NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register
Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being
documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only
categories and subcategories from the instructions.
D
1. Name of Property
Historic name: ___Fort Juelson_________________________________
Other names/site number: __21OT198____________________________
Name of related multiple property listing:
______________N/A_________________________________________
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing
____________________________________________________________________________
2. Location
Street & number: __2 miles east of Underwood, MN on Highway 210 and ¼ north of Hwy
210 on 315th Ave
City or town: Tordenskjold__ State: _Minnesota_____ County: _Otter Tail______
Not For Publication: X
Vicinity: X
____________________________________________________________________________
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,
R
I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the
documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places
and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
AF
In my opinion, the property _X_ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I
recommend that this property be considered significant at the following
level(s) of significance:
___national
___statewide
_X_local
Applicable National Register Criteria:
_X_A
___B
___C
_X_D
Date
T
Signature of certifying official/Title:
______________________________________________
State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government
In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
Signature of commenting official:
Title :
Date
State or Federal agency/bureau
or Tribal Government
1
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
______________________________________________________________________________
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
entered in the National Register
determined eligible for the National Register
determined not eligible for the National Register
removed from the National Register
other (explain:) _____________________
D
______________________________________________________________________
Signature of the Keeper
Date of Action
____________________________________________________________________________
5. Classification
R
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply.)
Private:
Public – Local
Public – Federal
AF
Public – State
X
Category of Property
(Check only one box.)
Building(s)
Site
X
T
District
Structure
Object
Sections 1-6 page 2
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count)
Contributing
Noncontributing
_____________
_____________
buildings
_____________
sites
_____________
_____________
structures
_____________
_____________
objects
_____1_______
______________
Total
R
D
____1________
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
_landscape/park______
___________________
___________________
___________________
T
AF
Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register __N/A_____
____________________________________________________________________________
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions.)
_ defense/fortification
_ funerary/burial mounds
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Sections 1-6 page 3
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
_____________________________________________________________________________
7. Description
D
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions.)
___N/A_____________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Materials: (enter categories from instructions.)
Principal exterior materials of the property: __________N/A______________
R
AF
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe
contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that
briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style,
method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has
historic integrity.)
______________________________________________________________________________
Summary Paragraph
T
Site 21OT198 contains the archaeological remains of Fort Juelson, a sod-walled defensive
earthwork constructed in 1876. It is the focus of a historical park on a prominent hilltop, the
highest point on a glacial moraine located between South Turtle Lake and German Lake, in
Tordenskjold Township, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. During the investigation conducted to
prepare this NRHP nomination, it was discovered that the fort was built amidst four well
preserved American Indian earthworks. This greatly expands the site’s period of significance. On
the assumption that they are burial mounds, no subsurface excavation was conducted. Brief
historic accounts describing construction of the fort further suggest that American Indian burials
were encountered while plowing the sod used to build the fort walls. Mound building is a trait of
the Woodland Tradition in Minnesota (ca. 800 B.C. – A.D. 1750). The 1876 defensive structure
was constructed by a local militia group led by two Civil War veterans. The fort was built during
an Indian scare that occurred amid the immediate aftermath of Custer’s defeat at the Battle of
Little Bighorn in Montana. The Indian scare later proved to be a hoax. For this nomination, the
defensive earthwork and burial mound group were documented using non-invasive methods.
These methods included a detailed examination of surface topography by analysis of light
detection and ranging (LiDAR) data, and an analysis of the site’s sub-surface characteristics
Section 7 page 4
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
using geophysical survey methods. Geophysical methods included the collection and analysis of
electrical resistance, magnetic field gradient, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) data. Results
of the non-invasive investigation are presented as a series of profile and plan view images in
Figures 1 through 10. Electrical resistance data from the site clearly show the Woodland tradition
mounds have different resistivity values than the sod walls of the fort. GPR data suggest the
mounds have sub-surface integrity and may still contain primary or secondary burials and other
archaeological features. Analysis of non-invasive imagery has shown that the 1876 defensive
earthwork retains significant topographic and subsurface expression. Several additional buried
features of unknown origin were also identified in the sub-surface geophysical data.
D
______________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Description
AF
R
Environment
Site 21OT198 is situated on a hilltop that is part of a glacial moraine located between South
Turtle Lake and German Lake (Maps 1 and 2). The moraine is a linear feature approximately 800
meters in length, oriented southwest to northeast. The site is situated at the highest point of the
moraine on a flat-topped hill measuring approximately 100 meters by 55 meters (Map 2). This
moraine is located within the Alexandria Moraine complex, an area of stagnation moraines that
formed at the outer edges of a glacial lobe. Soils at the site consist of loamy sands of the Corliss
Series. The parent material of these soils is glacial outwash. The area is located within the
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province of Minnesota some 15 km east of the boundary with
Minnesota’s Prairie Parkland Province.
The location and topography of site 21OT198 are important factors in the site’s history and
prehistory. The elevated moraine rises some 20 meters above the local topography affording
commanding views overlooking the local terrain. The elevated setting makes this an ideal
location for a defensive earthwork. The hilltop is also readily visible from the surrounding
terrain. This high visibility may have been a factor in choosing the hilltop as the site of a burial
mound group.
T
Physical Characteristics
Site 21OT198 is located on a hilltop measuring some 100 m by 55 m. The site is located between
South Turtle Lake and German Lake. Historic accounts suggest the site is located along an
aboriginal portage route between these two lakes. This portage route or trail is shown on the
1869 General Land Office map of the region. The hilltop is currently covered by native prairie
and is now surrounded by agricultural fields but was once mixed broadleaf forest and prairie
parkland.
The physical characteristics of the site were assessed by a non-invasive archaeological
investigation during the summer of 2012 and by pedestrian survey. No invasive archaeological
investigations have been conducted at 21OT198. The non-invasive investigation consisted of two
phases. Phase I involved processing and analysis of LiDAR data obtained from the Minnesota
Section 7 page 5
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
high-resolution elevation mapping project. Maps created from these data were used to examine
the surface topography and micro-topography across the site. Phase II of the non-invasive
investigation consisted of sub-surface mapping of the site using geophysical survey methods.
Phase II geophysical methods included magnetic field gradient, electrical resistance, and GPR
survey over the hilltop. The objectives of the geophysical investigation were: to locate and map
sub-surface archaeological features; to assess the integrity of archaeological features across the
site; and to study intra-site patterning.
R
D
Topographic Survey Results
The LiDAR data processing, display and analysis methods applied during this investigation
utilized the recommendations and best practice guidelines presented in several recent
publications [Bennett, et. al. (2012); Challis, et. al. (2011); Gallagher and Josephs (2008); Hesse
(2010); Riley et. al. (2010), and Romain and Burks (2008)] as well as the personal experience of
the analysts. Multiple LiDAR visualization techniques were utilized. The use of more than one
display technique facilitated the identification and interpretation of archaeological features much
better than any single visualization method alone. Visualization methods included: shaded relief
images from two different light source azimuths (Figure 1); terrain filtering (also known as local
relief modeling) - a processing and display method that reduces the affect of macro-topography
while retaining the integrity of micro-topographic patterning (Figure 2); and constrained shading
with elevation contours (Figure 2) – a display method that presents microtopographic detail from
the area of interest on the hilltop while preserving its macro-topographic context.
AF
Topographic variation across the hilltop was also examined through the use of elevation profiles.
Three elevation profiles were examined. The location of these profiles is provided in Map 3.
Two of these profiles traversed the northernmost and southernmost sod walls of the fort, as well
as suspected burial mound locations. A final elevation profile from west of the fort traversed a
suspected burial mound location. These elevation profiles are presented in Figure 3. Figure 3 not
only depicts variation in surface elevations, but also shows sub-surface GPR radio wave
reflections along their lengths.
Subsurface Geophysical Survey Results
T
Three shallow sub-surface geophysical methods were applied at 21OT198. Each of these
methods responds to a contrast in the material properties between buried archaeological features
and the surrounding soils. Electrical resistance survey detects contrasts in electrical resistivity
values, magnetic field gradient detects changes in magnetic susceptibility, and GPR reflections
are created by changes in dielectric permittivity and soil conductivity. Results of electrical
resistance survey results are presented as a 2-D plan view map representing resistivity variations
measured at the ground surface to a depth of approximately 50 cm below surface. Magnetic field
gradient survey results are presented as a 2-D plan map depicting the vertical gradient of the
earth’s magnetic field measured at the ground surface. Magnetic vertical gradient surveys
respond to buried materials from the ground surface to a maximum depth of about 1.5 meters
below surface. GPR survey results in a 3-D array of data depicting the radio-wave reflections at
different depths below surface. GPR data may be viewed as individual 2-D depth profiles
(horizontal distance versus depth) or as plan view 2-D maps depicting the average signal
Section 7 page 6
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
amplitude at different depths. A more comprehensive introduction to geophysical survey
methods as applied to archaeology can be found in Clark (1996), Conyers and Goodman (1997),
Johnson (2006), Gaffney and Gator (2003) and Conyers (2012).
The location of the sub-surface geophysical survey grid is provided in Map 3. Electrical
resistance survey results are presented in Figure 4. Magnetic field gradient survey results are
presented in Figure 5. Selected GPR depth profiles are presented after topographic correction
(using LiDAR derived elevation data) in Figure 3. Plan view GPR imagery from different depths
below surface are presented in Figures 6 through 10. An additional small (10 x 12 m) highresolution GPR survey grid centered over Mound 1 and was surveyed at very high data sample
densities. Results from this high-resolution survey grid are presented in Figure 11.
D
R
Burial Mound Group
A series of four elliptical and linear shaped topographic features are visible in LiDAR imagery
from the hilltop (Figures 1 and 2). These topographic features are not depicted in historic plan
maps of the fort. As American Indian burials were encountered when removing the sod used
during construction of the fort and elevated mounds are not included in descriptions of the
completed fort (see Section 8), these topographic features were interpreted as a group of
previously undocumented Precontact-age burial mounds. These burial mounds are outlined in red
and labeled Mounds 1-4 in Map 3.
AF
Two of these mounds (1 and 2) are located within the walls of the fort. One mound is partially
outside the westernmost wall of the fort (3) and one mound is located about 12 m west of the
westernmost wall of the fort (4). Mounds 1, 3, and 4 are circular to elliptical in shape, while
Mound 2 appears to consist of two linear segments. Mounds 2 and 3 have both been impacted by
construction of the fort resulting in considerable uncertainty concerning their original size and
geometry.
T
Examination of the electrical resistance data shows the walls of the 19th century fort and the
burial mounds to have differing soil resistivity values (Figure 4). The sod walls of the fort
possess higher than average relative resistance values when compared with surrounding areas
while the mound features possess average or slightly less than average relative resistance values.
This suggests the suspected mounds and the fort walls differ in construction methods,
construction materials, and/or age. In other words, the electrical resistance data support the
hypothesis that the fort walls and the mounds are unrelated features, constructed of different
materials at different times.
Mound 1 measures approximately 10 x 12 m at the ground surface but its subsurface footprint is
considerably less (~7 x 5 m) when measured in GPR plan view images. The average height of
Mound 1 above the local topography is 0.37 m. A pit feature is visible beneath Mound 1 in GPR
profile (Figures 3 and 11). The bottom of this feature is 0.65 m below the surface of the mound
and 0.28 m below the original ground surface. Internal patterning is visible in plan view GPR
imagery from within Mound 1 (Figures 7 and 8). This patterning may represent primary and
secondary burials or other archaeological features within the mound. At 30 cm below surface a
linear GPR anomaly is visible in the high-resolution GPR data (Figure 11). This feature extends
Section 7 page 7
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
from the eastern portion of Mound 1 to the SE approximately five meters before disappearing
beneath the easternmost fort wall. The feature lacks surface expression but may represent a
subsurface element of the mound. Additional rectilinear patterning is visible in the highresolution GPR survey data at 35 cm below surface (Figure 11). This patterning may represent
alignments of postmolds or other linear archaeological phenomena.
R
D
Mound 2 consists of two ovoid to linear segments. The northernmost segment measures about 12
m long by 5 m wide and rises about 0.65 m above the local topography. It is located just west of
and parallel to the internal cross section wall. At its southern terminus there is a much less
pronounced linear component that is aligned about 25 degrees west of the northern components’
alignment (Map 3). The southern linear component is 12 m long by 1 to 2 m wide, and rises an
average of 0.14 m above the local ground surface. The northern component of Mound 2 has been
disturbed, possibly during construction of Fort Juelson or perhaps by looting. A depression 1 to 2
m in diameter is located near the highpoint of the mound. This depression appears to be the
filled-in remains of a pit excavation (possibly a looters pit) and contains broken concrete
fragments. This pit is readily visible in the magnetic field gradient survey results and is labeled
in Figure 5. The magnetic signal characteristics from this pit suggest it does not contain iron
trash or debris. This disturbed area is visible in GPR profile data at a horizontal distance of 23 m
in Figure 3. Patterning is visible in plan view GPR imagery within Mound 2 (Figures 7 and 8).
This patterning may represent primary or secondary burials or other archaeological features
within or beneath the mound.
AF
Mound 3 measures 8 m in diameter. The eastern portion of Mound 3 has been truncated by the
western wall of Fort Juelson and has no visible topographic expression. Plan view GPR imagery
from 62 cm below surface suggests that subsurface components of Mound 3 may remain intact
however (Figure 9). Mound 3 rises approximately 0.35 m above the local surface topography.
T
Mound 4 measures approximately 12 x 8 m and rises 0.47 m above the local ground surface.
This mound appears to be relatively undisturbed. Patterning is visible in plan view GPR depth
slices from within Mound 4 (Figures 7 and 8). This patterning may represent alignments of
postmolds and/or primary and secondary burials. A possible feature is located immediately
adjacent and to the south of Mound 4 (Figure 7). This may represent an external burial or other
archaeological feature. A long (>10 m) linear GPR anomaly is visible about 10 m west of Mound
4 (Figure 8). Possible interpretations include compacted soil from a buried precontact footpath, a
linear alignment of post molds, or remains of an historic period fence.
Both the defensive earthwork and the burial mounds are visible in the magnetic field gradient
survey results (Figure 5). This suggests these feature are constructed of soil with enhanced
magnetic susceptibility values (i.e., soil with a relatively high A-horizon – topsoil – content).
Weak magnetic dipoles are visible at some mound locations. This magnetic signal is
characteristic of fire-altered soils or burned materials, and may represent evidence of in-place
cremation. Additional areas of possible fire-altered soils are located west of Mound 4 (Figure 5).
Three possible features are visible in plan view GPR images from 25 cm and 46 cm below
surface (Figures 6 and 8). Magnetic data from these locations suggest the features do not contain
Section 7 page 8
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
iron trash and debris, nor are they filled with burned or organically enriched soils. If cultural,
these features may be precontact in origin. A series of possible pit features is visible in electrical
resistance and magnetic field gradient images from the western portion of the survey area
(Figures 4 and 5). These geophysical anomalies may represent fighting holes or pits associated
with the 19th century fort, precontact pit features, or looter pits.
An area of higher soil moisture content is visible in the electrical resistance survey results to the
NW of Mound 4 (Figure 4). This may represent a borrow area associated with mound
construction or construction of the fort.
R
D
Fort Juelson
The sod walls of the rectangular fort are clearly visible in LiDAR imagery from the site and in
the results of the electrical resistance and magnetic field gradient survey results (Figures 1,2, 4
and 5). These walls measure approximately 35 m x 30 m (115’ x 100’), matching the historic
description of the site reasonably well (see Section 8). The sod walls have suffered significant
disturbance from bioturbation, which undoubtedly has caused some slumping, but still rise an
average of 0.45 m above the local topography. The fort is located on ground that slopes to the
south. This slope is readily apparent in elevation profiles from the hilltop (Figure 3). The long
axis of the fort is aligned west southwest to east northeast and the north-south alignment is
approximately 28.5 degrees west of north.
AF
A centrally located internal cross section wall is visible in the LiDAR and sub-surface
geophysical imagery. This cross section wall bisects the long axis of the rectangular fort (17.5 m
to either side) and measures 22 m in length. A gap of 4 m exists between the northernmost outer
wall and the internal wall. A gap of 2 m exists between the cross section wall and the
southernmost wall of the fort. The average height of the internal wall is 0.18 m above the local
ground surface.
T
Two very subtle linear topographic features are visible in the LiDAR imagery 5 to 6 m outside
the northernmost and westernmost walls of the fort (Figures 1 and 2). These linear features are
located parallel to the outer fort walls and are not readily visible to the naked eye at ground level.
They may represent the remains of defensive ditches constructed outside the walls of the fort,
perhaps never completed, or could simply represent the limits of sod procurement on the hilltop.
A 1.5 meter gap in the southernmost outer sod wall is located near the SE corner of the
earthwork. This represents the SE entry/exit way to the fort. A raised soil platform is located
immediately south of this exit, possibly intended as a curtain or shield protecting the entrance.
The exit leads immediately down a coulee to a small wetland located 100 m southwest of the exit
that may have been an intended water source.
A northwest entrance/exit to the fort is suggested in historic plan maps of the fort. Evidence of
this entryway is not obvious in either the LiDAR or sub-surface geophysical imagery. Subsurface evidence of a defensive curtain shielding this entryway may be visible in the plan view
GPR imagery from 46 cm below surface however (Figure 8).
Section 7 page 9
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Numerous small but very strong magnetic dipoles are present in the magnetic survey results
(Figure 5). After investigation these were found to represent modern iron debris. One of these
modern iron artifacts was a trowel of the type often used by metal detector enthusiasts. Few, if
any, nineteenth century iron artifacts are present on the hilltop, perhaps the result of looting by
collectors using metal detectors.
R
D
A foot trail leads from the site parking area to the hilltop fort. This foot trail is readily visible in
plan view GPR images from 25 cm below surface (Figure 6). Modern improvements have been
recently added to the hilltop. These are a flagpole, located on an external fort wall in the NW
portion of the defensive earthwork, and two wooden benches. These features are labeled in
Figure 4. A very large and intense circular magnetic field was created by the iron flagpole
(Figure 5). The intensity of this field has likely been increased by lightning induced remnant
magnetization. Unfortunately this large and intense magnetic field has also obscured more subtle
archaeological signal within a radius of about 10 meters. A wall of the fort has been struck by
lightning. This lightning strike is visible in the magnetic survey data in the southeast corner of
the defensive earthwork (Figure 5). The intensity of magnetization appears to have been reduced
by bioturbation.
Outside of the site boundary, a gravel visitor parking area has been added approximately 120 SW
of the hilltop. This parking area is surrounded by a split rail fence and contains an interpretative
sign. The parking lot and site are owned by Otter Tail County and managed for site preservation
and tourism.
AF
Period of Occupation
Mound building is a trait of the Woodland Tradition (ca. 800 B.C. – A.D. 1750) in Minnesota.
This component cannot be more precisely dated at this time.
The hilltop defensive earthwork was not utilized during the Indian scare of 1876, but oral history
suggests it was used a few years later, and the general area was part of the farm of Berge O. Lee,
the farmer who settled here by 1869 and was instrumental in constructing the fort. Thus the
period of occupation is 1869-1880.
T
Site Integrity
The hilltop location of site 21OT198 has not been cultivated. Early historic accounts describing
construction of the defensive earthwork suggest that the sod used to construct the fort walls was
obtained from the hilltop using a 16” breaking plow. The sod strips were likely 4” to 6” thick.
Human remains were reported to have been found during the sod procurement process. One
contemporary account suggests the remains were small partially disintegrated bone fragments in
a poor state of preservation. A later account, written in 1949, suggests that human skeletons were
encountered and that these were carefully reburied.
The described human remains likely came from the upper levels of the four mounds located on
the hilltop. The top levels of the burial mounds were likely impacted during procurement of the
sod used to construct the fort, however the mounds do appear to possess sub-surface integrity.
Evidence of this is provided by GPR depth profiles collected over the mounds and by plan view
Section 7 page 10
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
GPR images that show the footprint of the mounds extending below the original ground surface
(intaglio mound construction). Patterning is visible within the burial mounds, both above and
below the original ground surface. This patterning may represent primary or secondary burials,
postmolds, pit features, or other archaeological phenomena such as bison bones or stones used to
line or cap burials. Surface evidence suggests the mounds have also been subjected to significant
bioturbation by burrowing rodents and badgers. This turbation has likely had a negative impact
on internal mound integrity and is a source of uncertainty in the sub-surface geophysical data.
D
Mounds 1 and 4 appear to be largely intact with minimal disturbance associated with
construction of Fort Juelson. A 1-2 m diameter depression filled with concrete debris is located
in the top of Mound 2, suggesting disturbance or looting. Mound 3 lies partially beneath the
westernmost wall of the fort although its footprint does appear to be largely intact in the plan
view GPR image from 62 cm below surface.
R
Historic accounts describe the sod walls of the fort as 4 feet high (1.22 m) and 4 feet thick. An
historic plan map of the fort shows a rectangular defensive structure with an entrance in the NW
corner of the walled enclosure. This entrance was shielded by an external curtain wall located 3
to 5 m to the north. A second entrance was located in the SE corner of the enclosure.
AF
Results of the LiDAR data analysis and pedestrian survey show that the external walls of the fort
remain largely intact, although they have slumped considerably. The height of the walls varies
from a just a few cm to over 60 cm, with an average height of 45 cm above the local topography.
No evidence of the NW entrance is observed in the surface topography, although subsurface
evidence of a shielding curtain wall may be visible in plan view GPR maps from 46 cm below
surface. A modern iron flag pole is located on the westernmost fort wall close to the NW corner
of the fort. It is possible that evidence of the original NW entrance was obscured during
construction of this flagpole.
An entry/exit way is visible in the surface topography data in the SE corner of the fort. A mound
of soil is located a few meters south of this entryway, possibly intended as defensive curtain or
shield.
T
Bioturbation by rodents and badgers is extensive across the site. All sections of the hilltop have
been impacted by this turbation, although the sod walls of the fort appear to have slightly more
extensive damage. These burrows have undoubtedly had a negative impact on site integrity and
are also a source of significant signal noise and uncertainty in the sub-surface geophysical data.
For example, a long linear anomaly is located in the westernmost wall of the fort in plan view
GPR data from 38 cm below surface. This anomaly is thought to represent an air void created by
a rodent burrow.
Modern tourism has resulted is soil compaction along the trail leading from the parking lot to the
fort and along a shorter trail leading to two park benches located just east of Mound 4. Evidence
of this soil compaction is readily visible in plan view GPR depth slices from 25 cm below
surface. Soil compaction is also apparent in the area immediately surrounding the park benches.
Section 7 page 11
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
21OT0198 preserves the location, association, feeling and setting of a small Woodland Tradition
mound group in the Otter Tail chain of lakes area. The organization of space between the
mounds and the material integrity in upper levels has been impacted by the construction of the
fort. Yet, geophysical data suggest that important internal organization of ritual space is
preserved in deeper levels within individual mounds. Thus, the integrity of design, materials and
workmanship as expressed by earthen features is believed to be largely intact.
The nineteenth century defensive sod structure at Fort Juelson preserves excellent integrity of
location, setting, feeling and association. Although somewhat muted, the general rectilinear
design is also conveyed. The material integrity of the earthen structure is retained although
somewhat eroded.
T
AF
R
D
Section 7 page 12
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
_________________________________________________________________
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register
listing.)
X
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history.
D
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
R
X
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
AF
Criteria Considerations
(Mark “x” in all the boxes that apply.)
A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes
B. Removed from its original location
T
C. A birthplace or grave
X
D. A cemetery
E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure
F. A commemorative property
G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years
Section 7 page 13
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions.)
Archaeology/prehistoric
Archaeology/historic, non-aboriginal
Military_____________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
D
Period of Significance
800 B.C. – A.D. 1700_
A.D. 1869-1880______
___________________
R
Significant Dates
_1876______________
___________________
___________________
AF
Significant Person
(Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.)
___________________
___________________
___________________
Cultural Affiliation
Woodland Tradition __
Euroamerican ______
___________________
T
Architect/Builder
___________________
___________________
___________________
Section 8 page 14
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
R
D
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph
Fort Juelson (21OT198) preserves a unique archaeological site consisting of a Woodland
Tradition burial mound group within the area of an 1876 European settlers’ earthen defensive
barricade. The Fort Juelson mounds are significant as an example of a small, largely intact group
of Woodland Tradition burial mounds built by American Indians sometime between ca. 800 B.C.
and 1700 A.D. Cultural descendants of these people, the Dakota, lost access to traditional sacred
places such as those marked by the burial mounds at Fort Juelson as a result of treaties signed in
1851. After more than 100,000 settlers poured into vast tracts of Dakota Territory in the 1850s,
disputes over land and treaties combined with opposing cultural concepts of property ownership
led to antagonism and occasional hostilities between European Americans and the Dakota
(Folwell 1952: 352, White 1992). Following the “Spirit Lake Massacre” in 1857 and the U.S.Dakota War in 1862, rumors of “Sioux depredations” frequently terrorized entire Euroamerican
communities. One of the largest “Indian Scares” in Minnesota history took place in the weeks
following the defeat of the U.S. Army forces led by General George Armstrong Custer at Little
Bighorn in 1876. Settlers throughout western Minnesota abandoned their farms following
multiple rumors of Indian attacks. Rather than fleeing, a small group of Norwegian settlers in
Otter Tail County led by Civil and Indian War veterans Hans Juelson and Berge O. Lee
constructed Fort Juelson to protect their community. They built the fort on the burial mound
group to utilize the hilltop’s prominent position, using principles of defense the leaders learned
while serving in the U.S. Army.
AF
The burial mounds retain their association to rituals of mourning and burial events practiced over
time by Precontact peoples and are eligible for listing on the National Register under Criteria A
for their association to Traditional Cultural Values (Shrimpton 1991:13). The mounds and
earthen barricade are also significant under Criteria A for their association to Dakota-white
relations in Minnesota and the history of Indian Scares between 1862 and 1880. The site is also
eligible under Criterion D for its potential to yield archaeological information important for both
our understanding of Precontact burial practices and post-Civil War civilian defensive strategies
in Minnesota.
T
______________________________________________________________________________
Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of
significance.)
Burial Mounds in the Otter Tail Chain of Lakes Area
The four mounds at Fort Juelson correlate to a pattern of mound building along the chain of lakes
in Otter Tail County within the Woodland Tradition. The name Otter Tail derives from Dakota
and Anishinabe designations for a nearby major lake that has a long, thin sandbar that was
compared to the tail of an otter (Westerman and White 2012: 150). The Otter Tail chain of lakes
sits in a prairie pothole region at an ecological transition zone between the northern woodlands
and the prairie lakes region that extends south and west. This ecotone had diverse habitats and
thus provided a wide variety of plant and animal species for food sources from nearby woods,
prairies, and waters (e.g. Shay 1985; Watrall 1985; Michlovic 1979; Mather 2002). In addition,
the chains of lakes trending across the area connected to the Red River drainage and provided a
Section 8 page 15
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
water-based transportation system. Thus, as well as providing a local environment rich in waterbased animal resources, the liminal area between prairie and woodland meant that hunting
groups were able to easily mobilize to exploit two ecological zones for large game such as
grassland buffalo and woodland deer. Likewise, people would have had diverse options for
collecting plant food from the mixed prairie, wetland, woodland, and lake zones.
D
The transition to the Woodland Tradition in Minnesota began around 1000 B.C. and is
archaeologically marked by the advent of ceramic production, a new tradition of burial mound
construction, and horticulture. Although plants would have always been gathered, the Woodland
peoples likely had greater reliance on wild rice and plants from small scale horticulture (Arzigian
2012). All of these hallmarks of cultural change indicate a shift to less mobile and perhaps
slightly larger social groups that came together to live in semi-permanent camps, particularly
during summer months when gardens required tending.
R
The mining, manipulation, and firing of clay for ceramics, construction of earthen mounds for
burial of group members, and tilling of the soil for the propagation of plants all involved new
ways that humans interacted with and modified the earth. All left observable signs of a village’s
enduring relationship to the surrounding landscape, yet burial mounds are the most visible
expression of the Woodland Tradition.
AF
Burial mounds sites were places where people came together to mourn, bury, and honor their
dead through a variety of ritualized mortuary traditions. The construction of earthworks in
present day Minnesota cuts across many of the developed temporal phases, but regional stylistic
differences appear to have peaked in the Middle Woodland Period (Arzigian and Stevenson
2003: 79). The unique local burial practices expressed in burial mounds construction during this
period likely reflects regionalized expressions of shared spiritual beliefs.
T
Sometime around 800 B.C., people began to construct mounds in the area that would become
Otter Tail County. For example, the Morrison Mound Group consisting of 20 conical mounds,
one flat-topped mound, and one elongated mound was built near the outlet of Otter Tail Lake
(Arzigian and Stevenson 2003: 451). This site has the oldest radiocarbon date for a mound in
Minnesota yet the general method of construction shares many stylistic features with nearby
mounds linked to the later Malmo Cultural Complex, that falls within Havana-Related Lake
Forest Middle Woodland Tradition dated between 200 B.C. and A.D. 300 (Arzigian 2012: 79,
Arzigian and Stevenson 2003: 85-88). The thousand year date range of local mounds united by
common construction features—such as shallow central burial pits, possible partial in-place
cremation, and evidence of logs over burial pits—suggests that this archaeological complex
represents the physical expression of a single social group through time (Arzigian and Stevenson
2003: 85-88, 449).
Likewise, earthworks at the Orwell site (21OT7) have central burial chambers that may share
similarity with the features revealed by geophysical survey of the Fort Juelson mounds. The age
of the Orwell site has been estimated as ca. A.D. 350-600 (Gibbon 2008). Both the Morrison
Mounds and the Orwell site are listed in the NRHP.
Section 8 page 16
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
R
D
This tradition of mound building near 21OT0198 was part of a much larger Woodland Tradition
in the Upper Midwest. The practice was not static: particulars varied greatly through both time
and space. The locally unique ceremonies of burial and of mound construction likely provided a
means for Woodland peoples to participate in rituals that transformed the meaning of human
death into rebirth, world renewal, and spirit release (Hall 1997). In later periods, both Otter Tail
and regionally, conical mounds were joined by complex arrangements of linear embankments,
ritual enclosures, elliptical, and bent-elliptical, and mounds (Dobbs 1996, Birmingham and
Eisenberg 2000: 109). Although linear mounds are not technically effigy mounds, they may have
been the minds of their creators and likely encoded beliefs regarding different cosmological
realms. In nearby regions, earthworks that appear to have a “body” and a “tail,” are most
common in areas of abundant water features such as lakes, swamps, marshes and springs
appearing to reference long-tailed water spirits (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000: 109). Grand
Mound (21KC03), on the Canadian border in Minnesota, has a recently documented 200 foot
long tail that transforms the mound into a floodplain effigy earthwork and conjures connections
to the Native American earth-diver mythology linked to earth renewal traditions (Mather 2006).
Likewise, Mound 2 at Fort Juelson has an elongated torso shape with a narrower “tail” feature
curving off and could represent a water creature, perhaps even an otter.
AF
As well as providing a close spiritual connection to their ancestors, the proximity to a prominent
mound group may have also served as a territorial signal to outsiders. Fort Juelson and other
mound sites have panoramic views over the areas where the dead would have lived and gathered
food. When viewed from the trail below, this group of four mounds, like many earthworks on
high promontories, would have made a powerful visual impression to outsiders. Analysis of
mound distribution in other states has documented spacing between sites that may “represent the
length of territories along the river that the centers served” (Birmingham and Eisenberg 2000:
92).
T
Minnesota’s Woodland peoples built landscape complexes combining mounds and embankments
throughout the state, but the highest densities were built along the Minnesota and Mississippi
Rivers, in the vicinity of Mille Lacs, and overlooking the Otter Tail chain of lakes just west of
where Fort Juelson would be constructed (Dobbs 1996: 6). In Otter Tail County, 413 precontact
mounds were surveyed by 1911, many in large groups along ridges that overlooked lakes and
waterways (Winchell: 309). The groups of mounds recorded in the nineteenth century Otter Tail
area were notable for the high proportion of linear and elongated earthworks. For example, at the
Battle Lake Group, where 42 mounds were recorded, 22 were elongated and six had curved and
bent shapes (Winchell 1911: 310). The Fort Juelson mound group fits within the local tradition
of having an elongated earthwork possibly with a tail feature.
Studies of the distribution of mounds in Minnesota have verified the observation that they were
built to overlook bodies of water. More detailed examination of mound distribution shows people
constructed the most mounds in areas of deciduous forests, on raised landforms such as terminal
glacial moraines, and near major waterways or permanent lake districts (Anfinson 1984). These
very areas where abundant water, forest resources, pockets of rich soils, and micro-climates for
good garden locations, combined with a longer growing season, could have made semipermanent villages possible. As early as the nineteenth century, local antiquarian Rev. Cooley
Section 8 page 17
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
noted that clusters of mounds coexisted with a density of village sites in the Otter Tail area
(Winchell 1911: 321).
More recently, Anfinson documented “an almost exact” correlation between groups of burial
mounds and the major village sites of the eastern or Santee Dakota documented in Minnesota’s
early historic period (Anfinson 1984: 23). Even though the Dakota did not necessarily build all
the mounds within their territory, they associated them with their ancestors and often buried the
bones of their relatives in older mounds after exposure on nearby burial scaffolds (Anfinson
1984).
D
Dispossession of Dakota Lands and Indian Scares in Nineteenth Century Minnesota
The initial treaties signed by the Dakota in Minnesota resulted from European-sponsored
councils to define territorial boundaries between competing tribes, particularly the Dakota and
Anishinabe (Anderson 1997). These treaties were supposed to create peace between traditional
enemies and facilitate the fur trade, but were later used as evidence of boundaries between tribes.
AF
R
In 1825, a treaty was negotiated by U.S. Government officials to establish peace between
Minnesota tribes by delineating boundaries of hunting grounds. Although it was acknowledged
that the peripheries of hunting areas were often shared, Sisseton tribal leader Tatanka Nazin, or
Standing Buffalo, defined his group’s long-term connection to the prairies that commenced west
of Otter Tail Lake and included the future Fort Juelson site (Westerman and White 2012: 150).
Following the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the U.S. Government became more
intent on moving tribes from their native lands to the West to “open” lands for settlement and
development. This boundary set a precedence for defining tribal land ownership in future
treaties.
T
In a series of treaties signed between 1837 and 1851, the Dakota lost their right to live in 24
million acres of their homelands in exchange for a 10-mile-wide reservation along 140 miles of
the Minnesota River, payment in the form of annuities drawn on the sale price, provisions, and
“civilization” programs. Following the transfer of the land to the United States in 1851, the
Dakota lands in the southern half of Minnesota became part of the public domain and a cadastral
survey of the lands was undertaken to facilitate the division, legal boundary definition, and
eventual transfer of the property.
Conflicts between settlers and the Native Americans were almost assured in the process of
transferring the traditional homelands of the Dakota to settlers eager to realize their destiny as
landowners. Prospective homesteaders began to squat on ceded lands as soon as the treaties were
signed, long before the land survey began, the treaties were ratified, or the Dakota had title to a
new reservation (Jarchow 1949, Anderson 1997: 204). Dakota living in the Mississippi River
Valley continued to live and plant crops at their villages through 1853 in agreement with
government agents as they awaited preparation of the reservation. In 1853, the land survey
began, but property-hungry European Americans had already jumped on Dakota land, expelling
Mdewakanton bands by burning bark houses at Red Wing’s village and claiming the prepared
fields at the villages of Shakopee and Wabasha (Anderson 1997: 204, Folwell 1956: 352-353).
Section 8 page 18
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
By 1854, the Dakota reserve was established, as was a trend of mismanagement and corruption.
The Dakota soon found the quality and quantity of provisions poor. By necessity they had to
hunt food outside the reservation boundaries to supplement government provisions and
experimental reservation agriculture bringing them into increasing conflicts with the Anishinabe
and white settlers (Anderson 1997, White 1992).
R
D
The first Dakota lands from the 1851 treaties were offered for sale in 1854-1855 in an area 30
miles wide west of the Mississippi River, but by this time roughly 20,000 white settlers had
already illegally moved well into the territory (Folwell 1956, Jarchow 1949). In order to increase
the availability of land for settlers, a system of making preemptive claims on unsurveyed lands
was codified, leading to further conflicts (Jarchow 1949: 47-49). As more immigrants and
settlers poured into the lands surrounding the reservation, the traditional means of gathering food
became increasingly stressed. Perhaps as a means of venting anger, there was increased war with
the Anishinabe in the early 1850s precipitated by the Dakota hunting on their lands. The dividing
line negotiated between the traditional enemies in 1825 and used as a basis for later allocations,
cut through Otter Tail County east of the future Fort Juelson site.
AF
By 1855, the Dakota reservation was still not fully surveyed yet Germans began to move onto
Sisseton Indian villages near Beaver Creek on the edges of the reservation near New Ulm while
the bands were away hunting (Anderson 1997: 240-241). The Dakota were enraged when they
returned and found their new villages occupied by unyielding Germans. Immigrants who had
been recruited to settle the area were confused and terrified by Dakota hunters who entered the
farms they were laboring to improve (White 1992) and the Dakota were disgusted and angered
by the behavior of the farmers who would not share food that came from their lands (Anderson
1997).
T
In March 1857, a group of about 12 Dakota led by Inkpaduta murdered a settlement of some 30
or more settlers in Okoboji, Iowa, killed 12 settlers in Springfield, Minnesota, and captured four
white women. The murders appear to have been in retaliation for the ax murders of nine
followers of Sintomniduta by white outlaws in northwestern Iowa, the subsequent forced
disarmament of his Wapekute followers by settlers who feared retaliation, and then the refusal of
the settlers to share food with Dakota who were unable to hunt (Anderson 1997:217). News of
the “Spirit Lake Massacre” took more than a month to reach St. Paul but quickly set off a panic
among white settlers in southwestern Minnesota. The “1857 Indian Scare” depopulated
Cottonwood, Watonwan, and Blue Earth counties in the southeastern part of the state.
The greater proportion of the settlers were foreigners: Welch, Germans and Norwegians
having but slight knowledge of the English language, uninformed as to Indians and the
Government regulations over them, unfamiliar with firearms and peaceably disposed
towards all mankind. . . The bloody news terrorized them for it was said that there were
from 300 to 400 Indians on the war path and they sent off to Mankato, to St Peter, and to
Fort Ridgely for help (Hubbard et. al. 1908: 243).
Companies of military volunteers were mustered and sent to find the hostiles but they mistakenly
tracked down and fired on two peaceful groups of Dakota who were making maple sugar
Section 8 page 19
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
(Hubbard et. al. 1908: 246). Meanwhile, as frightened Indians appealed to the military at Fort
Ridgely for protection, a battalion of three companies marched to the “seat of war” on April 16,
well over a month since the first attack, “in futile endeavor to find a single Indian” (Hubbard et.
al. 1908: 246).
Even as the military was combing the countryside in search of hostiles, an unsuspecting Native
American couple terrorized Henderson by strolling into town inducing an alarm that 300 more of
their kind were nearing the burg and bent on destruction. Rumors that 900 Sioux had captured
Mankato and St. Peter and were “sweeping down the Minnesota Valley with torch and
tomahawk” created panic in other towns (Hubbard et. al. 1908: 246).
R
D
In the official report by Major Williams, the Indian force was exaggerated to 150-200 warriors;
he noted that “never in the history of our country have such outrageous acts been committed on
any people” (Gardner-Sharp: 120). The War Department ordered pursuit but provided no troops.
Under pressure from the government, Indian agents refused to release annuities, forcing a group
of Dakota led by Little Crow to pursue the errant Indian group, eventually killing five of
Inkpaduta’s band to placate whites (Anderson 1997: 218).
AF
The evidence of violence at Spirit Lake, the disorganized response by the military, exaggeration
of the number of hostile Dakota, use of annual payments as a means of extortion, and terror of
the settlers contributed to a permanent sense of anxiety as “most whites and many Indians on the
Upper Minnesota realized that Indian-white relations would never be the same” (Anderson 1997:
220-221). Settlers were persuaded to return to their farms and the event was deemed simply a
“big scare,” but it set the stage for repeated episodes of mass hysteria that would continue for
decades to come in western Minnesota.
In the years following the “Spirit Lake Massacre,” the Dakota’s access to lands continued to
contract. As the Government Land Office survey moved west, more areas were legally opened
for settlement, further limiting their movement. In 1858, the Sioux reservation was reduced by
half with no payment made to the Dakota while the boundaries of Tordenskjold township in
Otter Tail County were surveyed, starting the movement towards their legal sale (GLO).
T
As the situation on the Dakota reserve continued to deteriorate, so did relations between the
northern and southern states. The first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12, 1861.
Immigrants were quick to enlist and as the war progressed, regiments were formed around shared
language and ethnicity. In Wisconsin, a “Norse Regiment” of 906 recruits had roughly 90%
Norwegian immigrant recruits (Vesterheim Museum: nd). A future resident of Tordenskjold
Township, Berge Olai Lee (also Berger O. Lee), enlisted in Wisconsin at the age of 25 in
October 1861. Three years later, his younger brother Sivert Lee enlisted at the age of 19. The
brothers eventually came together in Company H of the 15th Regiment of the Wisconsin Infantry
that eventually mustered out in February 1865 (Vesterheim Museum: nd).
While Minnesota residents remained distracted by the Civil War and ignorant of the U.S.
American Indian policy that seemed “calculated to invite outbreaks of passion and revenge,” the
situation on the Dakota Reservation was desperate (Blegan 1963: 263). When Norwegian
Section 8 page 20
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
immigrant Han Juelson of Minnesota enlisted for the Union Army following a call for recruits in
summer 1862, the “Sioux Indian War unexpectedly broke out (August 18th) on the western
frontier and threw the regular organization in confusion” (Minnesota Board of Commissioners
1891: 455). Juelson was likely typical of the 10th Regiment of the Minnesota Infantry: he had
applied for a land patent in Mower County only a year before and was primarily “engaged in
agricultural pursuits” and untrained for military service (Bureau of Land Management n.d.,
Minnesota Board of Commissioners 1891). Yet his Company C was sent to war within weeks of
enlisting to protect Minnesota’s western frontier.
D
During the first two weeks of the U.S. Dakota Conflict of 1862, approximately 450 white
civilians were killed in western Minnesota by some factions of the Dakota. Mass killings of
settlers were most prevalent in areas where there had been conflicts over land, such as the Beaver
Creek settlement near New Ulm. Yet even pioneers that had had friendly relations with the
Dakota were murdered throughout a huge swath of western Minnesota. In this case, the “Indian
Scare” was not without cause, as entire white communities were wiped out.
AF
R
This style of warfare—in which the enemy’s kin groups were attacked and killed–was similar to
that traditionally practiced between the Anishinabe and Dakota, where enemy bands were
attacked in retaliation for territorial trespass or violation of agreements (Anderson 1997). In a
sense, every white family became a representative of the treacherous U.S. Government and the
trespassing “German farmers” and thus a target for retaliation. Attacks against settlers were made
throughout western Minnesota from the Red River Valley to the Iowa border (Blegen 1963: 272274).
T
At the time of the 1862 war, the residents of Otter Tail County consisted of families of mixed
blood including Métis from Southern Canada and white settlers (Mason 1916: 83). Perhaps
because of this local history of cross-cultural proximity, early settlers of Fergus Falls, Joseph
Whitford and John Smith (or Peter Schmidt?), were said to have been killed because they did not
fear native peoples and re-entered the conflict zone (Mason 1916: 92). Most of the settlers of
Otter Tail and nearby counties fled to Fort Ambercrombie where they were protected from
attacks. One resident was killed before he could reach the fort (Mason 1916: 97). The settlers
who never left Otter Tail County during the uprising were married to Native women (Mason
1916: 97) and likely feared white retaliation within Fort Ambercrombie.
The Dakota also organized to attack organized militias at New Ulm and engaged in battles with
the U.S. Army at Fort Ridgely, Birch Coulee, and Wood Lake. Only at Birch Coulee did the
Dakota have a decisive victory against armed forces. By the end of September 1862, the hostile
Dakota either escaped or surrendered.
The entire Dakota nation was punished for the conflict by the nullification of treaties,
imprisonment, execution, forced exile to western reservations or flight to unfamiliar lands in the
Dakotas and beyond. Some Dakota warriors who escaped were radicalized by their experiences
in Minnesota and joined with Lakota and Northern Cheyenne allies farther west. Within a year,
most Dakota were removed from Minnesota.
Section 8 page 21
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
During the winter of 1862-1863, Hans Juelson and his company were given their military
training at Fort Ridgely. The next spring several regiments were sent west to hunt down the
Dakota groups that had not surrendered in 1862. The 10th regiment with Hans Juelson was sent
across the Dakota prairie in pursuit of the hostiles in spring 1863. Every camp on the 1,200-mile
march “was fortified by sod thrown up by shovels” (Minnesota Board of Commissioners 1891:
457). Four battles were fought against the Dakota at Stony Lake, Big Mound, Dead Buffalo
Lake, and the Missouri River near Bismarck, North Dakota (Minnesota Board of Commissioners
1891: 457). The army was not able to cross the Missouri River and the 10th Regiment turned
back there, returned to Minnesota, took a two-week furlough, and were then shipped down the
Mississippi River to fight the Confederate Army (Minnesota Board of Commissioners 1891:
457).
D
Euroamerican settlers in western Minnesota gradually returned to their claims, many forever
terrified of anyone resembling a “Sioux Indian.” The Civil War pulled men into combat further
slowing repopulation of farms after the conflict.
AF
R
At the end of the Civil War in 1865, Hans Juelson and was discharged from the Army while
Berge and Sivert Lee were part of the lucky 60% who survived the war in Wisconsin’s 15th
Regiment (National Park Service “Regiment Details” n.d.). Like many other veterans they
moved west and sought farmland to claim. When the land survey finally reached Tordenskjold
Township, the GLO Map made in 1869 shows that the three war veterans had already settled on
homesteads near each other. Hans Juelson (“Juhlson”) had married before discharge from the
army and settled with his wife and one child, Julia, on the southwest corner of the southwestern
quarter of section 34, in Township 133N and Range 41 W on the south side of Turtle Lake 1
(Vesterheim n.d., GLO 1869).
T
“S. Lee” and “B. Lee” built homestead cabins one half of a section south of Juelson’s claim in
the southern half of Section 3 in T 132 N and Range 41 W (GLO 1869). An east-to-west Indian
trail was recorded on the chain of hills on the southern side of these farmsteads in the 1869
survey; historical accounts relate that Native American continued to use the trail, sometimes as a
portage (Holland 1949). The residents of Tordenskjold Township were primarily Norwegian
immigrants who had relocated to the area, suffering hardships to make a living at farming.
Though some may have fought in the Dakota War, it is unlikely that they had an understanding
of the complex, decades-long conflicts between the U.S. Government and Native Americans
over the ownership of the land that they now farmed.
The 1870s were difficult years for farmers in western Minnesota. A financial panic in 1873 set
off a six-year depression and grasshopper plagues during the same period randomly devastated
crops, creating a deep sense of insecurity among farmers (Atkins 1984). When newspapers
reported the discovery of gold in the Black Hills, many whites felt it was time to make their
1
<http://glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch> accessed March 11, 2012, Hans Juelson, Otter Tail
County, Minnesota homestead patent no. 1422, accessed at Bureau of Land Management
“General Land Office Records”
Section 8 page 22
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
fortunes on Lakota/Dakota lands within the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation in the
western half of the Dakota Territory.
D
Again the Dakota and Lakota had to contend with Americans invading their sacred places and
hunting grounds to make claims; again violence resulted. Initially the U.S. Army was sent to
protect Sioux lands from the trespass of whites intent upon seizing the resources in the Black
Hills. Following the failure of the United States to get the lands through treaties, the army
withdrew protection in 1875 setting off the Black Hills Gold Rush and setting the stage for
another war over Indian land. In order to force the tribes into defiance of the U.S. Government
and legitimize an army attack, the military sought to permanently force the Lakota, Northern
Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes to stay within the confines of reservations. When the tribes defied
these orders, the Great Sioux War of 1876-1877 began on February 8, 1876.
R
During spring and summer 1876, Minnesota newspapers reported on retaliatory murders of
prospectors in the Black Hills with headlines such as “Going for Scalps” and “Five Miners
Murdered by Sioux” (Fergus Falls Advocate 1876, May, 24) and followed the “Indian Wars” of
the West. But the war was of secondary importance to local farmers worrying about grasshopper
invasions and state politics, and the stories were often buried deep in the local papers.
AF
On June 25, 1876, a combined force of Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho defeated the
U.S. Seventh Calvary under the leadership of General Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in
eastern Montana Territory. Five of the Seventh Calvary’s companies, or about 210 soldiers,
including Custer, were annihilated in the largest engagement of the Great Sioux War. The story
was momentous, but still days or even weeks away from Otter Tail County. On July 4, 1876, as
the Centennial Independence Day was celebrated throughout Minnesota, the St. Paul Pioneer
reported on the rumors of this second battle at Little Bighorn (St. Paul Pioneer 1876) and finally,
on July 6, the story broke in St. Paul on the front page with the headline “ Frightful Bloody News
from Sioux Campaign” (St. Paul Pioneer 1876).
T
A few days after the news of Custer’s defeat was reported in St. Paul, one of the largest scares
since 1862 swept through western Minnesota from northern Polk to southern Murray County.
Whenever there were reports that a few Indians had been seen, rumors evolved that hundreds of
Sioux, emboldened by the defeat of Custer, had returned to Minnesota to attack settlers. The first
documentation of a scare came from a Pelican Rapids report dated July 9 that simply stated,
“There has been a general INDIAN SCARE above and around here without any occasion, as far
as I can learn” (Fergus Falls Journal 1876, July 14). Independent scares were reported
throughout western Minnesota from the Red Lake River in Polk County to Worthington near the
border with Iowa; Worthington filled with refugees around July 12 (Minneapolis Tribune 1876a).
In west central Minnesota, the epicenter of the violence was thought to be Fergus Falls, and
settlers from Otter Tail County fled to Herman with their livestock around July 11 (Minneapolis
Tribune 1876a), while some settlers from Aurdal and Friborg fearing a different attack ran to
Fergus Falls (Fergus Falls Journal, July 21). People remembered that a band of Chippewa had
passed up and down the Red River “en route to the Sioux reservation at Big Stone Lake for the
purpose of making a friendly visit and smoking the ‘pipe of peace’” and connected the event
Section 8 page 23
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
with the defeat of Custer. “Out of these simple and somewhat slender materials, imagination, and
gossip aided by a multiplying machine called rumor have woven as gorgeous a fabric of horror,
fear and mystery as anyone could conceive of” (Fergus Falls Advocate 1876, July 12).
Dispatches were sent to the St. Paul Pioneer and Minneapolis Tribune from Herman. On July 12,
under the heading “SCARE. The people of the Frontier Running from a Fanciful Enemy. The
Indian Alarm Depopulating Whole Counties,” the Minneapolis newspaper announced:
D
“Great excitement here on account of the Indians. The village is alive with men, women
and children fleeing from the imaginary foe. . . All sorts of wild rumors are afloat. Some
report Indians in Pomme de Terre. Others say depredations were committed near Stoloff
and that Fergus Falls is alive with them. The rural town of Otter Tail and the Douglass
and Grant Counties are depopulated. Over one hundred families have arrived here
tonight” (Minneapolis Tribune 1876a).
R
As the citizens of Fergus Falls recovered from the celebrations of the centennial, residents of the
surrounding region were “palsied with terror by reports that our town was burned, its inhabitants
massacred, and that bloody Indians were coming right down to gobble Morris and the Main line,
rolling stock and all (Fergus Falls Advocate, 1876, July 12).
AF
Another front-page story running in the Minneapolis newspaper under the provocative headline
“The Indians Rising” announced that fully armed Indians were passing westward from Leech
Lake and White Earth reservations to join the Sioux in the West. It was countered by a dispatch
from Crookston, “Indians on the Brain,” that said “There are no more Indians than there are
every year” (Minneapolis Tribune, July 13b).
T
Like all settlers in remote areas, the settlers of Tordenskjold had little access to accurate
information. As a local paper explained, “the frontier is sparsely settled by people of various
nationalities, all of whom. . . have associated with the name of Indians the most cruel barbarities.
At a time, therefore, like this—the news of the Big Horn disaster just being received—when a
nervous settler comes driving home from a neighboring village with the most exaggerated
reports of the depredations of Indians, it is not to be wondered at that the average farmer in his
lonely situation should be mindful of the fears of his wife and children and hastily pack up and
leave for a safe location, carrying panic and exaggeration with him” (Fergus Falls Journal
1876).
In Tordenskjold Township, Julius Hankey delivered a report that Indians had killed settlers in
Fergus Falls, Foxhome, and French. A group of men met in a log-cabin store to discuss the
possibility of going to larger towns such as Herman, Alexandria, or Pomme De Terre for safety
(Knutson 2011). 2 The owner of the store, a Mr. Dolmer, suggested that the men resist the urge to
panic and instead band together under the leadership of war veterans Hans Juelson and Berge O.
2
Many details from Knutson’s book derive from letters that Hans Bjorge wrote to the Otter Tail Historical Society
in 1939 and 1940. Hans was 20 at the time of the scare and the details conform to those in the 1876 newspaper
account.
Section 8 page 24
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Lee. Two other men rode to Fergus Falls to scout the situation. The veterans, promoted to the
rank of Captain Juelson and Lieutenant Lee, used their military experience from the Civil and
Indian Wars to direct the construction of a substantial “sod fortification based on scientific
principals” on Berge O. Lee’s Farm (Fergus Falls Journal 1876). 3
D
Before the Civil War, the only individuals trained in fortification theory and construction were
officers from the West Point Military Academy. Because “fortifications gave untrained militia
the feeling of security and confidence needed to defeat a professional army,” uneducated
volunteers such as Juelson and Lee were taught how to construct the structures during the war
(Chuber 1996:13). As noted, the 10th Regiment constructed expedient breastworks every night as
they travelled to the Missouri in pursuit of the Dakota, and the heavier ballistics and moving
battle lines in the Civil War required substantial earthen defense structures.
R
The highest hill in the vicinity was chosen for its view of the surrounding area, access to water,
and a flat, defensible position. Ironically, the same topographic position had made it a favored
place for the location of burial mounds constructed hundreds of years earlier. The fort was
rectangular, 120x100 feet “with a cross section wall through the centre. . . and a curtain or shield
in front of the northwestern entrance (Fergus Falls Journal 1876). During the Civil War, earthen
fortifications of nearly identical structures known as “redoubts” that were often square or
rectangular were made for defense.
AF
The newspaper reported that, “The walls of this fort are from four to 4 1/2 feet hight, and are
four feet thick, squarely and compactly built from the sods as cut by a 16 inch breaking plow” (
Fergus Falls Journal 1876). Civil War fortification manuals dictate the use of sod bricks 4 to 6
inches thick, 12 inches wide, and 12 to 18 inches long for the construction of revetments. Earth
construction was preferred over other building materials, such as rock or timber, because it was
readily available, quicker to build with, and held together and absorbed impact from projectiles
better than other materials. The use of a breaking plow provided long strips of sod of the
appropriate width and thickness for the sod bricks. These long strips of sod would have been
easily cut to length with spades or shovels that were available to the farmers constructing what
was named Fort Juelson.
T
In addition, Civil War era fortification manuals dictated the manner in which the sod bricks
should be laid for additional strength and to keep them from toppling over. A group of men and
women joined together to stack the sod under the direction of the war veterans (Knutson 2011).
Given that the construction of the fort was overseen by two Civil War veterans, who likely
participated in or witnessed the construction of similar fortifications during the war, it is
probable that they designed and built the parapets at Fort Juelson in a similar manner.
For the average-sized man, the 4-foot height of the Fort Juelson walls would have been the
perfect height to stand behind and fire at attackers. The level wall top would have provided an
excellent base for aiming small arms, such as the rifles that would have been available to the
3
The land was originally settled and claimed by his brother Sivert, who likely sold it to Berge when he resettled
elsewhere.
Section 8 page 25
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
members of the defensive party. That the walls are described as being 4 feet wide likely suggests
a thickness measurement at the base. Wall descriptions for Civil War period fortifications were
typically vertical on the interior, flat on top, and sloped outward from the top of the wall to the
ground. This sloping design enabled projectiles to be deflected upward and away from the wall.
In contrast, vertical walls enabled projectiles to penetrate, and perhaps, damage the defensive
wall.
R
D
The overall thickness of the wall of the Fort Juelson redoubt corresponds with that recommended
in Civil War era fortification manuals (Chuber 1996). The testing of small arms weapons on
fortification walls demonstrated that rounds from a smoothbore musket of the Civil War period
could penetrate 18 inches into earthen walls. However, the newly developed rifled musket using
.58 Minnie balls could penetrate almost twice that distance. As such, the thickness of the sod
walls at Fort Juelson suggests that this information was known to those overseeing the
construction of the fort. After construction, the walls were tested with the most powerful gun in
the neighborhood, the “Bear Gun” brought from Norway by John Borge; the architects were
thinking like military leaders testing their defense structure (Knutson 2011).
AF
The location and manner in which Fort Juelson was built suggests that the Civil War veterans
Juelson and Lee who oversaw its construction understood the advantages of a properly
constructed redoubt and the confidence it would instill in the untrained men who expected it to
protect themselves and their families. As Chuber notes, “veteran soldiers knew first-hand that
defenders protected by fieldworks could deliver deadly fire, even with obsolete weapons, against
any force, while suffering few losses themselves” (1996: 88).
According to the local newspaper reporter,
As seen from a distance this is a more formidable earthwork than we saw in six months in
the army of the Potomac, with the single exception of Yorktown, and in it 50 or a 100
men under the command of Capt. Juelson with arms and ammunition could keep the
entire Sioux nation at bay. The building of this for as manual exercise and exhibition of
military skill and courage was FAR BETTER THAN RUNNING AWAY. . . (Fergus
Falls Journal 1876).
T
The newspaper also reported that “In turning the sod for this fort the breaking plow unearthed
some INDIAN GRAVES, breaking bones into small fragments—emblematic of the steady
destruction of the race of red men” (Fergus Falls Journal 1876). The actual attitude of the
settlers to the disturbance of burials related to their perceived enemy is not documented, although
a 1949 article stated that the settlers “carefully reburied” “quite a few skeletons” (Holland 1949).
Most likely, the plowing unearthed friable secondary burials in the upper levels of the mounds.
During construction of the redoubt, scouts brought back word that the scare was simply based on
rumor. On July 12, 1876, the Fergus Falls Advocate ran a front-page story on “The Indian Panic,
Annual Outbreak of the Disease in Northwestern Minnesota—A Malignant Case,” reporting that
For the last few days the good people of Otter Tail, Wilkin, Grant and some of the
neighboring counties have been laboring under the biggest Indian scare on record since the
Section 8 page 26
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
massacre of ’62. To those familiar with our situation and the strength and disposition of
the Indians in this neighborhood, there is no need of saying that this alarm has been
without any cause whatever—that upon sifting the rumors and carefully considering the
facts, the panic seems as foolish as it was baseless.”
Nevertheless, construction of the defensive structure was completed in case the families should
desire protection again. Much of the countryside was emptied and some settlers never returned to
their farms. The cost of the panic was estimated to be $50,000 (Knutson 2011).
D
One month later, on August 13, 1876, Hans Juelson went to Alexandria and made his legal claim
for the farm where he had lived since at least 1869. 4 Fort Juelson and the settlers who built it
were there to stay.
The earthen defensive structure was never needed to ward off an attack. A letter from a
representative of the Sissetons printed in the paper made clear the lack of danger from the nearest
Dakota reservation:
R
AF
The Indians of Lake Traverse are very sorry that the white people have so poor an
opinion of them. . . All reports of hostility on their part are slanderous. They are quite as
peaceful as their white neighbors, and manifest a much less warlike disposition at the
present time. . . Reports of a hostile alliance between those Indians and the Chippewa are
entirely unfounded. . . In case of danger, the Sisseton Sioux would be the first to come to
the assistance of the whites as they did in 1863 (Fergus Falls Journal 1876).
Although this was the last major scare in the area, the tradition of mistrust and fear persisted.
According to the family lore of one area resident, another Indian scare swept into the community
a few years later and families gathered at Fort Juelson for several nights (Knutson 2011: 30). Just
as the mounds may once have symbolized the comforting proximity of the ancestors to a nearby
Native American site, Fort Juelson stood as a symbol of security for the surrounding farms.
T
No conclusive evidence exists to link the burial mounds at Fort Juelson to the historic Dakota.
Yet the Dakota have both historically and into the present considered Minnesota mounds to be
burial places of their ancestors (Westerman and White 2012: 5, 3-32). Likewise, a nineteenth
century newspaper article clearly linked the human remains buried at Fort Juelson to the “red
race” with whom they found themselves in conflict (Fergus Falls Journal, 1876, July 21).
Because the human remains at the site were perceived by both groups to be ancestral to the
nineteenth century Dakota, their significance must be partially considered within that historic
context.
Conflicts over territory and cultural misunderstandings arose with the resettlement of Dakota
lands by immigrants in search of farm land. The visible remains of Native American burial
mounds near, within, and underneath battlements built to withstand attack from Dakota preserve
4
<http://glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch> accessed March 11, 2012, Hans Juelson, Otter Tail County, Minnesota
homestead patent no. 1422, accessed at Bureau of Land Management “General Land Office Records”
Section 8 page 27
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
a material record of the historical association between Dakota and white settlers in the second
half of the nineteenth century Minnesota.
Collective memory of rare violent interactions frequently led to “Indian Panics,” events of mass
hysteria on the Minnesota’s western frontier particularly between 1862-1876. Fort Juelson
retains the setting and association of one such Indian scare. The remains of the earthen structure
there are a rare example of a Civil War style redoubt sensibly built under the leadership of war
veterans for protection and they preserve the design and materials used in construction. The
battlements have gradually worn down, reflecting the faded fear of Minnesota’s first peoples.
AF
R
D
Through integrity of location, materials, setting, feeling and association, this site retains it
association to traditional cultural practices that took place at this site within the Middle
Woodland Tradition, and perhaps into the early historic period. Because no precontact artifacts
or archaeological features have been documented at 21OT0198, it cannot be linked it to a
particular historic context, but results of geophysical survey suggest that mounds at the site have
material integrity at deeper levels and contain burned materials in central burial pits similar to
those excavated at other burial sites in the county such as Peterson (21OT0001) and Morrison
(21OT0002). These buried subsurface features retain material integrity of internal patterning and
configuration as well as the workmanship required to craft the structures from earth. Thus,
valuable subsurface data sets that have the potential to yield information important to prehistory
are preserved at 21OT198. The spatial patterning of the mounds within the landscape is also
significant and preserves a locally unique, bent-elliptical mound that may fall represent a tailed
water creature.
The Fort Juelson burial mounds are eligible for listing on the National Register under Criteria A
for their significance in association to rituals of mourning and burial events practiced over time
by precontact peoples within the context of Traditional Cultural Values (Shrimpton 1991:13).
The mounds and earthen barricade are also significant under Criteria A for their association to
Dakota-white relations in Minnesota and the history of Indian Scares between 1862-1880. Under
Criterion D, the potential to yield archaeological information Fort Juelson is eligible to the
National Register for its potential to further our understanding of precontact burial practices and
post-Civil War civilian defensive strategies in Minnesota.
T
Section 8 page 28
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
______________________________________________________________________________
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)
Anderson, Gary Clayton
1997 Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi River Valley,
1650-1862. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul
D
Anfinson, Scott F.
1984 Cultural and Natural Aspects of Mound Distribution in Minnesota. The Minnesota
Archaeologist 43(1):3-30
1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland
Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by Guy
Gibbon, 135-166. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
R
Arzigian, Constance
2012 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: The
Woodland Tradition in Minnesota (ca. 1000 B.C. – A.D. 1750). United States Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington DC.
AF
Arzigian, Constance and Katherine P. Stevenson
2003 Minnesota’s Indian Mounds and Burial Sites: A Synthesis of Prehistoric and Early
Historical Data. Publication No. 1, The Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist
Atkins, Annette
1984 Harvest of Grief: Grasshopper Plagues and Public Assistance in Minnesota, 1873-1878.
Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN
Bennett, Rebecca, Kate Wilhelm, Ross A Hill, and Andrew Ford
2012
A Comparison of Visualization Techniques for Models Created from Airborne Laser
Scanned Data. Archaeological Prospection. Volume 19, p. 41-48
T
Blegen, Theodore
1963 Minnesota: A History of the State. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul, MN
Bureau of Land Management.
1861, 1869, 1873,1876, “Land Patent Search.” Database and images. General Land Office
Records. http://glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch accessed March 11, 2013
Challis, Keith, Paolo Forlin, and Mark Kincey
2011
A Generic Toolkit for the Visualization of Archaeological Features on Airborne LiDAR
Elevation Data. Archaeological Prospection. Volume 18, p. 279-289.
Sections 9-end page 29
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Chuber, David C.
1996 Field Fortifications during the American Civil War: A Tactical Problem. Unpublished
M.A. Thesis, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas.
Clark, Anthony, J.
1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil. Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B.T. Batsford Ltd.,
London,United Kingdom.
D
Conyers, Lawrence B. And Dean Goodman
1997 Ground Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. Altamira Press. Walnut
Creek, CA.
Conyers, Lawrence B.
2012 Interpreting Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Left Coast Press. Walnut
Creek, CA.
R
Dobbs, Clark
1996 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: Precontact
American Indian Earthworks, 500 B.C.–A.D. 1650. United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Washington DC.
AF
Fergus Falls Advocate
1876, May 24 “Going for Scalps” p. 4 On Microfilm at the Minnesota Historical Society
1876, July 12, 1876
“The Indian Panic” On Microfilm at the Minnesota Historical Society
Fergus Falls Journal
1875, July 14 “From Pelican Rapids, “Groundless Fear of Indians” On Microfilm at the
Minnesota Historical Society
1876, July 21 “The Great Indian Scare” On Microfilm at the Minnesota Historical Society
T
Folwell, William Watts
1956 [1912] A History of Minnesota In Four Volumes: Volume I. Minnesota Historical Society,
St. Paul, MN
Gaffney, Chris, John Gater
2003 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus: Stroud, United
Kingdom.
Gallagher, Julie and Richard Josephs
2008 Using LiDAR to Detect Cultural Resources in a Forested Environment: an Example from
Isle Royale National Park,Michigan,USA. Archaeological Prospection. Volume 15, p.
187-206.
Sections 9-end page 30
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Gardner-Sharp, Abbie
1902 History of the Spirit Lake Massacre and Captivity of Miss Abbie Gardner. De Moines,
Iowa, accessed at: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7089051M/, March 11, 2013
Gibbon, Guy
2008 Orwell: A Plains Middle Woodland Burial Component in Western Minnesota. The
Minnesota Archaeologist 67:106-123.
D
Government Land Office
1858-1870
Township No 132 N, Range 41W 5th Meridian, Minnesota. [map] 40 chains:inch.
“GLO Historic Plat Map retrieval System” http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/Index.htm
(accessed on March 11, 2013).
Hall, Robert L.
1997 Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana and Chicago
R
Hesse, Ralph
2010 LiDAR-derived Local Relief Models – a new tool for archaeological prospection.
Archaeological Prospection. Volume 17, p. 67-72.
AF
Holland, R.R.
1949 Minnesota Centennial: Fort Juelson. Clipping from The Educational Helper 41:6
accessed at: http://kroshus.mnwebsteps.com/pdf/Fort%20Juelson.pdf, March 11, 2013
Hubbard, Lucius F., Return I. Holcombe, Warren Upham and Frank Holmes
1908 Minnesota in Three Centuries: 1655-1908, Volume 3. Publishing Society of Minnesota
accessed at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=4DjWAAAAMAAJ, March
11, 2013
T
Jarchow, Merrill E.
1949 The Earth Brought Forth: A History of Minnesota Agriculture to 1885. Minnesota
Historical Society, St. Paul, MN
Johnson, Jay
2006 Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. The
University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Knutson, Clifford
2011 Fort Juelson and the Indian Scare of 1876. Otter Tail Historical Society, Fergus Falls,
MN
Sections 9-end page 31
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Mason, John W., ed.
1916 History of Otter Tail County, Minnesota: Its People, Industries and Institutions. Volume
I. B.F. Bowen & Company, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana
Mather, David
2002 Zooarchaeology of the Lake Lida Site (21OT109), Otter Tail County, Minnesota. The
Minnesota Archaeologist 61:9-22.
2006 National Historic Landmark Nomination: Grand Mound. United States Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Washington DC.
D
Michlovic, Michael G.
1979 The Dead River Site (21 OT 51). Occasional Publications in Minnesota Anthropology No.
6. Minnesota Archaeological Society, St. Paul.
R
Minnesota Board of Commissioners
1891 Minnesota in the Civil and Indian wars 1861-1865. Pioneer Press, St. Paul. MN accessed
at http://www.archive.org/stream/minnesotacivil01minnrich#page/n7/mode/2up, March
11, 2013
AF
Minneapolis Tribune
1876, July 6 “Brave Custer Gone.” p.1, accessed at:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/hnpminneapolistribune/docview/569089377
/pageviewPDF/13CC75467DE75E29BEC/2?accountid=6743, March 11, 2013
1876, July 13a “Scare, The People of the Frontier Running from a Fanciful Enemy.” p 1.
1876, July 13b “The Indians Rising” p 1.
1876, July 13c “No Title” p 1, accessed at
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/hnpminneapolistribune/docview/569093879
/pageviewPDF/13CC751CD73649FF68C/2?accountid=6743, March 11, 2013
T
National Park Service
n.d.
“The Civil War, Regiment Details, 15th regiment, Wisconsin Infantry”
http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-regiments-detail.htm?regiment_id=UWI0015RI,
accessed Accessed March 11, 2013
Riley, Melanie A., Joe Alan Artz, William E. Whittaker, Robin M. Lillie, and Andrew C.
Sorensen
2010 Archaeological Prospection for Precontact Burial Mounds Using Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) in Scott and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota. Contract Completion
Report 1768. Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Romain, William F., and Jarrod Burks
2008 LiDAR Analyses of Prehistoric Earthworks in Ross County, Ohio. Current Research in
Ohio Archaeology 2008,
Sections 9-end page 32
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=233&Itemid=32, accessed July 10th, 2012.
2008 LiDAR Assessment of the Newark Earthworks. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology,
http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=232&Itemid=32, accessed July 10th, 2012.
2008 LiDAR Imaging of the Great Hopewell Road. Current Research in Ohio Archaeology,
http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=231&Itemid=32, accessed July 10th, 2012.
D
St. Paul Pioneer
1876, July 6 “ Frightful Bloody News from Sioux Campaign” accessed at “Internet Archive”
http://archive.org/stream/stpaulpioneer51861unse#page/n3/mode/2up, March 11, 2013.
R
Shay, C. Thomas
1985 The Late Prehistoric Selection of Wild Ungulates in the Prairie-Forest Transition. In
Archaeology, Ecology and Ethnohistory of the Prairie-Forest Border Zone in Minnesota
and Manitoba, edited by J. Spector and E. Johnson, pp. 31-65. Reprints in Anthropology,
Vol. 31. J&L Reprint Company, Lincoln.
Shrimpton, Rebecca
1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Parks Division: U.S. Government Printing Office.
AF
Vesterheim Museum
n.d. “Norwegians in the Civil War” Civil War Data Base accessed at
http://vesterheim.org/CivilWar/, March 11, 2013.
Watrall, Charles
1985 A Structural Comparison of the Maplewood, Scott and Lake Midden Sites. In
Archaeology, Ecology and Ethnohistory of the Prairie-Forest Border Zone in Minnesota
and Manitoba, edited by J. Spector and E. Johnson, pp. 65-72. Reprints in Anthropology,
Vol. 31. J&L Reprint Company, Lincoln.
T
Westerman, Gwen and Bruce White
2012 Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota. Minnesota Historical Society: St. Paul.
White, Bruce
1992 Indian Visits: Stereotypes of Minnesota’s Native People. Minnesota History 53: 99-111.
Winchell, N. H.
1911 The Aborigines of Minnesota: A Report Based on the Collections of Jacob V. Brower and
on the Field Surveys and Notes of Alfred J. Hill and Theodore H. Lewis. Minnesota
Historical Society Press, St. Paul, MN
Sections 9-end page 33
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
___________________________________________________________________________
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
____ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested
____ previously listed in the National Register
____ previously determined eligible by the National Register
____ designated a National Historic Landmark
____ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #____________
____ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________
____ recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ___________
D
R
Primary location of additional data:
__X_ State Historic Preservation Office
____ Other State agency
____ Federal agency
__X_ Local government (Otter Tail County)
____ University
____ Other
Name of repository: _____________________________________
Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): ________________
T
AF
Sections 9-end page 34
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
______________________________________________________________________________
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property ____1.2_________
Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates
D
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates
Datum if other than WGS84:__________
(enter coordinates to 6 decimal places)
1. Latitude:
Longitude:
2. Latitude:
Longitude:
3. Latitude:
Longitude:
R
4. Latitude:
Longitude:
NAD 1927 or
1. Zone: 15N
2. Zone:
AF
Or
UTM References
Datum (indicated on USGS map):
X NAD 1983
Easting: 281914
Northing: 5128212
Easting:
Northing:
Easting:
4. Zone:
Easting :
T
3. Zone:
Sections 9-end page 35
Northing:
Northing:
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.)
The boundary of site 21OT189 encompasses an approximately 55 m (N-S) by 100 m (E-W)
area within which archaeological earthworks are documented. The site location is shown on
the accompanying USGS map (Map 2) as well as on the accompanying LiDAR basemap
(Map 3). The site boundary is represented as a solid line on the map entitled “Site Map”
(Map 2).
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
D
The boundary of site 21OT189 was determined through an non-invasive investigation utilizing
LiDAR surface elevation and sub-surface geophysical data. The resulting boundary encompasses
all of the documented archaeological earthworks identified during this investigation. The site
area is located on a relatively flat hilltop and is naturally bounded on all sides by steeply sloping
terrain.
R
______________________________________________________________________________
11. Form Prepared By
AF
name/title: __Sigrid Arnott, Scott Brosowske and David Maki_________
organization: __Archaeo-Physics, LLC___________________________________
street & number: _4150 Dight Ave #110_________________________________
city or town: Minneapolis_______ state: _MN__ zip code:_55406__________
[email protected]
telephone:_(612)-379-0094___________
date:_14 March, 2013________________
___________________________________________________________________________
T
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
•
Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's
location.
•
Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous
resources. Key all photographs to this map.
•
Additional items: (Check with the SHPO, TPO, or FPO for any additional items.)
Sections 9-end page 36
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Photographs
Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels
(minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs
to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to
the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo
date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn’t need to be labeled on every
photograph.
Photo Log
D
R
1 of 4
Name of Property: Fort Juelson
City or Vicinity: Tordenskjold Township
County: Otter Tail
State: Minnesota
Photographer: Andrew Wise
Date Photographed: 6/24/2012
Photo of electrical resistance data collection on the easternmost wall of Fort Juelson. View is
to northwest (1).
AF
2 of 4
Name of Property: Fort Juelson
City or Vicinity: Tordenskjold Township
County: Otter Tail
State: Minnesota
Photographer: David Maki
Date Photographed: 6/24/2012
Photo of electrical resistance data collection near the SE corner of the enclosure. Photo
depicts the view shed to southeast (2).
T
3 of 4
Name of Property: Fort Juelson
City or Vicinity: Tordenskjold Township
County: Otter Tail
State: Minnesota
Photographer: Scott Brosowske
Date Photographed: 7/18/2012
Photo of public archaeology tour and lecture at Fort Juelson. The speaker (Clifford Knutson)
is standing on Mound 2. View to the southwest (3).
4 of 4
Name of Property: Fort Juelson
City or Vicinity: Tordenskjold Township
County: Otter Tail
State: Minnesota
Photographer: Scott Brosowske
Date Photographed: 7/18/2012
Sections 9-end page 37
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
Photo from the Fort Juelson parking area facing the hilltop. A flagpole located near the
northwest corner of the earthwork is visible. View to the northeast (4).
List of Maps
Map 1: General Location of Site 21OT198 (Fort Juelson) on USGS 1:250K Topographic
Map 2: Location of Site 21OT198 (Fort Juelson) on USGS 1:24,000 Scale Topographic.
Map 3: Site Map showing mound locations, the limits of sub-surface geophysical survey and
elevation transect locations.
D
List of Figures
AF
R
Figure 1: Shaded-relief LiDAR imagery of Fort Juelson. (a) light source azimuth 315 degrees
and (b) 45 degrees.
Figure 2: Terrain filtered LiDAR imagery (a) and constrained shading with elevation
contours in meters (b).
Figure 3: Elevation and GPR depth profiles. Profile locations are provided in Map 3.
Figure 4: Electrical resistance survey results from Fort Juelson (a), with annotations (b).
Figure 5: Magnetic field gradient survey results (a), with annotations (b). Mounds are labeled
m1-m4.
Figure 6: Plan view GPR image from 25 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
Figure 7: Plan view GPR image from 38 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
Figure 8: Plan view GPR image from 46 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
Figure 9: Plan view GPR image from 62 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
Figure 10: Plan view GPR image from 98 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
Figure 11: High-resolution GPR imagery from Mound 1. (a) Average-amplitude plan view
image from 30 cm below surface. (b) Plan view image from 35 cm below surface. (c)
East-west GPR depth profile at 23 m north.
T
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic
Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response
to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460
et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time
for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this
burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849
C. Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Sections 9-end page 38
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
T
AF
R
D
Map 1: General Location of Site 21OT198 (Fort Juelson) on USGS 1:250K Topographic
Sections 9-end page 39
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
T
AF
R
D
Map 2: Location of Site 21OT198 (Fort Juelson) on USGS 1:24,000 Scale Topographic
Sections 9-end page 40
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900
OMB No. 1024-0018
Fort Juelson
Otter Tail, Minnesota
Name of Property
County and State
T
AF
R
D
Map 3: Site Map showing mound locations, the limits of sub-surface geophysical survey
and elevation transect locations.
Sections 9-end page 41
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 1
T
AF
R
D
Figure 1: Shaded-relief LiDAR imagery of Fort Juelson. (a) light source azimuth 315 degrees and (b) 45 degrees.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 2
T
AF
R
D
Figure 2: Terrain filtered LiDAR imagery (a) and constrained shading with elevation contours in meters (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 3
T
AF
R
D
Figure 3: Elevation and GPR depth profiles. Profile locations are provided in Map 3.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 4
T
AF
R
D
Figure 4: Electrical resistance survey results from Fort Juelson (a), with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 5
T
AF
R
D
Figure 5: Magnetic field gradient survey results (a), with annotations (b). Mounds are labeled m1-m4.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 6
T
AF
R
D
Figure 6: Plan view GPR image from 25 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 7
T
AF
R
D
Figure 7: Plan view GPR image from 38 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 8
T
AF
R
D
Figure 8: Plan view GPR image from 46 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 9
T
AF
R
D
Figure 9: Plan view GPR image from 62 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 10
T
AF
R
D
Figure 10: Plan view GPR image from 98 cm below surface (a) with annotations (b).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8
Fort Juelson
Put Here
Name of Property
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
County and State
Name of multiple listing (if applicable)
Page 11
T
AF
R
D
Figure 11: High-resolution GPR imagery from Mound 1. (a) Average-amplitude plan view image from 30 cm
below surface. (b) Plan view image from 35 cm below surface. (c) East-west GPR depth profile at 23 m north.