 cm wide at the base. The neck might be about 50 cm wide. A pit of this size could hold .65 m3 (about 18 bu. or about 1000 lb) and for the almost 350 square meters excavated 15 pits were found (12 excavated). No pits were found to intersect although two did come close. This fact plus the virtual absence of bone tools and paucity (compared to Cambria) of stone artifacts is further evidence which I interpret to indicate a relatively short occupation (a few years, maybe 3-5, at best). Should this be the case then the Price Site provides a very narrow "slice" of time, and all of the artifacts would be contemporaneous.

No hearths were found within the main area of excavation although ashes were common in the fill of some pits. This reinforces our supposition that all floors were destroyed through cultivation. The stone-lined fire pit previously described survived only because the plow skipped over it.

Features 6, 17, 19, 20 were not fully excavated and remain undefined. Feature 22 was a long, dark rectangle (3m x 40 cm) with virtually no depth (3 or 4 cm at best). Its function is unknown. Feature 21, a square hole refilled with black soil and measuring 25 cm on a side may have served some storage function although it yielded no cultural material.

Soil conditions were poor for feature recognition and preservation. The A Horizon was black, heavy, and in the area of most intensive investigation at least 30 cm deep (as deep as 45 cm). This depth plus the thorough mixing of over a hundred years of plowing (50 years in the area excavated in 1974) makes it impossible to identify features within the A Horizon. Further cultivation at this site with the new tractor now owned by the operator should mix things down to 25-30 cm.

What have we learned so far?

So far the dates, which confirmed most estimates for the age of the site, are among the most significant data to come from the site. Now it would be nice to know the sequence or contemporaneity of Price, Cambria, and Jones (21BE5). All three sites were located on terraces back from the Minnesota River and on small streams. Soil types range from sandy and well drained at Cambria to the black loam at Price which is extremely sticky when wet. Price is not indefensible but not easy to defend either. Cambria is in a better position, but whether it had any architectural defense is not known and even the aerial photographs from 1937 show no sign of a soil disturbance where a trench might have been. It is still a distinct possibility and a barrier would not have been difficult to construct. Jones is a defensible site -- whether by choice or chance. There is room for plenty of interesting speculation there. Judging from the small amount of surface debris at Jones I would guess that it was not occupied for very long.

Being contemporaneous with the Mill Creek Culture of northwestern Iowa and sharing a major pottery type (Sanford) Cambria might have followed the same pattern of climatic wrack and ruin (Bryson and Murray, 1977). The Cambria Focus is on the very edge of what was historically called the Big Woods -- in fact on an arm of the Big Woods that follows the Minnesota River westward (but see Grimm 1985 for another view of the Big Woods). The drier years that finished Mill Creek would have had a profound impact on Cambria in several ways. In the first place the Big Woods yields to drought and the prairie expands eastward. This can happen rapidly if drought and fire work together. In 1975 it did not rain at the Price Site from mid-June to mid-September -- not once. Corn on light, sandy soil simply burned up. At Price, with the very heavy soil, the yield was, according to the farmer working the land, probably a third of normal. That, repeated over several years, is going to have an impact beyond our capacities to calculate. Essentially it would be devastating.

As significant, however, is the effect of drought on the river. The Minnesota has dropped to below a foot of water at Mankato in recent years. In 1988 all rivers in the area were reduced to a trickle and Minneopa Falls about three miles west of Mankato was dry for both 1988 and 1989. To a people accustomed to a riverine exploitive system this would have been as much of a disaster as the low corn yields. Furthermore under conditions of severe drought both buffalo and deer populations would suffer and wild plant foods would have been extremely scarce.

Where the Cambria inhabitants might have gone remains unanswered. People do not, as Watrall suggested (1974:142) simply intrude themselves into a long exploited, highly valued resource area like the wild rice producing areas of central and northern Minnesota unless they are operating from a position of power, which is not likely here -- refugees seldom have much of a power base.

The answer will have to wait on that question, although some Cambria sherds have been reported from southeastern North Dakota (Ransom County) by Ralph Thompson (1983). In the mean time we have a more complete picture of agriculture in this part of the world circa 1100 A.D. What is missing is the reason why the Cambria folk came here in the first place and where did they come from?

The Cambria sites (Cambria, Jones, and Price) are located between the cluster of sites (Silvernale, Bartron, and Bryan, see Gibbon 1973/1979) near the mouth of the Cannon River at Red Wing and the Mill Creek sites (Bryson and Barreis 1968) located in northwestern Iowa. Influences from both areas are striking. Occasional sherds of Foreman Ware suggest some contact with people of eastern and central South Dakota. Variations on the Cahokian Ramey wares turn up in the Red Wing area, at Cambria, in the Mill Creek sites and in the Over Focus (Mitchell Broad Trailed). Just what this phenomenon means remains to be explained although including all these sites in the Cahokia meat and hide catchment may stimulate some interesting speculation (Anderson 1987). Each of these areas had its own recognizable "dialect" of Ramey which suggests something getting there from Cahokia and whatever it was being increasingly attenuated the further west the sites were located. Cahokia needed more than buffalo and venison protein. Clothing upwards of 80,000 Indians at American Bottom required an extraordinary number of deer hides (400-500,000?). The "catchment" idea no longer sounds quite as radical as it once did

Bell shaped storage pits and buffalo shoulder blade hoes were used throughout the area to the south and west. Were the Cambria peoples the last of the easterners or the first of the westerners? Knudson felt that Cambria was an eastern outpost of the Plains Village Tradition (1967).

Lehmer never included south central Minnesota in his definitions of Plains Village (1971) and Wedel in his survey likewise didn't include this part of the world as within his definition of the Great Plains (1978). Ecologically the area was tall grass prairie, but culturally it was linked to both the east and west but not the south (there seems to have been no commerce between Cambria peoples and their Oneota neighbors to the south). The longer I look at it the more eastern it seems.

Still the question remains, why Mississippianize? What factors emanating from Cahokia persuaded people way out in the sticks in Minnesota to laboriously copy Ramey wares -- not just at Cambria but at Mill Creek as well. Ives (1962:22-23) calls it Cambria C but it is not. If appearances are not deceiving it is Mill Creek's own version of Ramey which therefore happens to look like Cambria C. Why do we find these little clusters of communities -- Great Oasis, Mill Creek, Cambria -- or big clusters such as the Oneotas at Center Creek (Blue Earth Focus) and the sites near the mouth of the Cannon River?

It was more than hoes, it was more than ideologies, it was more than corn, it was more than population pressure, it was all of the above and more. Little eddies of high energy spun off from the cultural reactor at Cahokia. A system which might lead one to think that the Ramey State had a cultural extension service. How that operated is another big question.

Anderson, Duane 1987.
Toward a Processual Understanding of the Initial Variant of the Middle Missouri Tradition: the Case of the Mill Creek Culture of Iowa. American Antiquity, Vol. 52:522-537.

Barrett, S.A. 1933.
Ancient Aztalan. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. 3, No.1.

Blake, Leonard and Hugh C. Cutler 1973.
Letter and unpublished report on file. at Mankato State University.

Bryson, R.A. and D.A. Barreis 1968.
Climate Change and the Mill Creek Culture of Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society, Vols. 15-16:1-358.

Bryson, R.A. and Murray, T.J. 1977.
Climates of Hunger. University of Wisconsin Press.

Dobbs, Clark 1984.
Oneota Settlement Patterns in the Blue Earth River Valley, Minnesota. PhD. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Gibbon, Guy 1973/1979.
Mississippian Occupation of the Red Wing Area. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series, No. 13. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

Griffin, James B. 1978.
The Midlands and Northeastern United States. Chapter 6 in Ancient Native Americans edited by Jesse D. Jennings. Freeman, San Francisco.

Griffin, J.B. 1975.
Review: Aspects of Upper Great Lakes Anthropology. Edited by Elden Johnson. Minnesota History, Spring:192-193.

Grimm, Eric 1985.
Vegetation History along the Prairie-Forest Border in Minnesota. In: Archaeology, Ecology, and Ethnohistory of the Prairie-Forest Border Zone of Minnesota and Manitoba, edited by Janet Spector and Elden Johnson. Reprints in Anthropology, Vol. 31. J and L Reprint Company, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Ives, John C. 1962.
Mill Creek Ceramics. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society, Vol. 11 (3).

Knudson, Ruth Ann 1967.
Cambria Village Ceramics. Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 12:247-299.

Lehmer, Donald 1971.
Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropological Papers, National Park Service.

Lehmer, Donald J. 1951.
Pottery types from the Dodd Site, Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota. Plains Conference Newsletter Vol. 4 (2): 13-25.

Link, Adolph 1976.
Mississippian Paint Palettes. The Minnesota Archaeologist Vol. 25 (3): 31-36.

Nickerson, W. B. 1917.
Archaeological evidence in Minnesota. Unpublished MS., Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

Porter, James W. 1974.
Cahokia archaeology as viewed from the Mitchell Site: a satellite community at A.D. 1100-1200. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

.Shay, Ruth Ann Knudson 1966.
Cambria Village ceramics. M.A. Thesis, University of Minnesota.

Swanson, Earl H., Jr. 1972.
Birch Creek. Idaho State University Press.

Thompson, Ralph S. 1983.
The Edgar L. Bailey Collection. Newsletter of the North Dakota Archaeological Association, Vol. 4, No. 3:3-10.

Watrall, Charles R. 1968a.
An analysis of the bone, stone, and shell materials from the Cambria Focus. M.A. Thesis, University of Minnesota.

Watrall, Charles R. 1968b.
Analysis of unmodified stone materials from the Cambria Site. The Minnesota Academy of Science, Journal, Vol.35 (1):4-8.

Waugh, F.W. 1916.
Iroquois Food and Food Preparation. Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Memoir 86, Number 12, Anthropology Series.

Wedel, Waldo 1978.
The Prehistoric Plains. Chapter 5 in Ancient Native Americans edited by Jesse D. Jennings. Freeman, San Francisco.

Wilford, Lloyd 1945.
Three village sites of the Mississippian pattern in Minnesota. American Antiquity, Vol. 11:32-40.

........................1955.
A revised classification of the prehistoric cultures of Minnesota. American Antiquity, Vol. 21:120-142.

Wilson, Gilbert L. 1917.
Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians, an Indian interpretation. Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 9., University of Minnesota.
........................... 1924.
The horse and the dog in Hidatsa culture. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 15, Part 2.

1981/1990/1998
Michael Scullin