CEGW CULTURE CHANGE: A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS TE-{ESES FQR THE m 0!? Ph. D. MiCHEGAN STATE UNWERSITY JOHN WADE STAFFORD i 9 7 i LIBR A R 1,711 mg \\\\\1\\\;L\\;\\\\\\1\\1l HUME; M ‘ M5335” This is to certify that the thesis entitled Crow Culture Change: A Geographical Analysis presented by John Wade Stafford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Wane mm Winn! Date W?— 0-7839 LIBRARY 7‘] MlChlga . .. -ui'c University www— This is to certify that the thesis entitled Crow Culture Change: A Geographical Analysis presented by John Wade Stafford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .Eh._D.—degree inmahy Wm“): 1 / Date W1 0-7639 ABSTRACT CROW CULTURE CHANGE: A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS BY John wade Stafford The Crow Indians are one of the least known or under- stood of American Indian tribes. They were nearly always on friendly terms with the dominant white society. Perhaps this explains why they have been ignored by writers and re- searchers in favor of more militant and hostile Indians with a reputation for bloodshed. The purpose of this dissertation is to reconstruct the early historic Crow culture, trace the stages of culture change, and identify the forces which account for the current development of the Crow people. The major emphasis is placed on contemporary economic activities on the Crow Reservation as well as population and settlement patterns. Prior to 1700 the Crow had lived as sedentary agri- culturalists. After 1700 they adopted a nomadic life based on hunting bison and other game and living in tipis. This represented a major change in the social, cultural, and economic life of the Crow; In adopting this neW’way of life not all material and cultural traits were abandoned. Many traits survived in modified form. Following contact with John Wade Stafford the white man shortly after 1800 Crow culture underwent a period of increasingly directed and forced culture change. At the beginning of the reservation period in 1870 the United States Government began a policy of destroying Indian culture in order to make the Indian conform to the ways of the dominant white society. This policy of forced culture change along with periodic reversals in official government policy caused the Crow to become confused and resentful. Sociological and psychological frustrations added to economic problems which persisted despite repeated governmental efforts. Soon after the reservation.was established, land was allotted to individuals for the purpose of making farmers of the Crow. This program was largely a failure because few Crow showed any interest in farming. Later attempts after ‘World war I to make cattle ranchers of the Crow also ended in failure. Increasing papulation pressure on the reservation during the 1950's led to the relocation of large numbers of Crow in urban areas of the United States. This, too, was largely a failure and most returned to the security of the reservation after a short time. In recent years a program to bring industries and jobs to the reservation has met with only partial success. Nearly every attempt by the government to improve economic conditions for the Crow has failed because the attitudes and values of the Indians were not considered. John Wade Stafford Forced acculturation has ignored cultural preferences of the Crow and resulted in alienation toward the government and more importantly, perhaps, toward the land. Reluctance to farm has been reenforced by resentment stemming from attempts by the dominant culture to force the Crow to become farmers. Permissive legislation during the past several decades has allowed the Crow to sell or lease their land to non-Indian cattlemen and farmers who nearly completely dominate the reservation economy today. After a period of over 100 years of forced accultur- ation the CIOW’Still have serious sociological and economic problems including insufficient and fragmented land holdings, lack of capital, undereducation, overpopulation, and dis- ruption of tribal and family organizations. The Crow also fear that termination of the reservation will destroy all remaining vestiges of Crow culture. Perhaps this dissertation will aid in an understanding of contemporary conditions on the Crow Reservation and suggest the need for further study on this and other reservations. Despite periodic proclamations to the contrary by politicians and others, the Crow are not yet prepared for the termination of their reservation. They remain but another example of America's unfinished business. CROW CULTURE CHANGE A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS BY JOHN WADE STAFFORD A THESIS Submitted to Michi an State University in partial ful illment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1971 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with a deep sense of appreciation that I extend thanks to all those people who gave of their time and talents in the preparation of this dissertation. I am eSpecially grateful to Dr. Daniel Jacobson, my committee chairman, for his advice and encouragement and the generous amount of time he Spent assisting me in the pre- paration of the original proposal, planning the field work, and writing the final draft. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Clarence L. Vinge and Robert N. Thomas for their cooperation and assistance. I wish to express my appreciation to the memory of Dr. Paul C. Morrison for his encouragement and assistance during the planning stage of this work. I wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Mrs. Patricia Nurre, Big Horn County Librarian, Hardin, Montana, and the staff members of the Billings Public Library and the State Library in Helena who were helpful in opening their files and research facilities to me. Mr. John C. Dibbern, Director of the Missouri River Basin Investigations Project, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings Area Office, was most cooperative and helpful. I am thankful for his assistance. ii Many members of the Crow Tribe gave freely of their time and helped in the preparation of this study. Special thanks are in order for Henry Old Coyote, Lloyd 01d Coyote, Joe Ten Bear, Blanket Bull, and Ray Bear Dont Walk for their assistance in gathering information and interpreting Crow culture and history for me. Mrs. Pat Stultz typed the final manuscript and deserves special thanks for her efforts. To my wife, Dorthy, and children--Janie, Julie, and Mark, I wish to eXpress Special thanks for their encourage- ment, patience, and understanding. Their willingness to care for themselves in my absence during the field work and long hours of library research made it possible for me to devote all my energies to this study. To them, this dissertation is dedicated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii-i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Background to the Problem Statement of the Problem Methodological Considerations Collection of Data Organization II.STUDYAREACOOOOOOOOOOQOO000000 2]- Topography, Climate, Soils, and Vegetation of North Dakota and Montana III. PREHISTORY (SMALL VILLAGE) 1300-1700 . . . . . . . 29 Origins and Migrations, Linguistic Affiliations, and Economy Summary of Crow Culture During Pre- Historic Period IV. PRE-CONTACT PERIOD 1700-1805 0 o o o o o o o o o o 38 Early Occupants Crow Territory Organization and Administration Material Culture Relations With Other Tribes Economy Population Summary of Processes of Change iv Chapter V. FUR TRADE (PRE-RESERVATION) PERIOD 1805‘18680000000000000 Contact Population and Settlement Patterns External Relationships Fur Trader Influence Military Influence Summary of Processes of Change VI. EARLY RESERVATION PERIOD 1868-1934 . . . . . . . 92 First A ency Second gency Third Agency Settlement Patterns Coming of Cattlemen Milita Influence The 188 Allotment Act Summary of Processes of Change Demography Population Settlement Patterns Housing Economy Land Ownership Patterns Leasing Heirship Problem Cattle Ranching Employment Opportunities Sources of Income Economic and Cultural Development Land Deve10pment Projects Education Trade, Transportation, and Communication Summary of Processes of Change VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Degree of Acculturation Readiness for Assimilation Predictions LIST OF REFWCES O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 244 APPENDIX A: Biography of Selected Crow Informants . . . 261 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Crow Contact History, 1300-1971 . . . . Crow Population, 1890-1969 . . . . . . Housing Distribution, 1969 . . . . . . Land Ownership, 1953, 1961, and 1967 . Amoug; and Type of Lease Land, 1952 and 19 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 0 Cash Lease Rates, 1952, 1962, and 1967 Frequency Distribution of Cash Lease Rates,196zooooooooooooo Trends in the Size of Crow Cattle Herds 1947“].96800000000000000 Crow Cattle Ranches, 1953 . . . . . . . Crow Cattle Ranches, 1965 . . . . . . . Classification of Trust Land, 1968 . . Land Used by the Crow, 1953, 1960, 1964, and 1968 O O O O O O C O O O 0 Trends in Crop Acreage and Number of Families with Agricultural Income, 1936-196900000000000000 Comparison of Land Use on Selected Montana Indian Reservations, 1968 . . Crow Occupations, 1964 . . . . . . . . Amount and Source of Crow Income, 1952 and 1964 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 16 138 144 150 163 166 167 183 184 187 191 191 193 196 199 203 Table Page 17. Frequency Distribution of Crow_ a Family Income, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 18. Disbursement of Judgment Funds . . . . . . . . 210 19. Per Acre Crap Yields on the Crow Reservation, 1969 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 214 vii LIST OF F Crow Indian Reservation Location of Study Area Crow-Hidatsa‘Migrations Bozeman Trail . . . . . Crow Country, 1868-1900 Crow Indian Reservation Crow Indian Reservation Crow Indian Reservation Settlement Patterns, and Housing Distribut IGURES 1300-1700 by Treaty by Treaty ion, 1969 of 1851 of 1868 Crow Indian Reservation Land Ownership Patterns , 1967 O O O O I O O O O O O O Non-Indian Owned Land, CrOW'Indian Reservation, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crow Indian Reservation Road System, 1969 . . viii Page 26 33 67 96 108 109 145 151 154 222 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Early accounts of the fur traders as well as the Lewis and Clark Journals provide our first real knowledge of the Crow Indians. Prior to being placed on a reservation in the early 1870's the Crow'were visited by travelers, artists, missionaries, scientists, representatives of the United States Government, and fur traders. Since the beginning of the reservation period the Crow have been studied by ethnologists and anthropologists. However, very little has been written about them during the past half century and certainly nothing comprehensive regarding their changing culture. A definitive work written in 1935 by Lowie represents a compilation of his major works concerning the Crow’over a period of four decades. It contains only a very brief section on Crow history and material culture, however, and says little about 1 the period after 1910. Mardock wrote an historical survey of the Crow in 1936, but it too says very little about the 1Robert H. Lowie, The Crow Indians (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1956). 2 period after 1920 and virtually ignores the prehistoric period.2 Thus, for a period of nearly four decades nothing really substantial has been written about the Crow regarding changes in their material and cultural history and their reaponses to these changes.‘ One result of this neglect is that we know far too little about the root causes of con- temporary Crow problems. Surrounded on all sides by hostile tribes such as the Dakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Blackfoot the Crow had to fight for their very survival. Possessing one of the best buffalo hunting grounds in the western plains was both an asset and a liability. Other tribes came in search of food and became embattled with the Grow in defense of their territory. Later, white fur trappers were attracted to Grow country by the abundance of fur bearing animals. These two major intrusions of outsiders did much to establish the character and reputation of the Crow as fighters, thieves, and shrewd traders. Their survival attests to their skill as warriors, but their peaceful attitude toward and relations with the white man caused the Crow to be identified by certain tribes as pacifists. Lack of savagery towards whites is perhaps partially responsible for historians, biographers 2George P. Murdock, "The Crows of the Western Plains," Our Primitive Contemporaries (New York: MacMillan, 1936), pp. 264-290. 3 and others neglecting the Crow, for tribes who seldom killed a white man except in self-defense have never made very thrilling reading, movies, or television episodes. Very little is being written about the Crow today except for an occasional economic study and the Annual Report to the U.S. Indian Commissioner. The Crow'remain one of the little known tribes of Indians in America today. Living on their reservation in southeastern Mbntana the Crow are going through a difficult phase in their history and are confronted by an uncertain future. Many face economic hardships, are apathetic, and lack clearly defined goals. Sociological frustration is an added burden as the CrOW’face the dilemma of choosing between assimilation and cultural survival. Background to the Problem Prior to contact with the white culture in the late 1700's and early 1800's the Crow~made the transition from semi-sedentary agriculturalists to nomadic bison hunters. For a hundred years or more the culture flourished and grew, enriched by competition and ideas from surrounding tribes. The contact period exposed the Crow to the dominant white culture which initially resulted in primarily voluntary acculturation as the Crow readily accepted many of the white man's ways. Eventually, however, the dominant white culture increasingly forced the Crow’to accept a new'way of life. WYOMING CROW INDIAN RESERVATION "NICO 1907 WW8 Fuwrel 5 Beginning in 1870 the government of the United States pursued a policy of forced acculturation and tried to destroy Indian societies by destroying their religions.3 Religious ceremonies were suppressed and efforts undertaken to destroy the Indians' cultural heritage. Children were taken from their parents' homes and put in boarding schools and forbidden to use their native language. Through a policy of land allotments to individual Indians, reservations were to be eliminated and tribal traditions destroyed. Individual ownership of property, it was believed, would help civilize the Indian and force him to conform to the white man's ways. Surplus land which was not allotted to Indians was sold to white homesteaders, thus reducing the already insufficient land holdings of many Indians. During the 1920's a more enlightened federal policy was being developed. Full citizenship was given to all Indians in 1924.4 Two years later the United States Public Health Service was asked to provide improved health service to stop the rising death rate among Indians. An exhaustive survey of the plight of Indians was undertaken in 1927 and was followed by a series of Senate investigations of the United States' 3Jack Forbes, The Indian in America's Past (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Ha , , p. 2. 4Theodore H. Haas, The Indian and the Law, Tribal Relations Pamphlet, Dept. of the Interior, United States Indian Services, Washington, D.C., 1949, p. 33. 6 Indian policies. In 1934 the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. It resulted in a complete reversal of governmental policies. Tribal societies were encouraged and new constitutional guarantees were passed for the protection of Indian cultures and religions. Tribal organizations were given status, reaponsibility, and power.5 Tribes regained control over diaposition of all tribal assets, were authorized to employ legal counsel, and encouraged to form representative tribal government under tribal constitutions. In 1950 Dillon S. Myer, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, led a movement to terminate the trust status of Indians and place them under state control and on state tax rolls.6 This was in effect an attempt to repeal the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and return to the earlier policy of forced individualization of Indian properties. Tribal resistance to rapid termination as well as an aroused public opinion helped defeat several termination bills introduced in Congress. Another plan was developed to encourage Indians to leave their reservations and move to urban areas in order to relieve the population pressure on the reservations and to deve10p economic opportunities on or near the reservations. 5Lloy d E. Blauch, Educational Services for Indians, Staff Study #18, United States Government Printing Office, 1939. 6Forbes, p. 120. 7 Several thousand Indians from the Crow and other tribes were relocated throughout the United States during the 1950's. Many later returned to the reservations because of dissatisfaction with urban living and difficulty finding satisfactory employment. A task force appointed in 1961 by President Kennedy to study Indian problems found among other things that the Bureau of Indian Affairs placed more emphasis on termination 7 This was but a of reservations than on development. continuation of the policy of forced acculturation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has for over a century been developing a policy of eventual assimilation, but progress toward that goal has been inconsistent. Policies were often at variance with professed principles and periodically reversed to the detriment and confusion of the Indian. For a long time agriculture was encouraged as the means of economic survival; then came a period when cattle raising was stressed. Since the early 1960's the emphasis has shifted to the development of industrial Opportunities on or near the reservation. All were well-intentioned policies but destined for failure be- cause they did not take into consideration the attitudes of the Indians involved and failed to consider the problem in a cultural context. Evidence of the failure of these policies can be readily seen on the Crow reservation today where the Indians 71bid., p. 127. 8 are nearly totally alienated from the land, and it is this alienation which is at the very heart of many of their problems today, both psychologically and financially. Ironi- cally, land is the most important resource which most Crow possess, but farm land which is relatively fertile and sufficiently watered, especially when irrigated, is leased to white farmers because the Crow are reluctant to under- take agricultural or cattle-raising pursuits. Even small vegetable gardens are almost totally absent from the reservation. This alienation from the land and reluctance to become directly involved with agriculture and related economies, as well as most of the other problems faced by the Crow can be better understood through comprehension of Crow culture change. After nearly one hundred years on the reservation and considerable adjustments in their way of life the Crow remain disorganized and impoverished because their values are frequently in conflict with the dominant white culture. The result is an overall malaise and feeling of hostility and frustration, inadequate knowledge and training for competing in the white man's economy, and in general an attitude of inferiority which.works against the Indians' economic well- being. In recent years the question has been raised whether Indians should be given the choice to assimilate completely into the society of the white man or to develop their own 9 viable economic communities on their reservations. The latter choice offers the Indian his best chance to preserve his identity, to maintain his culture and determine his own destiny. Whether the Crow are to be allowed to maintain their own culture and identity or are forced to assimilate into the larger society of the white man, it is highly desirable that an attempt be made to understand their contemporary problems in the context of a changing culture and value system. Statement of the Problem Although many of the contemporary problems of the Crow can be attributed to economic factors, there are deep-seated sociological and psychological considerations involved. Economic problems include insufficient and fragmented land holdings, lack of capital to compete in today's highly techno- logical society, undereducation, overpopulation, and lack of job skills and training. Non-economic problems include alienation from the land, a breakdown in tribal and family organizations, attitudes of frustration and hostility toward an economy which seems to penalize small operators, and in- sufficient opportunities for growth, education, retaining Indian culture and satisfying employment. It is believed that these problems can best be understood if steps are taken to consider both the economic and non-economic factors. 10 This can be accomplished by studying the cultural develOp- ment of the Crow from the beginning of their historic period. The purpose of this dissertation will be to reconstruct the early historic culture and trace the various stages of culture change which the Crow have experienced, and to identify the forces which have played a part in their current development with emphasis on contemporary reservation life. Methodological Considerations The methodological assumptions made are that the purpose of geography is to comprehend spatial reality; and that historical geography is concerned with the Spatial realities of the past and with geographic changes through time. Such assumptions are based on the suggestion that historical geography is a method or approach to the solution of geographic problems rather than a "field of tapical 8 With the underlying philosophical consider- Specialization." ation that historical geography is the investigation of change, the basic methodological approach of this research will be the historical reconstruction of Crow'culture. Emphasis will be placed on the relationship of a changing culture to Spatial variations through time as manifested by settlement patterns, 8Andrew'H. Clark, "Historical Geography," American Ge ra h : Invento and Pro cts, ed. P. E. James and C. J. Jones {Syracuse University Press, 1954), for the Association of American Geographers, p. 71. ll migratory habits, population pressure, economic development, and utilization of land and other natural resources. Acculturation is but one aSpect of culture change, namely the phenomena that result when different culture groups come into contact and subsequent changes in original 9 Cultures are in a patterns result for one or both groups. constant state of change in regard to knowledge, attitudes and habits, and this, in turn, affects the relationship to the land and other people with whom they come in contact. This research will emphasize the effect of the dominant white culture on the Crow and the resulting changes which affect their relationship to the land, their economy, and settlement patterns -- in short, their spatial relations. By pursuing the anthropological approach to an under- standing of culture change and taking into consideration geographical distributions through time (the historical geography approach), it is hoped that this study will identify and explain at least in part the current status of the Crow Indians. In the §gi§ng§_gf_§ggggaphy it is suggested that "Cultural geographers study the material and non-material phenomena relevant to an understanding of the Spatial 9Ralph Linton, Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes (New’York: Appleton-Century Co., 1940), pp. 463-464. 12 10 The distribution and Space relations of human cultures. usual approach is to study spatial distributions of the elements or traits of a culture. Two methods of research are identified: the developmental, which emphasizes relatively long-term processes such as cultural evolution, and the functional method which focuses on Shorter term processes of cultural interaction, flow, and movement. In another work, Ackerman suggests that cultural geographers concentrate on the study of Short-term processes which are the most Significant for geography -- demographic movements, evolution of organization and administration, and development of technology.11 This research will utilize the functional method and focus on short-term processes while incorporating the three fundamental processes advocated by Ackerman. Thus, this study will be concerned with two parameters of science -- space and time. Collection of Data Field Work A two week period was Spent on the Crow Reservation during the summer of 1968 making preliminary preparations 10The Science of Geography, National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Pub. No. 1277, 'Washington, D.C., 1965, pp. 23-27. 11Edward Ackerman, Geo ra h as a Fundamental Research Disci line University of Chicago Research Paper No. 53, 1958, p. 24. 13 and contacts, lining up informants, and planning for follow- up visits. The summer of 1969 was Spent on the reservation interviewing tribal members, and studying settlement and field patterns and economic activities. Field work.was undertaken to supplement information gained from library research, and to update the information and fill in the voids in the printed material. Field work is the only method available today to identify the nature of contemporary Crow culture and to feel the pulse of these people through the unfiltered screen of personal contact. Organization Historical Overview The culture history of the Crow Indians may be divided into five major periods: I. 1300-1700 Small Village 11. 1700-1805 Pre-Contact Nomadic 111. 1805-1868 Contact or Fur Trade IV. 1868-1934 Early Reservation V. 1934-1971 Modern Period I (1300-1700 Small Village) was inaugurated with the arrival of ancestors of the Crow-Hidatsa from Wisconsin to the Red River Valley headwaters in present-day Minnesota and the Dakotas. Data for this period are based on archaeo- logical evidence which indicates that these early Crow- Hidatsa people borrowed heavily from earlier cultures which formerly lived in the area, and brought with them at least 14 part of their western Great Lakes culture.12 Living in smal 1 scattered villages these early people subsisted on a combina- tion of hunting and farming. Sometime after arriving in the Red River Valley the Crow separated into two divisions. One group identified as the Mountain Crow migrated west to the Missouri River about 1575 and lived for a short time in earth- covered lodges and practiced agriculture. Around 1600 they migrated southwest to the area north of the Black Hills. They probably lived for twenty-five to fifty years as semi- sedentary agriculturalists near Glendive, Montana before moving up the Yellowstone Valley where they adopted a completely nomadic life. The second division -- the River Crow, on the other hand, inigrated from the area north of Devils Lake, North Dakota to the Missouri River sometime around 1700. After a short stay they continued up the Missouri River and adopted a nomadic life in the area of the Musselshell River and Judith Basin of central Montana prior to being re-united with the Mountain Crow and agreeing to accept a reservation in 1868. Period II (1700-1805 Pre Contact Nomadic) was begun sometime after 1700. The two main divisions were further sub-divided into a third group called the "Kicked-in-the- Bellies" band. All three groups were periodically re-united 12Alfred W. Bowers, "A History of the Mandan and Hidatsa" (unpubliShed Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Chicago, 1948), pp. 15-18. 15 and developed the greatest power and richest culture, and probably spent the happiest years of their history during this time. From sometime after 1700, until 1805 and the coming of the white fur traders, the Crow enjoyed a one hundred year period of cultural development and enrichment based on hunting the buffalo and living in tipis. Highlights of this period include the acquisition of the horse and gun as well as miscellaneous European manufactured goods through inter-tribal trade. The latter half of this period saw the flourishing of this trade which meant not only new goods and ideas, but also cultural enrichment from contact with many other Indian groups. Competition for horses, guns, and hunting grounds led to the development of the art of warfare on foot and horseback with status conferred on the basis of military valor. Most of our knowledge of this period is based on tribal traditions and legends. Until the advent of metal goods in the latter part of this period, few goods survived which could provide insights for archaeological research. The major cultural changes of Period II include the giving up of pottery and agriculture, switching from earth- covered lodges to tipis, the adaption of a nomadic life, emphasis on militarism, horse stealing, and accumulation of wealth in horses. Period III (1805-1868 Contact or Fur Trade) was characterized by extensive contact with white men. The two 16 mamaoaH macaw owGQSUNo Honda 50 mean omeaan> HeunnHSoauwa HHeSm OONH no>am Hanommflzro>aun< omnH uo>am anaemmHz o>mo zone memento: omoa mono son on coauon a2“ uaa m omuwoamwsono cema oonauooma H manuanoau m confined canoeoa oeooom .xwoaosoamm an? moao>oo .Hmwwuwmoo< omnom mo Goauamanoo< omna no Hansen no mop no hose comma new we Goauamasoo< cans ere an. ewaueewmwm ea roameeeea eeemeaem xoeHHeEm omen nome-ooaa HH w xnmao one maze; owww umo SH an an umnam mouags so moamonomoo homomnoaH m humwuHHmH:Mo5oaum muma moauaa umo: xsoam communes“ one moaosHmaH muaaflz Harpy Shannon coma wowaumowa HHH coaum>uomom no undemomHm maemumq m done cooom mowa Goamauumo .mnocae o anm:H omonaamm mo fiasco meH manuHsSanwm mnemoom Somam men mo cam wwwa mama mo easmnonso Hm: H>HoSH our uaoauoaa moamn nwwa unashom Gammon uo< Gammon Hmwa muameuoaam mo onam commononH uo< uaoeuoaa< Bone owaa qmmanwowfl >H coauSMSanoom omouom we can u < Goaumuasm poem awHoaH «mma coaumsaenouoouwamm commonoSH Goausuaumaoo HmoHuH mama wnamnog oo>onm8H DHSm 3mg m0 unmEmHuuom Nooa SoHSmSSum nouuom usuaaoao>on manomSSSH meme moauannunomoo now NSH sou Houoz onma Huaauemma > Swan 0 on mammmwi‘ .oano. Humaiooma MMDHmHm HUDDFW l0 ZO_._." x e u" " qfll'r" (.- RIvo . ”I. N .¢° ’00 /I\ ;\ “7 e O ‘9 Source: 6o Altrod Bowers, A History of ’ l_h_o Mandan and lulu", l9“, Unlvorslty of Chicago L :5 rnHoo JWS Figure 3 34 the River Crow reached it. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Mountain Crow left the Hidatsa at the Missouri River no later than 1600 and lived on the Little Missouri River north of the Black Hills for a period of time. Hidatsa and Grow type pottery have been found around the western tributaries of the Red River as far north as Devils Lake, along the Missouri River from the Knife River north to the Yellowstone River'and up the Yellowstone to the Hagen site southeast of Glendive, Montana. No date is more elusive nor subject to more varied Speculations than the time when the River Crow and Hidatsa split occurred. Lowie states that he can only guess that the Split occurred about 500 years ago.8 He bases his guess on a comparison of Crow, Hidatsa, and Sioux language patterns. James Beckwourth, a mountaineer and scout, who lived for many years with the Crow during the early part of the nine- teenth century suggests the Split occurred approximately 1725.9 His estimate was based on tribal legends. Largely on the basis of archaeological evidence Wedel estimates that the Crow'were west of the Missouri River less than one hundred years in 1750.10 8Robert Lowie, The Crow Indians (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, , p. . 9James Beckwourth, The Life and Adventure of James Beckwourthé ed. T. D. Bonner n on: c 1 an 0., , p. . 10Waldo R. Wedel Pre-Hist ric Man on the Great Plains (Norman: University of OEIanma Press, I96I), p. 252. 35 Thus, no consensus has been reached regarding the time of the Crow-Hidatsa Split. Part of the confusion undoubtedly results from the fact that the Split probably occurred at two different times and places along the Missouri River at least one hundred years apart. Based on Bowers' findings the Mountain Crow arrived at the confluence of the Heart and Missouri rivers around 1550, and by 1575 or 1600 had migrated further westward to live along the Little Missouri River. The River Crow reached the mouth of the Knife River sometime shortly after 1700.11 This is supported by native tradition which says one group of Crow (probably the River Crow) reached the Missouri River Shortly before the first white man (Verendrye) arrived in 1738. Since Verendrye made no mention of the Crow, it may be assumed that the River Crow had left the Hidatsa village prior to 1738. It appears that neither the Mountain Crow nor the River Crow spent much more than a quarter of a century along the Missouri River. While there they lived in circular earth- covered lodges and subsisted on corn, squash, and beans as well as wild fruits and berries; they also did some hunting and fishing. It is likely that the Mountain Crow, after leaving the Heart River area, subsisted on agricultural products supple- mented by hunting. For a period of twenty-five to fifty 11Bowers, p. 110. 36 years they became increasingly nomadic; lacking horses, however, they probably remained partially sedentary. The Hagen site near Glendive, Montana, was found to contain at least one small earth lodge, pottery, and bone tools of the 12 Mandan-Hidatsa tradition. This may have been the last permanent dwelling place of the Montain Crow before they obtained horses, abandoned pottery and agriculture and be- came fully nomadic. Eventually moving further up the Yellowstone Valley they came to rely nearly completely on bison and other game for food, clothing, and lodging. Less is known about the River Crow, but they probably left the Knife River area shortly after 1700 and migrated up the Missouri River. They became increasingly nomadic with the acquisition of the horse by the early 1700's and roamed north of the Missouri River before being driven south by the Blackfoot and eventually re-uniting with the Mountain Crow.13 After leaving the Missouri River the Crow“maintained good relations with both the Hidatsa and the Mandan. Despite the legend that the River Crow and Hidatsa Split after arguing over a buffalo paunch, some Crow families permanently 12Wedel, p. 257. 13John C. Ewers, "Historical and Comparative Survey of the Crow Indians," in William Wildschutt, Crow Indian Medicine Bundles (New York: Museum of the Afierican Indian, 1960), p. 147. 37 rejoined the Hidatsa in 1782 and a few'Hidatsa families 14 joined the River Crow; In 1845 the Hidatsa favored re- uniting with the River Crow. The three groups were able to maintain close friendship not only because of their long history of living together and sharing a common origin, but because they were not competitive. The Hidatsa and Grow had rejoined the Mandan along the Missouri River one group at a time and did not pose much of a threat to the Mandan because of their relatively small numbers. In addition, for many years after leaving North Dakota the Crow continued to trade with the Mandan -- an arrangement which benefitted both sides. Spmmary of Crow Culture During the Prehistoric Period Crow culture was characterized by small independent social and economic agricultural units with some hunting. For a period of two or three hundred years after 1300 three main groups of Hidatsa-CrOW’lived in western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota as semi-sedentary agriculturalists. The major cultural changes occurring during this period were the westward migration and eventual split with the Hidatsa, the abandonment of sedentary agriculture, earth-covered lodges, and pottery, and the switch to nomadic hunting. 141b1d,, p. 142. CHAPTER IV PRE-CONTACT PERIOD, 1700-1805 Early Occuppnts Much of the information for this period is based on tribal traditions and legends, reports of trappers, traders and frontiersmen of a later period, and archaeological evidence. The Yellowstone Valley is commonly referred to as "Crow Country" but the Crow were not the first occupants of the area. South-central Montana is a rather dry area getting only about fifteen inches of precipitation annually and thus agriculture is limited and risky. The absence of agri- culture, limited use of pottery, and a nomadic life based on hunting buffalo has resulted in few campsites being left by the early occupants for archaeological excavation. There are no large village remains nor burial mounds, but there is evidence of early and long occupation by man in the area. This evidence can be found at the Pryor Mountain caves, Ghost and Pictograph caves and bison jumps near the present city of Billings, the Pryor Gap cairns, and the tipi rings north of the Pryor Mountains. 38 39 Cave and rock shelters contain rock carvings and paintings, chipped stone projectile points, various scrapers, knives and choppers made of stone, and occasional pieces of pottery.1 The most significant findings have been in Pictograph and Ghost caves where various artifacts found to a depth of twenty-three feet indicate a very long occupation by man. The last occupation of Pictograph Cave contained metal products which suggests a fairly recent date, but there is no proof that they were left by the Crow. Pryor Gap cairns have yielded stone tools, bone and shell ornaments, pierced animal teeth, glass beads and potsherds.2 Although these cairns are located in the heart of Crow country there is no proof that they were left by Crow’Indians. Many tipi rings have been found on the present Crow Reservation, but their Specific age is not easily determined because of the absence of artifacts and camp rubbish.3 Thus, the Crow were not the original inhabitants of the Yellowstone Valley and its tributaries, but they may have occupied some of the caves and built the tipi rings and stone cairns in the latter half of the seventeenth century. It can be stated with a fair degree of certainty that the early 1Waldo Wedel, Pre-Historic Man on the Great Plains (Norman: University of OkIahoma Press, I961), p. 244. 2Ibid., p. 260. 31bid., p. 268. 40 inhabitants as well as the later ones, possibly including the first Crow’in the area, were wanderers in search of food and game and thus left few permanent village sites and artifacts. When the Crow arrived there were apparently few occupants other than the Shoshoni. Crow Territory It seems likely that the Mountain Crow entered the Yellowstone Valley sometime between 1650 and 1700 and the River Crow arrived along the Upper Missouri River in Montana in the early 1700's. Throughout the eighteenth century the two groups roamed the northern part of wyoming and most of Montana south and east of the Missouri River. The River Crow seemed to center their activity in the area of the Musselshell River and Judith Basin while the Mountain Crow focused on the Big Horn River Valley.4 Although central Montana was considered Crow country it is possible that they shared it with the Shoshoni who remained along the Upper Yellowstone Valley until a smallpox epidemic occurred in 1781. Although surrounded by hostile tribes such as the Blackfoot, Dakota Sioux, Assiniboin and Northern Cheyenne the Crow wandered throughout Montana during most of the eighteenth century following the bison, deer, and elk. On 4Merrill G. Burlingame, The Montana Frontier OHelena: State Publishing Co., 19 2), p. 22. 41 rare occasions they ventured west of the Rocky Mountains to trade or steal horses from neighboring tribes, but more frequently they ranged east into North and South Dakota to hunt or trade. After the horse and gun became available, yearly journeys occurred to trade with the Mandan near present day Bismarck, North Dakota and to western Wyoming to the Shoshoni villages. Crow'country focused on the Big Horn Mountains which straddle the border between Montana and Wyoming, but the nomadic Crow'wandered over a much wider area. Camp was moved every week or two during the summer hunting season and normally moved about fifteen miles each day.5 The two main divisions remained apart except during the summer hunt, or perhaps an occasional Sun Dance or trading journey. For a while the sub-division of Mountain Crow known as the Kicked-in-the-Belly group separated from the main band.6 Although there is some disagreement it seems that at least part of the Mountain Crow Spent the winter in the Wind River Basin southwest of the Big Horn Mountains in northern wyoming where pastures were plentiful for their horses. The rest of the band Spent the'winters in the wooded bottomlands along the headwaters of the Powder and Big Horn rivers. 5Thomas LeForge, Memoir of a White Crow Indian, as told by Thomas B. Marquis (New York: The Century Co., 1928), p. 148. 6Robert H. Lowie, The C ow Indians (NeW'York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 195 , p. . 42 During the spring and fall they roamed the area east and north of the Big Horn Mountains from present-day Sheridan, 'Wyoming to west of Billings, Montana. The two main groups were politically independent and each had its own leaders. The primary reasons for this division were probably economic, political, and military expediency, but smaller bands also facilitated travel and made it easier to find sufficient pasture for the horses. Except for the summer months the two groups remained inde- pendent until they were re-united on a reservation in the early 1870's. Crow territory had plenty of game and plenty of wood for fires and lodgepoles. Accepting a date of approximately 1700 for the Crow to settle in the middle Yellowstone Valley and little or no contact with the white man prior to 1805, the Crow had one hundred years in which to develOp a new culture free from interference from European influence and domination. Organization and Administration Pplitical Organization The Crow probably never had any such person as a "chief" in the normal sense of the word. Each of the two or three bands had a leader or group of leaders in place of one central authority or chief. To be recognized as a leader or chief required social standing and military prowess. A high 43 degree of status could be acquired for qualities such as being liberal with one's personal possessions, being a good story teller or a successful medicine man. But far more important than these was the reputation one gained as a 7 To become a leader or chief one had to perform warrior. the following four exploits: plan or lead a successful raid, capture a picketed horse in an enemy camp, he the first to touch an enemy, and snatch a gun or bow'from a foe. Men who performed all four of these deeds became part of a military aristocracy or band council, and from this group one person would be chosen to head the camp. This camp head had only limited power and could be replaced if the luck of the camp went bad. He decided when and where to move camp and appointed men to serve as police to regulate the summer communal hunt, settle diSputes, and keep order. Crow culture thus placed much emphasis on social position, but one became a leader through individual merit rather than by heredity. Except for Special occasions such as the summer hunt an individual was relatively free to act as he chose. Throughout most of the year Crow leadership was informal. Like many Plains tribes the Crow'were constantly at war with other tribes. They, therefore, developed 7Robert H. Lowie, "The Crow Indians," W Anthro olo ed. Margaret Mead and Ruth Bunze New'Yor : George Braziller Co., 1960), p. 362. 44 militaristic patterns in their culture. Religious exper- iences were closely related to the search for military prOWBSS‘WhiCh provided social prestige. Three major factors aided the deve10pment of inter- tribal warfare and a war psychology on the Great Plains. The Crow occupied one of the best big game areas and were the envy of surrounding tribes. Continued pressure from westward migrating groups added to the competition for this hunting territory. Secondly, life developed around the horse and bison. To adjust to the movement of the bison a tribe needed the mobility provided by the horse. The best way to obtain horses in large numbers was by raiding other tribes. Thirdly, by the latter half of the eighteenth century a well- organized system of inter-tribal trade had evolved with 8 Special emphasis on exchanging guns for horses. Trading rivalries eventually deve10ped which created animosities be- tween competing factions. Thus, competition for hunting territory, horses, and other trade goods led to military en- counters between various tribes. Introduction of the horse increased the Opportunity for confrontation and conflict. Surrounded by enemies the Crow had to fight for their territory and horses. Military Skill was needed for 8 John C. Ewers, Indian Life on the U er Missouri (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1925), p. i3. 45 survival, so the granting of status to warriors became an important part of the system. Story telling and recalling of war SXploitS helped stimulate the war psychology and led to the development of what amounted to a cultural compul- sion for Crow'males to equal or surpass former brave deeds of older men.9 The nearly continuous struggle for survival against larger, more powerful tribes for over a century greatly affected the cultural development of the Crow, created a spirit of militarism, affected trade patterns, and contributed significantly to the type of religiousbeliefs and customs which emerged. The principal motives for 'military activities were the personal lust for fame and glory, the capture of booty, and the desire for revenge.10 Material Culture Aggpisition of the Horse One of the most important influences on Crow'culture was the acquisition of the horse. The exact date of this occurrence is unknown but evidence strongly suggests a date Shortly after 1730.” It seems the horse diffused north from Santa Fe sometime after 1600 along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains and west of the Continental Divide to the 9Lowie, Indians of the Plain (Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press, 1963), p. 366. 1°Ib1d. 46 Shoshoni by 1690-1710.11 The Flatheads obtained horses by 1720 and traded a few of them to the Blackfoot and the Crow by the early 1730's.12 Pierre de la Verendrye saw no horses among the Mandan in 1738, but two of his men who Spent the winter of 1738-39 reported that in the Spring of 1739 several tribes visited the Mandan to exchange embroidered bison hides and other Skins. These visitors had horses but did not trade them. In 1742 one of Verendrye's sons obtained two horses from the Mandan and later met a tribe believed to be the Crow near Powder River and saw ponies in their possession.13 Native tradition related through tales describe Crow pe0p1e wandering on foot with pack dogs pursuing game. This mode of life probably did not last very long after the Crow arrived in Montana. It seems highly unlikely that the Crow would have completely abandoned sedentary agriculture for nomadic hunting without benefit of the horse. In any event Crow culture reached its golden age during the eighteenth century based on two animals -- the bison and the horse. 11Francis Haines, "The Northwest Spread of Horses Among the Plains Indians," Ame ican Anthro olo ist, Vol. XL, 1938 , pp. 429-360 12David Thompson, Narratives, pp. 330-32. 13Francis Parkman, "Parkman's Story of the Verendryes," South Dakota Historical Collections, Vol. V11, 1914, p. 390. 47 The switch to nomadic hunting represented one of the ‘most important changes in Crow culture in over five hundred years. The introduction of the horse changed the balance of power and gave a military advantage to nomadic warriors such as the Crow over sedentary villages or nomadic tribes 14 The horse also revolutionized the Crow without horses. economy and caused significant differences in prestige and ‘wealth. Capture of horses became a great war deed and giving them away was the epitome of manhood. The horse increased mobility and therefore the range of hunting, trading, and war parties and thus altered the Spatial relations of the Grow in several ways. Greater mobility increased tribal contacts, maximized chances for *warfare, and aided the Spread of disease. Hunting tactics and weapons were probably modified as horses could carry heavier loads of meat. Heavy tipi covers and lodge poles were more easily tranSported so camp movements were affected by the acquisition of the horse. Women carried lighter loads during camp movements and thus the division of labor ‘was affected. Men gained more leisure time by using the horse in hunting. The horse travois could be used to trans- port wounded or disabled tribesmen who prior to the 14John C. Ewers, "The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture," Bur, Amer, Ethp, Bul. 159, 1955, p. 538. 48 introduction of the horse were left behind.15 Use of the horse probably inhibited the use of heavy pottery and bulky basketry and may have been responsible for the adoption of the tipi. The use of the horse thus favored the diffusion of goods and ideas and was a major agent of Crow acculturation. The horse remained an important part of Crow culture even after the start of the reservation period, the end Of inter- tribal warfare, and the extermination of the buffalo. §pp§ Unlike the horse which came from areas to the south- west of Crow country, the gun came from the northeast. Tribes to the southwest had no guns and tribes to the north- east had no horses for a considerable period of time. The Crow were located in a favorable intermediary position to Operate a rather lucrative trade. French explorers intro- duced guns to tribes around the western Great Lakes by the third quarter of the seventeenth century. From this area the gun Spread west to the Assiniboin by 1690, to the Blackfoot by 1730, and the Mandan by at least the middle 15Joe Medicine-Crow, "The Effects of European Culture Upon the Economic, Social and Religious Life of the Crow Indians" (unpublished Master's thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University Of Southern California, 1939), p. 18. 49 1730's as they had guns when first visited by Pierre de la 8.16 The Crow probably acquired their first Verendrye in 173 guns from the Mandan in the late 1730's or shortly thereafter. The Mandan began capitalizing on the gun and horse trade as early as 1740. From then until 1804 the main items of inter- tribal trade were horses and guns. The influence of the gun on Crow culture was very significant. In addition to killing large numbers of animals, the Crow used the gun to defend themselves against their enemies. More important is the fact that the gun made the previously self-sufficient nomadic bow and arrow hunting Crow dependent on the white man, directly or indirectly, for guns, ammunition, and repairs for their weapons. The Spatial relations Of the Crow were greatly affected by both the gun and the horse. Both were used to drive the Shoshoni from the Yellowstone Valley and to limit encroachment from other tribes. The gun and horse also made the Crow territory eSpecially valuable in intertribal trade because of its central location. Dwellings The Crow acquired a reputation for having beautiful tipis. They were exquisitely painted and decorated, and the extra-long lodge poles gave the tipis an hour-glass 16Ewers, Indian Life on the Up er Missouri, pp. 34-36. 50 appearance. Supposedly the Crow had more tipis than any other tribe because they had access to an abundance of lodge poles in the nearby Big Horn Mountains. If true, this was another situational advantage of the Crow country. The poles were usually three to five inches in diameter and up to thirty or forty feet in length. Because much work was involved in making lodge poles they were moved from camp to camp. The tipi cover usually consisted of about a dozen bison pelts. Thus, the combined weight of the lodge poles and cover required two or three horses to transport each tipi. Clothing Crow clothing consisted entirely of skins -- usually of deer, elk, or bison. Everyone wore leather moccasins. Men wore Shirts, leggings, and a bison robe; in warm weather they sometimes wore only a breechcloth. WOmen wore knee-high leggings and long dresses Of skin -- Often decorated with h. 17 hundreds Of elk teet Children dressed similarly to their parents except that young boys went naked until about age ten. Tools Crow tools included hafted stone hammers for use as war clubs and for pounding berries, wedges Of horn, mortars and 17Lowie, Indians Of the Plains, p. 49. 51 pestles of stone, awls and scrapers of bone, knives of chipped flint, and drills made of antler prongs.18 Cooking utensils were made of soapstone and bison hide, bags and pouches of skin, cups and bowls of wood, and Spoons, cups, and small dishes from the horns of bison or mountain sheep. The paunch and pericardium of the bison were used for carrying water. The Crow'made no basketry, possessed no metallurgy or textile crafts, and pottery and woodworking were absent or poorly developed.19 The lack of manly crafts was one reason given for the apparent idleness of Crow'males who had little to do when not on the warpath or hunting. Relations With Other Tribes Shortly after entering Montana the Crow were con- fronted by the Shoshoni on the southwest and the Blackfoot on the north. The latter were more powerful than the Crow 20 The Crow and and drove them south of the Missouri River. Blackfoot remained bitter enemies even after the start of the reservation period. Even though the Crow eventually forced the Shoshoni from the Yellowstone Valley, the two 18George P. Murdock, Our Primitive Contem oraries (New York: MacMillan, 1936), p. 269. 19Lowie, Indians of the Plains, p. 59. 20Ewers, Indian Life on the U r Missouri, pp. 34-36. 52 tribes remained friendly for the most part and were in- volved in a lively trade.21 The Crow'had less contact with tribes west of the Rocky Mountains, and except for occa- sional misunderstandings got along fairly‘well with them. The Mandan and Hidatsa to the east were good friends Of the Crow’and also good trading partners. Thus, throughout the pre-contact period the Crow'maintained good relations with most tribes except the Blackfoot. Trading relations helped stabilize conditions between the tribes and also enriched Crow culture by exchange of goods and ideas. Economy Throughout much of the Pre-Contact Period (1700-1805) the Crow economy was primarily one of subsistence. Only enough game was killed to meet the needs for food, clothing, lodging, and tools. Later on surplus animals were killed and meat and Skins were used for trade articles. The horse and gun were also important parts Of the economy. The horse became the unit of value by which one's wealth could be measured. The gun improved hunting and military efforts and served as a trade item. Having enormous amounts of material goods was not necessarily a Sign of wealth. Far more importance was attached to the way in which one's wealth was amassed and 21Ibid., pp. 34-42. 53 used. One of the major virtues of Crow culture was being 22 liberal with one's possessions. Misers and hoarders were ridiculed. Strangers and visitors were warmly greeted and provided food and lodging. Fathers gave horses and other gifts to celebrate a son's victorious exploits in battle. This attitude toward wealth and personal property became a cornerstone of Crow culture. Such attitudes which developed during subsistence hunting periods were slow to change, and had a lasting effect on later economic and social adjust- ments forced on the Grow by the dominant white culture during the reservation period. The territory occupied by a band was communally owned, SO there was never a question Of inheritance of land until the reservation period and individual allotments. Prior to the acquisition of the horse there was very little private property to dispose Of other than sacred medicine bundles. A rather clear-cut division of labor existed. Men hunted, fought, cared for their horses, and made weapons. Women gathered fire wood, fruits, berries, and roots, cooked, erected and dismantled the tipi each time camp was moved, prepared skins, and made clothing. Men were members Of a relatively leisure class and women were second class 22James Beckwourth, Life and Adventures of James Beckwourth, ed. T. D. Bonner (London: MacMillan Co., ‘—'T_"1856 , pp. 139-143. 54 citizens in that they were virtual slaves to their men. Women performed all the menial tasks.23 The Crow began to trade bison skins and meat to the Mandan and Hidatsa in exchange for corn, squash, and beans soon after the tribes separated. After settling in the Yellowstone Valley the Crow were ideally situated to partic- ipate in trade with the Mandan and Hidatsa for French and English goods such as guns and metal Objects. These were traded to the Shoshoni for goods of Spanish origin such as horses, blankets, bridles, and beads.24 Thus, the Crow be- came the peddlers Of the plains and served as intermediaries between eastern and western tribes. As late as 1800 direct trade with white men remained minimal, and intertribal trade was still flourishing. The Crow'and many other tribes had a variety of European goods including household utensils and clothing adornments. The major trade items, however, were horses and guns. Trade rivalries eventually developed between com- peting tribes who sought to limit the fIOW’Of weapons to their enemies. After the Sioux occupied areas in eastern Montana it became difficult for the Crow to travel to the 23Edwin T. Deni , "0f the Crow Nation," Five Indian Iripgp of the Upper M.ssouri, ed. John C. Ewers (Norman: University 0 0 oma Press, 1961), p. 195. 24Ewers, Indian Life op the Upppr Missouri, p. 17. 55 Mandan and Hidatsa villages and this trade eventually disintegrated. Population There are few reliable estimates of the population of the Crow during the pre-contact period or earlier. The best and most frequently quoted figures are Mooney's estimate of approximately 4,000 in 1780.25 The Lewis and Clark expedition visited the Grow in 1806 and estimated the 26 It is population to be 3,500 people in 400 lodges. generally believed that the Crow'never numbered over 7,000 peOple and more often were considerably less, being period- ically decimated by disease and warfare.27 Summary of Processes of Change The most striking change in Crow culture during the Pre-Contact Period (1700-1805) was the adoption Of a nomadic life based on hunting bison and other game. Migration to a somewhat drier physical environment required certain adjust- ments. Agriculture became more risky and was abandoned. 25James Mooney, "The Handbook of American Indians," B reau of American Ethnolo , Bul. 30, Vol. II, 1910, p. 286. 26Ori inal Journals of Lewis and Clark ed. Reuben G. Thwaites (New YorE: KEtiquarian Press, I959), Vol. I, p. 287. 27Murdock, p. 287. 56 Adoption Of the skin tipi and other changes in material culture were closely related to the requirements of the new Plains environment. Introduction Of the horse increased the mobility and range of hunting and raiding parties as well as the frequency and type of confrontations with other tribes. The development of a war psychology was made mandatory because Of hostile relations with the Blackfoot, brought on at least in part by Crow horse stealing and the competition for hunting territory. Acquisition of the horse and gun made it possible for the Crow to drive the Shoshoni from the Yellowstone Valley. The gun remained an alternative rather than a replacement for the bow and arrow for a long time and helped make the Crow competitive with their neighbors. In addition, the gun reduced the amount Of time required for the hunt and thus provided leisure time for other activities. The semi-subsistence, self-sufficient economy which developed was eventually altered as the emphasis switched to acquiring a surplus of meat and Skins to be used in trade for guns and other European goods. The Crow became dependent on outsiders for ammunition and replacement parts for their guns. Being centrally located in the inter-tribal trade network led to cultural enrichment and the infusion Of new ideas as well as economic benefits. 57 DeSpite their relatively small numbers the Crow were able to effectively resist the aggressions of hostile tribes competing for their territory. Migrating tribes from the east exerted increasing pressure and warfare became an important aspect of Crow culture. CHAPTER V FUR TRADE (PRE-RESERVATION) PERIOD 1805-1868 Contact The first white men in Montana and thus the first whites to contact the Crow'may have been Francois and Louis Verendrye in 1742-43, although this is greatly diaputed.1 It is possible that the Verendrye brothers never went farther west than the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is known that Spanish traders came to visit the Mandan in North Dakota in 1792, but there is no evidence that they preceded Lewis and Clark into Crow country in 1805. A French-Canadian named Menard had lived with the Mandan for over ten years prior to 1795 and may have visited the Crow.2 The first account of the Crow along the Yellowstone River was written in 1796 by the French fur trader Trudeau. Another trader, Francois Larocque, who traveled with the Crow in 1805, however, wrote the earliest known description of their way of life, their customs, and the appearance of their LMerrill Burlingame and K. Ross Toole, A Histo of Montana (New'York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co., I§575, p. 56. 2K. Ross Toole, Mbntana An Uncommon Land (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, I955}, p. 27. 58 59 homeland -- the area of the Big Horn Mountains and the 3 Yellowstone Valley. Prior to getting the horse in the 1730's the Crow had lived in this area as hunters, but by the middle or late 1700's they had learned much about European technology through trade with the Mandan. The exact time and place of first contact with a white man may never be known, but it is highly probable that some- time during the latter half of the eighteenth century the Crow saw their first white man, a Canadian fur trader, during their annual trading party with the Mandan and Hidatsa along the Missouri River near present-day Bismarck. It is certain that the Crow knew about the white man for quite some time prior to meeting him having acquired guns and horses in- directly from him during the 1730's. The Crow area in the Yellowstone Valley was isolated from the main line of white penetration and communication along the Missouri River. As a result the Crow'had less contact with other people and new'ideas and acquired modern ideas and knowledge of the world later than other tribes. The first American visitors in the Yellowstone Valley appear to have been members of the Lewis and Clark exped- ition who traveled down the Yellowstone Valley and through 3John c. Ewers (ed.), in William Wildschutt, Crow Ind“ Medicine Bundles (New'York: Museum of the American Indian, 1960 , p. l 8. 60 Crow territory on their return from the Pacific Ocean in 1806.4 In the decade following Lewis and Clark many fur traders entered Montana and made contact with the Grow. The Lewis and Clark expedition was not set up to establish fur trading posts. It was sent out for the purpose of geographic exploration and to establish friendly relations with the Indians. On the return trip from the Pacific Coast, Clark and a small party of his men came down the Yellowstone River and passed through the heart of Crow country. They met many Indians but it is unknown whether any of them were Crow. Several of Clark's horses were stolen. Because of their reputation as horse thieves it is generally believed that the Crow'were the perpetrators, thus making this the first known CfOW’ttht of horses from an American.5 Clark gave the first complete description of the Big Horn and Yellowstone valleys, the timber, and animal herds, and made the first estimate of the number of Crow lodges and papulation.6 He told of Crow'trade in horses and mules and apparel to other tribes in the northeast for guns, ammunition, axes, kettles, and other European goods. These were in turn 4Toole, p. 27. SReuben G. Thwaites (ed.), Ori inal Journals of Lewis and Clark (New'York: Antiquarian Press, 19595, Vol. V, Pp. 251-252. 61bid., p. 297. 61 traded to tribes from the southwest for more horses, bridles, and blankets of Spanish manufacture.7 According to Clark the Crow also had arm bands of iron and brass, some buttons, spears, and brass arrow points in their possession. Clark prepared a Speech to deliver to the Crow in which he complained about the theft of his horses, and told of houses, cities, and riches of the white man which would be shared with the Crow if they cooPerated with the Great White Father, the President of the United States.8 The speech was supposedly never delivered, but the CroW“were soon to learn much about the white man through their contacts with the Mandan and the fur traders who followed Lewis and Clark. Pogulation and Settlement Patterns Francois Larocque who lived with the Crow for a short time in 1805 said that the Crow wintered near the foot of the Big Horn Mountains, Spent Spring and fall along the Yellowstone River, and the summer along the Tongue River.9 The Crow even drew'a map for Larocque showing where they 10 could be found depending on the season. Thus, deSpite 71bid., Vol. II, p. 103. 81bid., Vol. v, pp. 299-300. 9Ewers, Crow'Indian Medicine Bundles, p. 149. 10Mark Brown, e Plainsmen of the Yellowstone (New York: Putnam & Sons, 19315, p. 29. 62 their nomadic wanderings the CroW'seemed to fOIIOW'a definite pattern in their migrations. Members of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1806 re- ported that the Crow roamed both sides of the Yellowstone River and reported seeing one band of 150 lodges near the 11 They Big Horn River and 200 lodges on the Tongue River. estimated the total papulation of the Crow to be 3,500. James Beckwourth reported that the Crow had 232 lodges on Clark's Fork sometime during the 1820's with four to six 12 warriors in each lodge. After the completion of Fort Cass at the mouth of the Big Horn River in 1832, four hundred Crow lodges moved close to the post. Father DeSmet found two camps of Crow along the Big Horn River in the early 1840's and estimated the population to be 3,000.13 In 1854 he wrote that the population of the Crow’was 4,800 living in 480 lodges and roaming from the Rocky Mountains, Wind River and Yellowstone Valley to the Black Hills.14 ”Thwaites. W. Vol. VII. pp. 1.03-1.05. 12Beckwourth, Life and Adventures, ed. T. D. Bonner, pp. 179-181. 13Hiram M. Chittenden and Alfred T. Richardson, L fe Letters and Travels of Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet (New'York: Harper Co., 19035, Vol. I, p. 739. 14;hi§., Vol. III, p. 1035, 63 The Crow population throughout the period from 1805 to 1868 apparently varied from 3,000 to 5,000, being occasion- ally reduced by outbreaks of smallpox and other diseases as well as by warfare. Larocque was told by the Crow'that they once had 2,000 lodges but were reduced in size about 1802 15 by a smallpox epidemic. The smallpox epidemic which struck the Mandan villages in 1837 and spread up the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers may not have affected theCrOW'serious- ly since they were in the Wind River area at the time.16 In 1848 smallpox killed many Crow, especially children, and in 1849 influenza killed an estimated 600.17 Other factors which limited the population included venereal disease and the practices of infanticide and abortion, both of which were‘widespread.18 The Crow told Catlin in 1832 that they spent most of their time in the Yellowstone Valley, moved Six to eight times during the summer, and Spent the winter in heavy- timbered bottom lands.19 Denig is in basic agreement with 15Brown, p. 86. 16Ibid., p. 85. 17Edwin T. Denig, "or the Crow'Nation," p. 186. 18Ibid. 19George Catlin, North American Indians (Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, 1965), Vol. I, pp. 9- 0. 64 this view stating that the CrOW'divided into several bands and wintered at the mouth of the Powder River, in the Wind River Mountains, and along the Yellowstone Valley.20 Regardless of the accuracy of the number of lodges and the papulation, all reports indicate that from the time of contact in 1805 until the beginning of the reservation period, the Crow roamed over a large area of the Yellowstone Basin and adjoining areas in pursuit of the bison. To facilitate hunting and ensure pasture for their many horses, the Crow divided into several groups to spend the winter and re-united in one large group in the summer. ‘With the growing pressure of the Sioux and Cheyenne on the east and the . Blackfoot to the north, the Crowrwere gradually forced west of present-day Billings and concentrated in the area of the great bend in the Yellowstone River east of Bozeman, Montana by 1850.21 External Relationships Fur Trade The period from 1805 to 1850 was the era of fur trading. Many posts and forts were built in Crow country during this period to handle the fur trade. Meat did not last long. 20Denig, pp. 142-143. 21Toole, p. 119. 65 The first permanent structure built by a white man in Montana was Fort Lisa, constructed in 1807 at the mouth of 22 It was the Big Horn River in the heart of Crow country. the first trading post and commercial enterprise in Montana. Manuel Lisa, proprietor of the fort, introduced seeds and implements to the Crow’and taught them how to raise food crops. His blacksmith shop sharpened the metal tools and weapons acquired earlier through trade with the Mandan and made new'ones for the Crow. Manuel Lisa formed the Missouri River Fur Company in 1808 and it became the first fur company operated by an American in Montana.23 Fort Lisa was taken over by the company in 1809 and abandoned in 1811. A second fort was erected on the same site in 1822. It was abandoned the following year. During its short history in Montana the Missouri Fur Company built four forts and all failed. The American Fur Company also built four posts along the Yellowstone River, beginning with Fort Cass near the 24 Three years later mouth of the Big Horn River, in 1832. it was abandoned in favor of Fort Van Buren near the mouth of the Tongue River. Fort Alexander was built in 1839 at the 22Newton C. Abbott, Mongagg in the Making (Billings: Gazette Printing, 1964), p. . 231bid. 24Chittenden and Richardson, Vol. I, p. 240. 66 mouth of the Rosebud.25 Fort Sarpy was built approximately twenty-five miles downstream from the mouth of the Big Horn River in the early 1840's and became the most important fur trading post among the Crow. It took advantage of Crow trade in light and valuable beaver skins which had previously been taken to the Mandan. The American Fur Company had a virtual monOpoly in the area of the Upper Missouri River from 1827 to 1860, having absorbed all Opposition by mergers, cutthroat competition, and payment to the Crow to annoy the other trading companies.26 During the 1830's traps of rival companies were destroyed or robbed. Part of the success of the company can also be attributed to the 1825 Friendship Treaty in which the Crow'agreed to trade only with American companies.27 The American Fur Company had twenty forts or posts and nearly 500 agents and employees, including a few Indian agents who supposedly represented the Indians' interests.28 Fort Union, at the junction of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, 25Brown, p. 77. 26John C. Ewers, in Foreward to Two Leggins: The Makin of a Crow Warrior, by Peter Nabokov New York: Thomas Crowell, 19675, p. XVIII. 27Amerigan State Pagers, Indian Affairs, Vol. II, Documents, Legislative an xecutive of the Con ress of the United States (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 183 5, p. 602. 28Edward M. Bruner, "Mandan," in Perspectives in American Indian Culture Chan e, ed. Edward H. Spicer a (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 215. 67 a onde I... OBI! FIQI. . 52m» z<2mNom 32:00. .01... l.- 8; fig-0:: m4. .10 wagerefiu 62033 ii 30.... (I :2: >353; O 1.. no...- . 3.0. :2; can. ,, o. o // razed-u Scone , , Q colon.- /.\\\I||lr 15 lo ‘34- p.05 «.3 >39. .8... to. 6.00.9! nausea-Se use. 0 an:- 3: Scot teao .0... 80.8: hCOt 68 became the most important post with its satellite posts along the Yellowstone River for trade with the CrOW'and Similar ones in Blackfoot territory. For a period of time Fort Union made immense profits, thanks in part to trade in illicit whiskey which had been outlawed in 1832 in Indian Territory, but which nonetheless was an important trade item.29 Several other fur companies erected trading posts in Montana, but fewwmet with.much financial success for a variety of reasons. The Blackfoot annoyed forts along the Yellowstone River for fear the Crow'would trade for guns and ammunition. The Crow, it seems, preferred fighting and stealing horses to hunting and trapping, so trade with them was supposedly never very profitable.30 Most of the fur companies found that Indians could not be relied on as trappers and traders and thus sent their own men to trap the animals.31 This was not only an expensive proposition, as was the maintenance of trading posts, but was to have a profound effect on CrowBWhite relations. By the mid-1830's beaver hats had gone out of style, so it be- came more profitable to trade for bison skins. The American 29Brown, pp. 75-77. 30This opinion by Beckwourth, p. 306, and Denig, p. 204, may be questioned since both were employees of the American Fur Company. 31Toole, p. 46. 69 Fur Company closed its operation on the Yellowstone in 1860 and abandoned Fort Union in 1865.32 Trader Influence Many of the trappers were French-Canadians, but there were also some Scots, Irish, Spanish, Americans, Portuguese, 33 Several different languages were half-breeds and Negroes. Spoken and although many trappers were illiterate, some kept journals of their experiences. Few looked on saving money as a virtue. Most preferred to spend it for whiskey, 34 gambling, dancing, and women. Fort Sarpy was described as little more than a house of ill-repute and a center for dancing, partying, and screaming brats.35 DesPite the fact that most of the early trappers and traders were lower-class illiterates, they learned the Indian languages, intermarried, and became acculturated to Indian ways. Many probably knew the Indian better than the later, better-educated and more sophisticated white men who came as missionaries or military officers. James Beckwourth and Robert Meldrum married Crow women and lived among the 32Brown, p. 85. 33Ibid., p. 69. 34Ibid., p. 70. 351bid., p. 82. 70 tribe for a quarter of a century or more and were the source of much of our early knowledge of Crowculture.36 The daily interaction of Indians and white trappers was a major factor in the acculturation of the Crow. En- couraged by the fur companies to intermarry to gain trading advantages, the white trappers were obligated by allegiance to their employer as well as loyalty to the Crow. By serving as interpreters, the trappers were in a position to pass on ideas, attitudes and values of the dominant white society to the subordinate Indian culture. For some trappers Indian women served only as an outlet for sexual gratification. White men sometimes assumed that Indian women had no morality regarding sexual matters, but it is possible that Indian women yielded to the sexual advances of the trappers to win their friendships and gain advantages in the fur trade. Some employees of the fur companies respected the Indian, treated him fairly, and tried to improve his standard of living. Edwin Denig Spent twenty-three years as an agent at Fort Union and admired Indians as human beings. He was critical of writers such as Catlin and Maximilian who, after a short experience among the Indians, romanticized about them 36F. V. Hayden, "Contributions to the Ethnography and Philology of the Indian Tribes of the Missouri Valley," Iggnsaggioga,gf the American Philosophical Society, XII, l 63, p. 395. 71 and relied too heavily on illiterate white trappers for much of their information.37 In Denig's view, the Crow had many bad habits but also exhibited many good character- istics. Misfiion Influence Not everything that came with the white man was bad for the Crow. Contact resulted in the acquisition of EurOpean tools, cooking utensils and weapons, new'agri- cultural cr0ps, and new foods and clothing. Christianity also came with the white man and exposed the Crow to a white man other than the trapper. The first missionary to visit the Crow'was Father DeSmet, a Jesuit priest, who came in 1840.38 He was well- received by the Crow'and told them about‘Hell and the Great Spirit. A.Crow chief told Father DeSmet that only two Crow men could escape Hell for they were the only ones who had not killed, stolen, nor practiced other excesses forbidden by Christianity. Father DeSmet was also well-received during his second visit in 1842 when he told the Crow about New York, Philadelphia, London, and Paris, large multi-stories houses, railroads and steamships, churches, and flying balloons. The Crow seemed impressed. He also told them 37John C. Ewers (ed.), Five Indian Tribes of the U er Missouri (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 19615, p. xxxn 38Chittenden and Richardson, Vol. I, p. 240. 72 about the Ten Commandments, Jesus, The Apostles' Creed, and Sodom and Gomorrah, and asked them to change their ways regarding stealing and immorality, but he got no conversions or baptisms.39 Father DeSmet said that the Crow were the best-formed savages he had met and were superior in intelligence even though very superstitious. He also remarked that the Crow had thus opposed the introduction of liquor among their groups. In 1840 the Crow'saw their first matches when Father DeSmet lit his pipe and they thought he was the greatest medicine man they had ever seen. Even though the Crow seemed to admire Father DeSmet they did not readily accept his teachings. Father Point baptized fourteen Crow children among the Piegan during the winter of 1846-47, and Father DeSmet baptized several Crow in 1863, but no other missionary work was done with the Crow 40 The first Catholic mission for Crow was 7.41 until the 1880's. not established until 188 Protestant missions did not become influential in Montana until reservations were well- established. Most Protestant churches devoted their attention to white settlers. Only the Baptists showed much interest in the Crow.42 391hid., p. 395. 4°1bid., p. 240. 41Abbott, p. 115. 42Ibid., p. 117. 73 The lack of mission stations and limited contact with white men has been suggested as one reason why the Crow retained their conservative religious views and practices well into the twentieth century.43 Military Influence On August 4, 1825, the Crow Signed a friendship treaty 'with the United States, "For the purpose of perpetuating the friendship which has heretofore existed, as also to remove ."44 Under all future cause of discussion or dissention . . the terms of the treaty the Crow'admitted that they resided 'within the territorial limits of the United States, acknowledged the supremacy of the United States and claimed its protection, agreed that the United States had the right to regulate all trade and intercourse, agreed to bar all non- citizens of the United States from trading with them and to refrain from molesting any Americans passing through their territory. The Crow’further agreed that if they were molested in any way by Americans they would go through the proper channels to seek redress from the United States Government rather than take revenge themselves. The Crow agreed to return any stolen property and refrain from trading guns, ammunition, or weapons to any nation, band, or tribe not in amity with the United States. 43Ewers, ngw’Medicine Bundles, p. 170. 44American State Papers, Indian Affairs, Vol. II, p. 602. 74 The friendship treaty was a milestone in that it was the first official treaty the Crow had ever signed with the United States. Except for occasional thefts from white settlers and soldiers the Crow lived up to all the agree- ments in the treaty and won the undying enmity of the Sioux for remaining friendly with the white man. By 1850 the fur trade era was coming to an end and the Crow had as yet had little contact with the white man other than traders, a few travelers, and missionaries. The predicted extermination of the Crow'due to losses in war and disease had not occurred because of protection provided by the military forces of the United States. Some Crow'warriors later expressed the belief that the Crow survived because of the power of their medicine bundles.4S Under the terms of the first Treaty of Laramie in 1851, the Crow agreed to restrict the boundaries of their homes and hunting grounds, to maintain peace, reimburse whites for any damage done them by the Crow, and to permit the United States Government to establish forts and build roads in exchange for food and other goods and the payment of annuities. The treaty was never officially promulgated, although a later court decision ruled that it was binding on the United States.46 45Ewers, Crow Medicine Bundles, p.173. 46Brown, p. 127. 75 Gold was discovered in the early 1860's in western Montana and resulted in a great influx of miners, merchants, and cattlemen.47 After the Civil war whites flocked to western Montana in record numbers. Wagon trains were repeatedly harassed by the Sioux and other hostile tribes and the settlers demanded that the United States Army protect them. AS the number of white settlers increased so too did the influence of the United States Army on the Crow. In 1864 the Bozeman Trail connecting the Platte River in Wyoming with the gold fields in western Montana was opened across Crow territory. Three military forts were 48 Fort Reno and constructed in 1866 to protect the trail. Fort Kearny were built east of the Big Horn Range in northern wyoming, and Fort C. F. Smith was built at the north end of the Big Horns in southern Montana along the banks of the Big Horn River. Fort Smith, built August 12, 1866, was the last white outpost between the Big Horn Mountains and the gold fields of western Montana. It was less terrorized than either of the other two forts because it was somewhat west of the Sioux hunting grounds and was unopposed by the Crow.49 47Toole, p. 119. 48Margaret 1. Carrington, Absaraka: Home of the Crows (Chicago: Donnelly & Sons, 1950 , p. . 491bid., p. 288. 76 The Crow earned the enmity of the Sioux for their friendly relations with the army posts where they traded and informed the soldiers about Sioux war parties.50 At times the Crow'and Sioux fought within sight of Fort Smith d.51 while the troopers watche On August 1, 1867, a group of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho attacked a party of hay cutters a short distance from Fort Smith and caught the army unprepared despite the repeated warnings from the Crow about an impending disaster. The following day another band of Sioux attacked a party of wood cutters near Fort Kearny. Shortly after these two episodes the United States Indian Department gave guns to the Crow and other Indians to help them hunt for food, and the war Department gave guns to white 52 settlers to fight Indians. Predictably, Indian uprisings soon followed. Because of constant Sioux harassment and an agreement reached in the second Treaty of Laramie in 1868, the three forts were abandoned. Before the departing troOpS were out of Sight, Fort Kearny was burned to the ground by a band of Sioux.53 5°1bid., p. 152. 51Charles E. Deland, "Fort C. F. Smith on the Bi Horn " S uth Dakota Historical Collection, Vol. XV, 19 0, p. 181. 52Ibid., p. 193. 53Brown, p. 187. 77 Second Treaty of Laramie During the summer of 1868 the Crow accepted the terms of the second Treaty of Laramie. It cancelled any agree- ments reached in the earlier treaty in 1851, even though the Crow'never signed the first treaty and it was never officially promulgated. The new'treaty set aside western South Dakota as a reservation for the Sioux. Northeastern wyoming east of the Big Horn Mountains was to be Indian territory from which whites were barred without permission from the Indians. The Bozeman Trail was to be closed and its forts abandoned. The Indians agreed to remain peaceful, to relinquish land north of the Platte River in wyoming except for hunting purposes, and to stop interfering with railroad construction and harassment of the white settlers.54 The Crow agreed to accept a reservation in Montana bordered on the north and west by the Yellowstone River, on the south by the wyoming boundary (Lat. 45 N.), and on the east by the 107th meridian (107 W. Long.).55 The United States agreed to build a warehouse for storage of Crow goods, a residence for an agent and miscellaneous other buildings. In addition, a physician, teacher, carpenter, miller, engi- neer, farmer, and blacksmith were to be provided at govern- ment expense. Rations of food and clothing were to be 54lbid., pp. 183-185. 55United States, Statutes at Lar e, XV, p. 649. 78 provided for each child over four years of age for a period of four years. The Crow agreed to compulsory school for their children. Thus, what began in 1805 as first contact with a white man had grown by 1868 to the point where the United States had assumed considerable influence over the life and culture of the Crow. The coming of large numbers of white trappers and traders, missionaries, miners, merchants and cattlemen had forced a new'way of life on the Crow; Wagon trails, cattle trails, and riverboat travel had opened Crow country to an invasion by outsiders, and Grow culture could 56 Increased confrontation with the never be the same again. Sioux and other hostile tribes added to the pressure from the white settlers. White Attitudes Toward the Crow Early fur trappers and traders provided us with much of our information regarding early Crow culture. James 57 DeSpite occasional Beckwourth kneW’the Crow very well. exaggerations he provided information about the martial atmoSphere of Crow culture as well as some idea of the material culture and social organization. He admired the Crow'and attributed their bad reputation to their need for 56Brown, p. 56. 57Beckwourth, Life and Adventures. 79 excitement and preference for warfare and horse stealing 58 over hunting and trapping. In his view, the Crow were justified in stealing horses in order to hunt, and this led to constant war with surrounding tribes. The Crow had to be good fighters in order to survive. Edwin Denig spent most of the period from 1833 to 1856 as an agent of the American Fur Company at Fort Union and probably knew the Crow about as well as any white man. He married two Indian women and, like Beckwourth, was quite 59 fond of the Crow; He was critical of many writers who wrote about the Crow and other Indians after knowing them for only a short time. Denig corroborated Beckwourth's views regarding the Crow but with far more objectivity. According to Denig, the Crow had many filthy and disgusting habits including a gross sex life; they were unclean, disease ridden beggars, notorious liars and thieves, and 60 On the other their children were completely undisciplined. hand, they were generally at peace with the white man and most Indians except the Blackfoot and Sioux. They were not very bloodthirsty toward their enemies except when seeking revenge, and took women and children prisoners rather than 58Ibid., p. 256. 59Denig, pp. 138-150. 601bid., pp. 149—155. 80 killing them like other tribes. They had few regulations, yet settled most of their domestic quarrels without blood- shed, and were never first to break a treaty. George Catlin saw the Crow for only a short period of time and tended to romanticize them as gentlemanly, very civil, and friendly. He noted that they stole or "captured" horses only in retaliation against white men who treSpassed 61 in Crow territory. Catlin was apparently the victim of someone's practical joke, for his evaluation of the Crow was quite inconsistent with most other observers. Maximilian Spent a year among various tribes of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone rivers in 1833-34. Although he admired certain features of the Crow such as their dress and craftsmanship, particularly their work with skins, he regarded them as brute savages.62 Unfortunately he relied heavily on the tales of fur traders for much of his infor- mation. Father DeSmet took a more charitable attitude toward the Crow. He found them to be inquisitive, ingenious, and anxious to learn.63 61Catlin, pp. 53-54. 62Maximilian, Prince of Wied, Travels in North America, Pt. I, in E r1 Western Trave1s ea. Reuben G. Thwaites (ClevelandEfl'K. diarfi'do., 19033, Vol. xx11, pp. 346-3540 63Chittenden and Richardson, Life, Letters & Travels of Father DeSmet, I, p. 394. 81 Many early trappers and traders and later white settlers viewed the Crow as filthy and of little use except for financial exploitation. Some saw the Crow as the "most arrant rascals in the mountains . . ." and "never been known 64 to keep a promise or do an honorable act." To another, they were "turbulent and hostile at all times, never omitting to rob white men when opportunity served . . ."65 Captain Raynolds visited the Crow in 1859 and said they were beggars who intruded into tents, rolled their filthy bodies in army blankets, and "their personal cleanliness is disgusting, and their bodies covered with vermin, they have no ideas of chastity, and greater degradation could be with "66 difficulty imagined. Crow'men were honest but women and children would steal anything. Many whites who shared these negative attitudes toward the Crow'had traveled through Crow'country and had been robbed and victimized by them. However, many settlers who came primarily as miners, cattlemen, farmers, or merchants capitalized on the bad reputation of the Crow to further 64Thomas Farnham, "Travels in the Great Western Plains," Earl Western Travels 1748-1846, ed. R. G. Thwaites (Cleveland: C1ark Co., 19055, Vol. XXVIII, p. 264. 65William T. Hamilton "A Trading Expedition Among the Indians in 1858," Contributions to the Historical Societ of Montana (Helena: State Pub. Co., 19005, V01. 111, p. 61. 66w II II illiam F. Ra nolds The Crow Indians Ex lorin y 76 ’ fies well, the Northern Plains 1804-18 ed. Lloyd McFarling Idaho: Caxton Printers, 19555, p. 257. 82 discredit them and eventually reduce the size of their reservation. This led to the widely held view that the demise of the bison would be beneficial in that it would "gradually force the savages to till the land and, with the rest of mankind, earn their bread by the sweat of their brow; When that time comes, and not till then, will the Indian question be solved. So long as an Indian can have a gun and a pony, and find buffalo on the range, he never can be civilized."67 Whether the early settlers thought poorly about the Crow as a result of being victimized by them or because of a feeling of superiority, most who criticized their values and attitudes toward stealing, cleanliness, sex, or religion were evaluating them by white standards of morality and did not understand Crow culture and Grow values. CEQW’AttitUdeS Toward the White Man Except for an occasional meeting with missionaries, travelers, and governmental representatives such as Lewis and Clark, military officers, and Indian agents, the only white men the Crow'met for a half-century or more after contact were lower-class, illiterates and half-breeds whose main interests appeared to the Crow to be whiskey, women, and furs, but not necessarily in that order. Many white men 67E. S. TOpping, The Chronicles of the Yellowstone (Minneapolis: Ross and Haines, 1968 , p. 238. 83 who came later, including the educated and literate, wanted Crow land and cheap labor. Thus, it is not surprising that the Crow'were not too impressed with most of the white men whom they met. According to Beckwourth, the Crow'believed everything a white man told them, never killed a white man while he was with them, and even mourned the death of three white 68 friends by cutting off fingers. Nonetheless, he said the Crow'resented the invasion of their territory by white immigrants and believed the white man sent annuities because he feared the Crow.69 Apparently the Crow'were impressed with Catlin's skill as a painter and considered him a great medicine man.70 According to Maximilian the Crow despised the white man but were hospitable to him and seldom killed him even though they 71 frequently robbed him. The Crow seemed to like Father DeSmet personally, and smoked the calumet with him. They feasted him royally while professing great friendship and admiration for the white man.72 68Beckwourth, p. 170. 69Ibid., p. 434. 7OCatlin, p. 48. 71Maximilian, pp. 351-353. 72Chittenden and Richardson, Life and Letters of Father DeSng, I, 394- 84 One might interpret these varied opinions about Crow attitudes toward the white man as further evidence of their deception, inconsistency, or ambivalence. But regardless of how the Crow felt about the white man it is generally true that they were peaceable toward him, seldom killed him, and lived up to their part of the friendship treaty signed in 1825. An 1859 Crow scouting party permitted an army exped- ition under the command of Captain Raynolds to cross their territory, but warned him not to build any houses.73 In 1863, in one of the few recorded cases where the Crow attacked a white man, they fought with a group of prOSpectors who were violating their territory near the Big Horn Mountains.74 Many years later after the Crow’had accepted a reservation, Chief Plenty Coups admitted that the Crow helped the white man not because they loved him, but for selfish reasons believing cooperation with the white man was the only way to save their country.75 Thus, it seems that the Crow'had little respect for ‘many white men whom they met. They liked many of his ‘material goods, but not his way of life, and permitted him 73Raynolds, pp. 261-262. 74Tapping, p. 21. 75Frank B. Linderman, Plent Cou 8 Chief of the Crow (New'York: John Day Co., 19305, p. 152. 0rigina11y t1t1ed American: The Life of a Great Indian. 85 to pass through and later settle in Crow territory for one important reason -- their mutual dislike of the Sioux. Crow'Attitude Toward Other Indians The Crow usually got along fairly well with most tribes except their eternal enemies, the Sioux and Blackfoot. The Sioux fought with the CrOW'primarily over hunting territory. But they also fought because of the Crow friend- ship with the white man. The Blackfoot fought with the Crow over territory and horses. Occupying one of the best hunting grounds in the Great Plains and being a relatively small tribe with many horses -- most of which were stolen -- the Crow were frequently encroached upon by tribes seeking to steal their horses or to utilize their hunting territory. The Crow'may have had more horses than any other tribe on the Upper Missouri River. Maximilian estimated that they had 9,000 to 10,000 horses in 1833 when he first saw them.76 No one could deny that the Crow'were notorious horse thieves. Most of their troubles with other tribes could be attributed to their continuous horse stealing raids, some of which bordered on the farcical as first one Side stole a ‘herd and then the other side retaliated. ‘Warfare resulting from horse stealing so decimated the Crow that some people 76Maximilian, p. 351. 86 predicted that the Crow’would be exterminated by the end of the nineteenth century.77 Not all the neighboring tribes were hostile toward the Grow. The Flathead, Nez Perce, and Shoshoni maintained good trade relations from time to time, despite Crow'tend- encies toward horse theft and other hostile activities. Occasionally the Crow hunted bison with other tribes. In the 1830's a group of 200 lodges of Snake (Shoshoni) Indians joined the Crow’and intermarried with them.78 Except when seeking revenge the Crow’were not very bloodthirsty. But, on occasion they did torture enemy prisoners, burn them alive, scalp them, and even cut off their heads.79 In one battle in 1845 the CrOW'destroyed an entire Blackfoot band of fifty families and took 160 women and children prisoners.80 Unlike other tribes, the Crow usually took.women and children prisoners instead of killing them. They frequently intermarried with them. Male prisoners sometimes became Crow warriors and fought against their own brothers and tribes.81 77Catlin, p. 49. 78Beckwourth, p. 304. 791bid., p. 120. 80Chittenden and Richardson, Life and Travels of Father DeSmet, II, 524. 81Denig, p. 148. 87 The Sioux remained hostile toward the Crow’even after the beginning of the reservation period and forced them out of eastern Montana in the 1860's, until the United States Army ended Indian hostilities. The continued struggle for survival against more powerful tribes for over one hundred years helped determine the nature of Crow culture. The Crow readily accepted guns and ammunition from the white man, but they rejected his whiskey for a long time. Reliance on the white man not only made the Crow'less self-sufficient, but it affected their relationships with other tribes. Shhhhgy of Processes of Change The influence of the fur trade on the Crow'was profound and destructive. The trapper brought smallpox and other diseases which decimated the Crow, and whiskey which had detrimental effects both economically and socially on the tribe. In the view of an army doctor, the greatest impact on the Crow’and other Indians came through alcohol, syphilis, and smallpox and not the state, church, or Army.82 According to Mooney the chief causes of the declining Indian populations were, in the order of importance, smallpox and other epidem- ics, tuberculosis, sexual diseases, whiskey and related dis- sipation, removals, starvation and subjection to unaccustomed conditions, and low vitality due to mental depression under 82Brown, p. 83. 88 misfortune and wars.83 All of these affected the Crow except removal, and all but war were brought by the white man. Few Crow'were killed in warfare. For a long time most did not use whiskey. But the overall effect of contact was devas- tating to Crow'culture. Before the white man came the Crow'and other Indians probably killed more bison than they needed at a given time, especially since it was difficult to control the number which perished when stampeded over a cliff. However, the fur trade resulted in wholesale slaughter of beaver, deer, and elk, and seriously reduced the number of bison. What the fur traders missed, the later skin hunters finished. The fur trade also had a very important effect on the division of labor among the Crow. ‘Women now'had to Spend more time preparing skins and hides for trade. This probably resulted in a more sedentary life with fewer camp movements. The presence of trading posts added to the animosities between the Crow and Blackfoot, as each feared the other would gain an advantage in guns and other weapons. While readily accepting many of the white man's material goods, the Crow rejected many of his values and attitudes. Despite their apparent affection for Father DeSmet, the least affected aspects of Crow culture after 83James Mooney, "The Handbook of American Indians,fl Bhreau of American Ethnology, Bul. XXX, Vol. II, 1910, p. 286. 89 a half century of contact with the white man were the religious practices and social ideals. Indeed, after witnessing the brawling, drunken, greedy white man the Crow'were perhaps justified in feeling that their own values were far superior. During the 1860's Crow culture was relatively intact, but the economy had been disrupted by Sioux hostility which made it difficult for either men or women to leave camp to hunt or gather berries and fruit. In addition, Sioux attacks against the Mandan prevented the latter from pro- ducing a surplus of corn. Trade with the Crow, therefore, 84 was no longer possible. A more-ready supply of European goods led to a diminution of native crafts. Tools and utensils of stone and bone were replaced by metal objects; log cabins were beginning to replace the tipi; wool blankets replaced bison Skins; and clothing was of wool or cotton rather than of deer skin. Guns replaced the bow and arrow. Food came increasingly from the white man as hunting de- clined in importance. New foods such as coffee, sugar, and tea were introduced.85 To compensate for the loss of population due to small- pox and wars, the CrOW’intermarried with the Shoshoni and 84Bruner, p. 229. 85Raynolds, p. 262. 90 other tribes and with whites. The Crow could never again be the same culturally or biologically. Forced further and further west by the Sioux and restricted on both the west and south by the Rocky Mountains, the Crow gradually found themselves restricted in living space and were forced to adjust their life-style accordingly. Perhaps the greatest change which was increasing with intensity and destined to become a formidable barrier to later acculturation was the psychological impact of adjusting to the unfamiliar role of dependency on the United States Government for protection and for a food supply as the bison were exterminated. Contact with the white man did much to alter the physiology of the Crow through intermarriage and the intro- duction of disease, influenced the economy, and introduced new ideas regarding social and religious values. The white man provided guns and ammunition to protect the Crow against annihilation by the Sioux and Blackfoot. The people were saved, but the white man eventually dominated and altered their lives so extensively that the culture was destroyed. With all the changes that were occurring and indica- tions that conditions might get worse, the promise of the white man to protect them from the Sioux.and provide for their essential needs seemed to be an attractive alternative. The Crow, therefore, agreed to accept a reservation. 91 Unknown to the Crow’was the fact that their way of life which had been altered so greatly through normal con- tact and exposure to and voluntary acceptance of new ideas would hereafter be forcibly changed through deliberate planning by the United States Government. CHAPTER VI EARLY RESERVATION PERIOD 1868-1934 It is perhaps easier to understand the acculturation of the Crow which occurred after their placement on a reservation by briefly reviewing the pattern of governmental policies after 1868. The CrowWwere placed on a reservation under the terms of a treaty agreed to by them and ratified by the United States Senate. Beginning in 1871, however, treaty making was abandoned in favor of agreements with tribes, and these agreements required ratification by both houses of Congress.1 All treaties then in force were to be honored unless mod- ified by mutual consent or subsequent federal statutes. During the early 1870's the national policy was aimed at Christianizing and civilizing the Indian by placing him on a reservation, replacing his tipi with a house, making school compulsory for his children, and forbidding certain Indian ceremonies and customs.2 The general attitude of the 1Theodore H. Haas, The Indian and the Law, United States Indian Service (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949), p. 23. 2"A Sk etch of the Develo ent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and of Indian olicy,"pgureau of Indian Affairs 92 93 period can perhaps be summarized by noting the statement of Francis C. Walker, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in 1872: "There is no question of national dignity, be it remembered, involved in the treatment of savages by civilized powers . . . The Indian should be made as comfortable on and as uncomfortable off their reservations as possible . . ."3 In 1884 the Secretary of the Interior published a revised list of regulations. Agents were told to induce Indians to work and persuade them to trade their ponies for poultry and stock. The new rules ask that a Court of Indian Offenses be established on each reservation which would among other things withhold rations for a period of time, penalize plural marriages, imprison medicine men for retarding progress, and punish any Indian who gave or sold liquor on the re- servation.4 The various policies of the government were not only inconsistent and arbitrary, but the administrators appointed to carry them out were often incompetent and corrupt.5 Many were political appointees from the East who had never seen an Indian, had never farmed, and kneW'very little about Indian cultures in general. Most simply carried out orders 3Ibid., p. 8. 4Reghlations of the Indian Department (Washington: GPO, 188 , pp. " 0 5William T. Hagan, American Indians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 19615, p. 124. 94 from Washington and in so doing became virtual dictators ‘with immense powers to force cooperation on the part of the Indians.6 Children were taken from their parents and placed in boarding schools, the agent determined where Indian residences were located, and used rations of food and annuities promised by the Treaty of 1868 to force cooPeration and withheld them for punishment. The agents were ordered to get the Indians into wooden houses, to wear civilized dress, cut off their braids, and take up farming. Later laws and rules were designed to facilitate the civilizing of the Indian by giving him an individual allotment of land which would help destroy tribal ties. Firs; Agency The first agency was established along the Yellowstone River near the mouth of Mission Creek approximately seven miles east of present-day Livingston, Montana and close to the western boundary of the reservation.7 Construction of the agency began in 1869 and was completed during the Spring of 1870. Shortly afterward the cottonwood buildings burned down and were replaced by adobe buildings. There was a residence for the agent, a schoolhouse and five other 6Clark/Wissler, Indians of t e United States (Garden City, NeW’York: Doubleday & Co., 19 , p. . 7Thomas H. LeForge, Memoirs of a White Crow Indian, as told by Thomas B. Marquis (New'York: The Century Co;, 1928), p. 32. 95 buildings for a carpenter, blacksmith, miller, engineer, and farmer in accordance with the terms of the treaty. Later on a few'houses were built but most of the Crow preferred to live in their tipis. Major E. M. Camp from nearby Fort Ellis became the first agent but was replaced after a few'months by F. D. Pease, a civilian. Other employees included a teacher- preacher, a physician, a carpenter and a blacksmith.8 The Mountain Crow wintered near the agency, but during the summer they roamed the reservation and hunted bison. For several years about twenty lodges of River Crow Spent most of their time away from the reservation near the Missouri River and seldom came to the agency except for annuities and rations. The agent tried to encourage them to come nearer the agency by offering them gifts but met with little success. The Crow were unhappy with the treaty placing them on the reservation and with the goods they received. It was reported that the Mountain Crow were eSpecially wild and would take many years to civilize deSpite their friendship toward the white man.9 8Mark Brown, The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone (New York: Putnam & Sons, 19 l , pp. 2 - 29. 9Letter written December 8, 1869 from Alfred Sully, Superintendent of Montana Indians to Father DeSmet in H. M. Chittenden, Life Letters & Travels of Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet (New York: Francis Harper, 19055, Vol. IV, p. 1588. 96 win 0007mm? >~uPZDOU x>O~uU .30. 6:0... nit-San Cd 69.3.2.0...) o... .9 £05.52; 0:» £30.. {-2 “Quezon not... ofi m. 53.23. 0 n u 0 I. H I o .,. . a. o .w ., .. u. v 4 d U uncou< 0‘ o o! u 00 I: My once-09¢ «.1 a. 00 N be 40 u I Qv uueoo< «0 so u 0 .0 1.0.0 ego-.3 . 1 a l Scion. 0 unto-1 I30 0 o o I .d I O O A O J O J .. .unc::l ‘05.? a. O .‘ .01: s so .038 «0.0....8 ‘90 91/ 5‘ w .-80.o_. 97 Tribal life remained pretty much the same for the adult Crow. Life was simple and necessities readily avail- able from hunting as well as annuity payments and rations. Idleness became a great problem. Children were forced to get haircuts and attend School and were given candy for each day they attended.10 By the spring of 1871 the teacher boasted that nine children had learned the alphabet and three could read simple lessons. Church was well attended by the white agency employees, but many Indians came only to hear the organ music. Dances were encouraged by the agent and held several times a week, but the Indians seldom danced, preferring only to watch. Several wagon loads of goods were delivered to the Crow'near the agency in 1869. The law required that annuities and goods be distributed fairly, but agents used them to encourage the co0peration of the Crow. Agents and other employees frequently took kickbacks or juggled the rations and were involved in other corrupt practices. Crow attitudes toward annuities and goods were mixed. Bison was preferred to beef which was thrown away or fed to 11 dogs when game was plentiful. Bacon was fried to get lard for frying bison or tanning skins. Very little of the flour 10LeForge, p. 40. 11Ibid., p. 56. 98 was eaten, but the sacks were used for clothing or wall decorations. The Crow did not like the annuity clothes and frequently sold or traded them. They were seldom worn until the bison were gone. Most Crow men wore only a breech cloth in summer and bison skins in the winter. Women still preferred to wear dresses of animal skins. The Treaty of 1868 did more than put the Crow on a reservation and provide them with annuities and food rations. It was worded in such a way that farming would be encouraged 12 It provided that at the expense of hunting and idleness. a trust fund be established to provide additional goods for a period of ten years. In addition, ten dollars were given to every Crow who continued to roam and twenty dollars for those who chose to farm. To every family or lodge that re- mained on the reservation and took up farming, a COW’and a pair of oxen were provided. Money was set aside to present gifts to the ten farmers producing the best crops. Despite these incentives the Crow turned their backs on farming. Agent Pease reported that only seven acres had been cleared for cultivation the first year. By the second year a total of nearly one hundred acres of crops were planted. Nearly all the work was done by white agency employees. During the first year only one CroW'agreed to remain at the agency and farm. Others tried farming but did not like it 12U.S., Sggth§e§_h§ Lar e, XV, p. 649. 99 and soon abandoned it. As an added inducement to farming, twenty-five double houses were built for the Crow, but during the first four'years of the agency few Crow stuck with farming. Most Crow preferred hunting bison or scouting for the United States Army.13 By the summer of 1871 the population of the Mountain Crow'had increased to approximately 2,700 by the addition of several bands of people from other tribes, and the River CrOW'numbered 1,400.14 Shortly after the first agency was built, white settlers to the west of the reservation began agitating for the removal of the Crow. Sioux raiding parties provided a convenient pretext for blaming the Crow for much of the harassment of the whites. In 1873, largely because of white agitation against the Indian in general, the government con- Sidered offering the Crow a new reservation north of the Yellowstone River in the Judith Basin, but the idea fell through when business interests in Helena and white squatters in the Judith Basin opposed it.15 In 1873, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Montana complained to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 13Letter from F. D. Pease to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, August 31, 1871 (in the files of the B.I.A., Crow Agency, Montana). 14lbid. 15MarkBrown, e Plainsmen of the Yellowstone (New York: Putnam & Sons, 19 1 , p. 31. 100 16 Farm land was that the first agency was unsatisfactory. scarce, timber had to be hauled twelve miles, whiskey traders across the Yellowstone River were corrupting the Crow, and there were few Sheltered areas for them to camp. In 1875 a decision was made to build a new agency (Absaroka) approx- imately seventy miles east of the first agency near the present-day town of Absarokee. It was argued that the new location offered better farming opportunities, fewer problems with the wind, and was twenty miles south of the Yellowstone River and thus farther away from the illicit whiskey trade. The commander of Fort Ellis opposed the move because it was nearer Sioux country, farther from the fort and thus more difficult to defend.17 Nonetheless the agency was moved during the Spring of 1875. Secghd Agency By the fall of 1875 several buildings had been con- structed at the new location. The whiskey traders soon moved their businesses down the Yellowstone River to be as near the new agency as possible. In the fall of 1875, at the request of the agent, the reservation boundary was extended twenty miles north of the Yellowstone River by executive order of the President of the United States. This extension, however, was cancelled a femeonths later. 16Ibid., p. 432. 171bid., p. 433. 101 The Crow were given wagons and other implements as part of a plan to encourage them to become farmers shortly 18 after moving to the new agency. The Crow did not like the wagons, preferring instead to use a saddle horse and travois. By the end of the summer of 1875 no hay had been cut, and agency livestock had overgrazed the pasture for a considerable distance around the agency. The Sioux were still causing trouble and many Crow warriors had left the agency to serve as army scouts. Food rations were scarce during the first winter at the new'agency and annuity goods were late in arriving. The Crow, therefore, complained about the new agency. Conditions at the Absaroka agency were similar to 19 Hunting still interested the Crow those at Mission Creek. more than farming, and the tipi was still preferred to the house. Tipis were pitched in camp circles just as in the old days, and meals were cooked in brass kettles hung on a tripod over an Open fire. A Sun Dance was held every year or two and ceremonial tobacco was planted. Throughout the 1870's the Crow still preferred to bury their dead on scaffolds, but a few people were beginning to accept earth burials. On one occasion, however, after a child was buried in a box, someone dug it up the same night and placed the 18LeForge, p. 126. 191bid., pp. 133-145. 102 body in a tree.20 The practice of mother-in-law avoidance was strong and widely practiced. Bigamy was common and polygamy was not unknown. Agent Frost reported that corn was planted for the first time in 1878 by agency employees with the help of several Crow'who promised to plant their own the following year.21 Perhaps to curry favor with Washington, certain agents had a tendency to exaggerate the degree of accultur- ation which was occurring. In 1882 Agent Armstrong wrote, "In regard to farming, I had no difficulty in getting a larger number to work than I could manage and direct, or provide with seed . . . the indications are I shall have a much larger number of Indians farming next season."22 Despite such optimistic reports farming remained a minor interest of most Crow. During the first few years of both the Mission Creek and Absaroka agencies, the Nez Perce, Flathead, and Bannock visited and hunted with the Crow. DeSpite repeated Sioux raids against the Crow the two tribes occasionally met to exchange women and children prisoners. Such meetings in 2°1bid., p. 195. 21Annual Re rt, 1878, p. 86, cited by George F. Will and George E. Hyae, Corn Among the Indians of the Up er Missouri (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 19 , p. 36. 22Annual Report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1882, p. 161 on file at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Headquarters, Crow Agency, Montana). 103 broad daylight were safe provided ample warning was given, for it was considered a dishonor to take advantage of a foe 23 A major battle between the under these circumstances. Crow and Sioux occurred in 1873 near the mouth of Pryor Creek. Few Crow'were killed, but a period of mourning followed with slashing of the body and cutting off of finger joints.24 Indian attacks on the Crow agencies averaged one per week until 1876, after whidh there was a decline in Indian warfare. End of the Bison Although there had been earlier warnings about the eventual extermination of the bison, the end came quite abruptly. In a four year period between 1879-1882 a total of 250,000 bison skins were sold in the Yellowstone Valley.25 The year 1881-82 was the peak season with 100,000 skins turned in. By the following season only 45,000 skins were sold and after 1883 almost none. By the Spring of 1883 the bison were gone from the Yellowstone Valley.26 In 1886, 23 241bid., p. 96. LeForge, p. 100. 25Wayne Gard, The Great Buffalo Hunt (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 19685, pp. 259-69. 26E. Douglas Branch, The Huntin of the Buffalo (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 19625, pp. 218-19. 104 William T. Hornaday took twenty-five bison for the U.S. National Museum, but had to work hard to get them as they had become as "wild as deer."27 The end of the bison meant the end of the preferred food supply of the Crow, the loss of material for clothing and housing, and the end of the last remaining status-giving occupation for males in Crow culture. Nomadic bison hunting as a way of life had ended a decade or more earlier with placement on a reservation, but hunting for sport and food remained important and helped make reservation life more tolerable. With the bison gone, the Crow male became more frustrated as he had to turn to farming. A sullen mood to- ward reservation life and negative attitude toward farming were closely associated with the loss of the bison and would remain long after the last bison was gone. The senseless, needless slaughter of bison by white hunters who took only the Skin, tongue and a little meat while permitting the rest of the carcass to rot on the prairie did very little to alter the negative perception which the Crow had of the dominant white culture. Attempts by the white man to justify the extermination of the bison to make way for cattle did little to change Crow attitudes. 27Ibido, pp. 225-270 105 Chief Plenty Coups said, "When the buffalo went away we became a changed people" and idleness "has stolen much 28 from both our minds and bodies." "When the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not lift them up again."29 Ehd of Absaroka Agency During the first fifteen years of its existence the Crow Reservation had seven or eight different agents. Several were charged with corruption, although it was 30 difficult to prove many of the charges. Rations were stolen or substituted for with inferior products. Cattle were illegally grazed. Much of the collusion between white traders and agents was painfully evident to the Crow who had further reason to question the superiority of the white man's ways. The Absaroka agency lasted only nine years. The hall- marks of this near-decade were mismanagement, corruption, and fraud. DeSpite the direct loss to the Crow of rations and lease money, perhaps the greatest loss was the diminution of what little faith the Crow had in the white man and his ways. 28Linderman, p. 252. 291bid., p. 311. 30Brown, pp. 436-439. 106 In 1883 a United States Senate investigating committee visited the agency and reported that the Crow'were increas- ingly idle, relying on annuities for subsistence, and making little progress toward self-support.31 Shortly afterward it was decided to again move the agency to a new location which was more favorable for farming. Reduction in Reservation Size The first Treaty of Laramie in 1851 had provided a reservation of approximately thirty-nine million acres for the Crow but it was never officially promulgated. The second Treaty of Laramie in 1868 set aside approximately eight million acres between the Yellowstone River and the Wyoming border west of the 107th meridian (long. 107 W.).32 In 1880 the Crow agreed to cede an area on the western part of the reservation to the United States. The area was officially opened to white settlement in 1882.33 The Crow further agreed to cede approximately 5,400 acres in a strip 400 feet wide along the Yellowstone River to the United States for construction of the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1881.34 31James M. Hamilton, From Wilderness to Statehood, A H t of Montana (Portlana: Binsford & Mort Pub. Co., 195 , p. 20 . 32U.S., Statutes at Lar e, XV, p. 649. 330.3., Stat tes at Lar e, XXII, p. 42. 34Ibid., p. 157. 107 In 1891 the Crow ceded most of their land west of Pryor Creek to the United States for $946,000.35 Thus, the reservation was reduced to approximately three million acres. Later agreements permitted construction of the Big Horn Southern Railroad (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy) across the reservation from Sheridan, Wyoming to Fort Custer, and a branch line through Pryor Gap. In 1904 the Crow agreed to the third and final major reduction in the Size of their reservation by selling a large 36 There was also area on the north Side of the reservation. a provision included in this agreement for setting aside two sections in each township on the reservation for the State of Montana for school purposes. Other minor land sales were made to the United States for Custer Battlefield, Fort Smith, and a limestone quarry. In the early 1960's the Crow sold approximately 5,000 acres to the United States for the purpose of constructing Yellowtail Dam and Recreation Area. AS of 1968 the reservation had been reduced to two and one-quarter million acres.37 Thus, in a one hundred year period the reservation was reduced from over eight million acres to just over two million acres. 35U.S., St tutes at Lar e, XXVI, p. 989. 36U.S., Statutes at Lar e, XXXIII, Part I, p. 352. 37Ihg hhgtana-Wyoming Indian, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, B. . ., u y , unpaginated appendix. MONTANA M"WWI '3ch IDAHO . UTAH . I 4 all» * I CROW INDIAN RESERVATION IV TREATY OF “M TIIATY IOUNDAIY """" not unruuun. Coma: United Item lumen M Long”. 740. "I! "our. 0 109 \ - ~__-_-__-_‘-__‘_—_-u MONTANA no I 0,, - —- ——-‘r WYOMING CROW INDIAN RESE RVATION IT TREATY OP 1.“ TREATY IOURDARY 1 CEDID 16.2 2 CIOID 1.01 3 CIDID 1004 4 PRIIIRT RIRIRVATIOR 1.1! Source: Lu. and mom- Auoctlng The Crow lndlm Ila-our! lint loch Insulation. No.74. 1041. “'3 Home 7 110 Third Agency The official reason given for moving the agency for the third time was that the higher elevation of Absaroka and shorter growing season limited agricultural productivity. For a variety of reasons, including the poverty of the land for agriculture around Absaroka and pressure from white settlers, the agency was moved to the east side of the reservation in 1884. The new location on the west bank of the Little Big Horn River was about twelve miles south of Fort Custer and the junction of the Little Big Horn and Big Horn rivers. Settlement Patterns Agent Armstrong wrote in his 1884 report that nearly all the Crow had made the move to the new agency and "We have succeeded so well in Spreading the Indians out and placing them upon their homesteads that we cannot help rejoicing . . . "38 During 1887-88 a total of thirty-four bands were strung out along various streams. Most families had Settled along the Little Big Horn and Big Horn rivers and Pryor Creek. The banks of the Big Horn River from its mouth to Fort Smith were lined with log cabins which had been built for the Crow.39 38Annual Re art to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1884, pp. 152-53 copy in files at Crow Agency). 39 . n W. H. Chatfield "The Peaceful Crows an undated manuscript written abouf 1887, on file in thé Billings, Montana Public Library. 111 About half the cabins appeared to be unoccupied while nearby tipis were giving off smoke and showing other signs of occupancy. Crow’Agency became the center of activity after 1885. There were approximately twenty buildings there by 1887, including houses for agency employees, school buildings, a store, and a stage station. Despite efforts by agency personnel to diSperse the Crow and break up their bands there was a concentration of families near the agency. The Crow had to come to the agency for food, clothing, and farm implements. They came in large numbers with hundreds of horses, many pulling travois.40 Rations were distributed every two or four weeks depending on the distance one lived from the agency. Annuities given out included blankets, calico cloth, red flannel, woolen shawls, shoes, coffee 41 Food rations included one- pots, axes, and other goods. half pound of beef per person per day, flour, coffee, sugar, salt, and bacon. Plenty Coups had the largest band and camped along Pryor Creek with forty-seven lodges and 294 followers.42 42Fred C. Krieg, "Chief Plenty Coups, The Final Dignity," Montana the Ma azine of Western Histogy, Autumn, 1966, pp. 28-39. 112 The agent complained to Washington that Plenty Coups' band chose Pryor Creek to escape cultivating the land, and recommended that they be forced to move to the Big Horn or Little Big Horn Valley to be nearer the agency. The charge seems unfounded Since Plenty Coups was one of the first Crow to turn to farming and encouraged his followers to do the same. A rather large group of Crow'had settled along Lodge Grass Creek, an old favorite camp ground, fifteen miles south 43 Lodge Grass remained second to Crow'Agency of Crow Agency. as a center of activity, however. As late as 1903 there were no roads, bridges, or schools, and only one store and a few'white residents who were government employees or traders.44 In 1904 a school was started, a second store began Operations, and the settlement of Lodge Grass began to grow into one of the three major villages on the reserva- tion. Of the three leading settlements on the reservation -- Croqugency, Lodge Grass, and Pryor -- none was located to take advantage of a railroad. All three had, in fact, preceded the railroad. The location for Crow Agency was 43Eleanor Lynde, Crow Countgy (Billings: Western Litho Co., n.d., p. 11. MCoe Hayne, "Crow Tepee and Temple," Missions (March, 1928), Part II, p. 138. 113 chosen because of its proximity to Fort Custer. Pryor was selected by Plenty Coups because of its nearness to the Pryor Mountains and several Springs. Lodge Grass was settled because of its location near a stream and because it had been a favored campsite in earlier years. Minor settlements occurred south of Lodge Grass at Wyola because of the preference of a band for the area. St. Xavier became the site of the first mission station on the reservation in 1887. Its location was selected because of the proximity to a rather large, although dispersed, settlement of Crow'families along the Big Horn River. Whlte Settlement Since the beginning of the first agency in 1869 white men had come to the reservation as government employees, traders, or drifters. Some married Crow'women, and, as in earlier years, became attached to the tribe and Shared its interests and its fears. Early gold prospectors attracted to western MOntana in the early 1860's were soon joined by a flood of other settlers after the Civil War. The passage of the Homestead Act in 1862 opened the door to white settlement throughout Montana. In 1870 there were only 851 farmers in the entire Montana Territory.“ During the next fifty years over 220,000 45Rocky Mountain Husbandman (Great Falls), July 9, 1942. 114 homestead entries were filed. Many of these were filed for land near the Crow reservation. Partly because of pressure from white settlers the Crow agreed to sell the western part of their reservation for the benefit of the gold prospectors and settlers. The first permanent white settlers in the Yellowstone Valley arrived in 1868. Many came from the east by way of the Bozeman Trail. In 1882 the railroad reached Billings and opened up the Upper Yellowstone Valley to white settlers on a large scale. Prior to 1881 there were relatively few settlers in the Yellowstone Valley. Most were ranchers and most had only a few cattle. By the early 1880's large-scale cattle ranchers came and began leasing range lands from the Crow.46 In the Spring of 1885 it was reported that about ten whites were illegally building houses along Stillwater River on the reservation. In 1886 Agent Armstrong complained that whites were building along Clark's Fork in violation of treaty agreements.47 Illegal white settlement continued even after the Crow had made two major land cessions to appease the white demand for land. 46Brown, p. 335. 47Letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1886, n.d. (in the files at Crow Agency). 115 White attitudes toward the Crow'and their land holdings were a mixture of prejudice, greed, and a feeling of anglo- Saxon superiority. Many believed that the government coddled the Indians who were lazy and spoiled, and leased their'land so they might live in idleness and spend their time dancing 48 The fact that the CrOW’paid no taxes was and hunting. further reason for whites to demand part of the reservation. The Crow agreed to sell a third major area of their reser- vation in 1904 and it was Opened to white settlement in 1906. Regardless of hOW’the Crow agreed to restrict the boundaries of their reservation the white man remained un- satisfied. A bill was introduced in the United States Senate in 1916 to open the entire reservation to white settlement except for an area of about 75,000 acres.49 This bill, if passed, would have provided 440 acres for each Crow man, woman and child. However, most of the land was good for little more than cattle grazing, and the bill made no provision for later pOpulation growth. Fortunately the bill was defeated, for much of the land recommended for Crow'use lies abandoned or little used today because of its paucity of grass and inadequate moisture for crops. 48harold E. Fey "Indian Winter," The Christian Centu , March 2, 1955, pp. 265-67. 49Billings Gazette, June 28, 1916. 116 Agriculture There was very little effort on the part of the Crow to participate in farming at either of the first two agencies. Shortly after the bison were exterminated in the early 1880's and the Crow moved to the eastern part of the reservation, agriculture took on a new importance. Agent Armstrong wrote in 1884, "There are more Indians who desire to be shown how to do things than there are employees to show them," and the delay of two or three weeks was discouraging their interest in farming. 50 Plenty Coups was one of the first Crow to actively participate in farming. In 1885 he had raised some potatoes 51 He and had purchased four wagons with his own money. argued successfully with the government for more mowing machines and wagons for his people, and demanded that the white man stop the illegal cutting of hay on the reser- vation.52 With his reputation as a warrior and chief he was able to influence many Grow by his example. It is tempting to glorify a leader and assign him more virtue than was merited, but the evidence suggests that Plenty Coups was a 5°Annua1 Report, 1884, p. 154 (copy in files at Crow Agency) . SlBillings Gazette, March 27, 1890. 52Ihld. 117 very significant factor in CrOW'acculturation. Despite his influence, however, only a few Crow were farming in 1887 and 53 mostly on a small scale. To some, Plenty Coups was a lackey of the white man, but to others he was a patriot and an intelligent leader who helped bridge the gap between the old and new'ways of life.54 He was one of the first to build a log cabin on the reservation. He encouraged his people to learn from the white man, to go to his schools, and become educated. In addition to taking the lead in farming he also influenced Crow attitudes regarding religious values. Plenty Coups was at first only luke-warm toward Christianity. He told Father Prando at the St. Xavier Mission, "When the last Crow is baptized, I, too, will accept your faith."55 None- theless, he was married in the Catholic church in 1893 and later became baptized. BailreIS_lsflsease The Northern Pacific Railroad was gradually being extended westward about the time the Crow'were trying to adjust to life at the Absaroka agency. In 1877 a settle- ment began near the mouth of the Big Horn River to serve 53Chatfield, p. 3. 54Krieg, p. 28. 55Josephine O'Keane "The Faith of Plenty Coups," The Aye Maria, April 26, 1952, p. 526. 118 56 as a temporary railroad town. AS the railroad spread westward several other settlements sprang up along the rail- road right-of-way, but most disappeared as soon as the railroad work crews departed. Most of the early settlements consisted of little more than a few'saloons, gambling halls, and restaurants. The Big Horn Southern Railroad was constructed across the reservation between Sheridan, Wyoming and Fort Custer in 1894.57 A spur line ran west from Fort Custer to Pryor Creek.and then south through Pryor Gap. It was built in 1908 and abandoned in 1911. Each land cession for a railroad right-of-way meant income for the tribe and helped develOp the reservation economically. However, the railroads seemed not to have greatly benefitted the Crow except indirectly. Settlement patterns were well established prior to the coming of the first railroad. Communications and transportation were improved, but often to the dismay of agency officials who complained about the Crow'wasting time at fairs in Sheridan and Billings. Railroad officials had for a while permitted the Crow to hitch free rides on trains but later had to stOp the practice when it became a nuisance.58 56E. S. Topping, The Chronicles of the Ye§lowstone (Minneapolis: Ross and Haines Inc., 1 0 , p. 30. 57 58 Lynde, p. 11. Brown, p. 359. 119 Coming of Cattlemen The arrival of the railroad in 1880-81 opened the way for the rancher. During the middle or late 1860's a few small herds of cattle were driven across the Bozeman Trail to provide meat for mining camps, army posts, and Grow rations.59 The first large ranching venture in the Yellowstone Basin began in 1879 near the head of Powder 60 River. What started as a trickle in 1879 became a flood shortly thereafter. By 1883 there were an estimated 100,000 cattle within fifty miles of Billings, and another 150,000 near the Powder and Tongue rivers.61 By the middle 1880's a herd of 500 to 1000 cattle was considered a small herd. Soon after the cattle arrived, large numbers of sheep were brought in. In 1884 a group of cattlemen attempted to lease nearly the entire Crow'Reservation for a ten year period for a penny an acre.62 The deal fell through largely because of the public protest following disclosure of the facts in the newspaper. Reverberations of a scandal reached all the way to washington as the brother of the Secretary of the 591bid., p. 369. éoghexssse_§ua. April 9. 1879- 61Topping, pp. 240-41. 62Bi11ihgs Post, February 5, 1885. 120 Interior Department was supposedly involved. A Senate in- vestigating committee found that the Crow were coerced into signing the lease by a threat of the loss of their beef rations. It was never proved that the agent involved was guilty of corruption, but he appeared to be guilty of in- difference, if not outright stupidity. The coming of large herds of cattle took its toll on the range land. Small-scale farmers and ranchers came first but were soon followed by large-scale operations. The summer of 1886 had been very dry and cattle had overgrazed large areas.63 The winter of 1886-87 was unusually severe. Many cattle perished and many ranchers were financially ruined. For the next few years nesters and small operators became more numerous. Grazing ranges became over-populated with cattle and the government began enforcing the law against illegal fencing. It became necessary to plan for winter feeding of cattle. The expense and risks of cattle raising became great. Some peOple made a lot of money, but many went broke. It was not a good time for amateur ranchers who knew little about ranching. Around 1910 the era of open range grazing was coming to a close. The Spear Cattle Company, with financial backing of an Omaha bank as well as the Armour and Cudahy meat-packing 63Brown, p. 390. 121 families, had leases for grazing rights on the Crow reservation totalling 1,250,000 acres -- an area nearly ninety miles long and twenty mileswide.64 This represented approximately half of the entire reservation acreage. The Spear Cattle Company grazed 58,000 cattle in 1911. The 'winter of 1912 was unusually severe and the company lost an estimated 10,000 cattle. Just as the intermediary position of Crow country had proven beneficial to the Crow during the days of inter-tribal trading, it again became important during the days of open range grazing. The old Bozeman Trail which crossed the reservation was an important route for stockmen driving cattle between Montana and Wyoming. The Crow charged a fee for every head of cattle driven across their property, but they often needed the assistance of the United States Army at Fort Custer to collect their money. An added expense of cattle ranching was the loss of Cattle to rustlers. Northern Wyoming became a haven for rustlers and horse thieves in the late 1880's and 1890's.65 Their operations Spread into Montana and across the Crow reservation. In 1901 a gang of rustlers operating out of the Big Horn Mountains stale and rebranded 752 head of Crow cattle.66 This temporarily ended Crow cattle ranching. 64Ibid., p. 392. 65Ibid., pp. 396-426. 66Ibid., p. 425. 122 Militagy Influence The influence of the military did not end with the placement of the Crow on a reservation. Hostile tribes continued to raid the agencies from time to time well into the 1880's, and white Settlers increasingly demanded that the United States Army do something about the marauding Indians. Crow agents were frequently critical of the Army for failing to provide adequate protection to the Crow, and there is evidence to support the charge that military efforts were less than enthusiastic.67 Because of their reluctance to take up farming, many Crow males readily volunteered to serve as scouts for the Army. Approximately eighty or ninety Crow*were with General Crook at the Battle of the Rosebud a week before the Custer battle in 1876.68 According to Chief Plenty Coups, despite his defeat Custer helped break the back of the Crow‘s worst enemy, and the Crow could sleep for the first time in his life without fear of being awakened to fight off an attack.69 Fort Custer was erected on the Crow’Reservation near the junction of the Big Horn and Little Big Horn rivers to protect the Crow from the few remaining hostile bands still 67 68 Ibid., p. 433. Linderman, p. 164. 691bid., p. 177. 123 at large in 1877.70 During its short history Fort Custer had an important impact on Crow culture. As frequently happens around military posts, Fort Custer soon attracted a number of camp followers -- both Crow and white. WOmen of loose virtue, whiskey, gambling, and various other forms of revelry were readily available around the post. Crow agents frequently complained about the presence of the fort, eSpecially after the last hostile Indians were defeated and the fort was no longer needed for protection. In 1880 a band of Sioux stole a large number of Crow horses within three miles of Fort Custer.71 After the surrender of Sitting Bull in July of 1881, plains warfare involving the Crow’virtually ended. The Army was then able to concentrate its efforts on protecting the Crow from cattlemen who were illegally using the reservation, and from rustlers and train robbers. In 1886 a complaint was filed that the Crow and Blackfoot were sneaking off their reser- vations to steal each other's horses and were plundering farms on the way.72 Thus, even though the Indian wars had ended there were still occasional harassments between the Crow and other tribes. 70 71 Brown, p. 316. IbidO , p. 325. 72Letter from the Board of Stock Commission at Fort ‘McGinnis to the Secretary of the Interior, February 15, 1886 (cOpy in file at Crow Agency). 124 By 1898 Fort Custer had served its purpose and was abandoned. Timbers from the fort were used to erect houses and other buildings throughout the reservation. Military influence on the Crow ended for the most part with the closing of the fort. Urban Influences The first permanent settlement near the Crow reservation was Benson's Landing established in 1870 near the Mission Creek Agency.73 It consisted primarily of a ferry crossing, several saloons, and a few stores, and was a favorite hang- out for trappers and prospectors and a constant source of trouble for the nearby agency. When the agency was moved further east to Absaroka in 1875 several of the saloons were moved downstream to be as near the agency as the law'allowed. The second settlement known as Terry's Landing began in 1877 near the mouth of the Big Horn River as a military supply depot for Fort Custer.74 A short time later a thriving settlement developed across the Yellowstone River. Eventually named Junction City, it had grown to a population of 500 and had fourteen saloons, three dance halls, and 75 several stores by 1883. Located at the head of navigation 73 74Ibid., p. 316. 75Ibid., p. 354. Brown, p. 336. 125 on the Yellowstone River its future seemed bright until a fire destroyed a large part of the settlement. Despite its break-of-bulk location, it was handicapped by being thirty miles from Fort Custer and had a restricted trade area be- cause of the reservation on the south. Its early promise soon faded as emphasis shifted westward with the advancing railroad. In 1876 the tiny settlement of Coulson began'with a brewery, hotel, and sawmill, and like Junction City soon acquired a reputation as a tough town.76 In 1881 a group of railroad officials bought a large section of land two miles west of Coulson and began laying out a new town which they named Billings. The railroad arrived in 1882 and Billings quickly replaced the earlier settlement. It had by the end of the year grown to an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 peOple.77 Shortly afterward, in 1884, the Crow Agency was moved to its new location on the Little Big Horn River. Despite the distance of approximately seventy miles from Billings to Crow Agency, it was in Billings where most Crow first learned about "city life." 76Ibid., p. 358. 77Ibid. 126 Sheridan, Wyoming, unlike Junction City and Billings was not a river town but started out as a supply center for ranchers and farmers in the early 1880's. Located approx- imately the same distance as Billings from Crow Agency it too became a center of "bright lights" for inquisitive Crow, especially after the railroad arrived in 1894. In 1907 the town of Hardin was established Shortly after the Crow had ceded a large area on the north side of their reservation and it had been opened to white settlers. Located just twelve miles from Crow'Agency and the major concentration of population on the reservation, it soon became the leading trade center for the Crow. Although it has remained much smaller than either Billings or Sheridan, its influence has been greater because of its relative near- 11688. The 1887 Allotment Act The 1868 Treaty of Laramie had included the first provisions for individual allotments of land to encourage 78 Basically the same provision was written into farming. the 1882 act which ceded the western part of the reservation to the United States Government. Neither provision was implemented Since the Crow ignored farming during the first few years of reservation life. The Dawes Act of 1887 78U.S., Statutes at Lar e, XV, p. 649. 127 provided that the reservation be divided into individual allotments.79 Each family head received 160 acres and wives, orphans, unmarried adults, and children each received eighty acres. The purpose of the act was to change the cultural values and customs of the Indians by making them land owners. By becoming farmers, sending their childral to school, learning the importance of money and private prOperty, and becoming self-supporting they would, it was believed, become "civilized." Deemphasizing tribal relationships and strengthening family ties would also help the Indian toward this goal, according to prOponents of the act. Individuals could not get their entire allotments along streams and had to take part of them elsewhere. Rather than fragment their land holdings some chose to ignore waterfront property and take their entire allotments away from streams. Many individual family members selected widely separated plots which could not be easily consolidated into larger farming or grazing units. The original Dawes Act provided that the allotted land would be held in trust by the United States Government and could not be sold or leased for twenty-five years. Iowever, several later amendments were added. In 1891 it became 79U.S., Statutes at Lar e, XXII, p. 338. 128 legal for old or disabled Crow to lease’their allotments.80 To prevent widespread leasing the government approved very few leases during the first few years following passage of the act. In 1902 it became legal for heirs of the original allottee to sell the land, and in 1907 any allottee could sell his land‘with Special permission.81 The 1920 Allotment Act was a radical departure from the 1887 Act in that it enlarged the size of individual allotments and gave permission to certain Indians declared 82 competent to sell their prOperty. Under the terms of this act every Crow received 320 acres. The remainder of the reservation was allotted on a pro-rata basis so everyone would have approximately 1,000 acres, of which 320 acres were to be reserved as a homestead and inalienable for twenty- five years. Family members were encouraged to take adjacent property so they could pool their land for joint cattle Operations. The 1920 Act also created a commission to classify tribal members as competent or incompetent. A total of 432 Crow were declared competent Shortly after the act was 8OU.S., Staghtes at Large, XXVI, p. 794. 81Joe Medicine-Crow and Daniel Press, A Handbook of Orgy Ihdlgn Laws and Treatieg (Billings: Western EitEo Co., 1966 , p. . 82U.S., Statute at Lar e, XLI, p. 751. 129 passed.83 not clearly stated. Some who were classified as competent The criteria used to determine competency were spoke no EngliSh. Not every Crow asked to be declared competent and some who were self-sufficient remained in an incompetent status . Those declared competent were issued patents in fee which enabled them to sell any of their land except the homestead. Minors and incompetent Crow received trust patents -- a device whereby the individual held the land but could not sell it without permission of the Secretary of the Interior. The Dawes Act as amended did not work out as planned for several reasons: The Crow'were reluctant to take up farming, they lacked credit to get started, the program was poorly administered, and the Crow lacked sufficient training. Many Crow’had no desire to farm and leased or sold their land to the white man as soon as it became legal to do so. White settlers began buying land from individual Crow and consolidated their holdings into larger, more economical grazing and farming units. They bought the best land along streams and around springs and left the Crow with the poorest land. The resulting checkerboard pattern of interspersed 83The Leasin of Indian Tru§§_lhhh_on the Crow Reservation, Report #139, Missouri.River Basin Investigations, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U. 8. Dept. of the Interior, Billings, Montana, 1954, p. 13. 130 white and Indian land ownership remains an indictment of a policy which however well-intentioned has resulted in further disillusionment and economic hardship for the Crow. Some allotments were too small. The heirship system practiced by the Crow resulted in multiple ownership of widely-dispersed holdings which become smaller and smaller with each passing generation. Some Indians received fee patents and lost their land for failing to pay the taxes after their land was removed from trust status. Since the purpose of the Dawes Act was to make farmers of the Crow and incorporate them into the national life as self-sufficient property owners, it was largely a failure as these goals were not realized. Very few Crow became farmers and most leased their land to white settlers and remained in idleness. The 1928 Merriam Report found that most Indians, in- cluding the Crow, were poor, in bad health, and living in conditions conducive to the deve10pment and Spread of 84 Trachoma and tuberculosis were widespread, the disease. death rate and infant mortality were high, many Crow were economically backward, their incomes and standard of living were low, and their attitudes were apathetic toward progress in general. 84LewiS‘Merriam, et al, The Problem of Indian Administration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1928). 131 The allotment of the Crow Reservation and eventual permission to sell or lease the land has been a major Stumbling block to economic development of the reservation. In the eighty years since the passage of the Dawes Act most of the legislation which.has affected the Crow has resulted from the problems stemming from the Dawes Act. Shhhagy of Processes of Change The beginning of the reservation period marked the greatest change in Crow culture. In exchange for a promise of military protection and regular distribution of annuity goods and food rations the Crow adopted a sedentary life. Annuity clothes of cotton and wool replaced deerskin dresses and the breech cloth, leather shoes replaced moccasins, and native technology declined. New foods were added to the diet and the Crow agreed to try farming. The reservation was founded on the assumption of the superiority of white culture and the Crow were taught to accept the idea. Failure of the United States Army to provide adequate protection from the harassment of the Sioux exposed the vulnerability of the white man and challenged his superiority. White agents were less considerate of Crow values and less gentle in their handling of the people than the earlier trappers and traders had been. Some agents and white employees cheated the Crow and created doubt about the white man's virtue. The white man's views on private 132 property and accumlation of material wealth were totally alien to Grow culture and seemed to be supported by lying, cheating, and stealing. The policy of forced acculturation outlawed certain ceremonies. Children were forced to cut their hair and attend schools. After returning from boarding schools some children criticized and belittled the old Crow ways. Christianity was encouraged at the expense of native religions, the tipi was replaced by wooden houses, marriage ceremonies were required, permissive attitudes regarding sex were challenged by the government and the missionaries, and burial customs were altered. The white man's medical doctor replaced the medicine man. Log cabins were drafty and less comfortable than tipis and sickness increased. The death rate became higher and the population continued to decline. To compensate for this decline, intermarriage with whites and other Indians became fairly widespread and the Crow were further diluted biologically. To assist the policy of coercion a system of rewards was instituted. The idea of a good Indian was nurtured. To the "good" Indian who COOperated by cutting his hair, sent his children to school, and took up farming were given special monetary rewards, wagons, and cattle. Other "good" Indians were given jobs in the agency. Leaders who cooPer- ated were flattered with trips to washington. On the other hand "bad" Indians were threatened with loss of rations. 133 The end of warfare, the outlawing of horse stealing, and the extermination of the buffalo were psychological defeats for Crow males. To replace these status-giving occupations the government develOped the position of United States Army scout. After the Indian wars ended and the buffalo were gone, the economic necessity of turning to farming was thought to be degrading and was, therefore, frustrating. The practice of keeping large herds of horses was discouraged to save the rangeland for cattle and sheep. Increasing numbers of white settlers and their .settlements exposed the Crow to the "bright lights" of the city. Prospectors, buffalo hunters, cattlemen, and farmers encroached on Crow territory and continually demanded that it be reduced in size. Division of the reservation into individual allotments led to disruption of tribal relation- ships, and to the further reduction of Indian-owned land. Not content with reducing the reservation to one-fourth its original size and thwarted in attempts to further reduce its boundaries, white men began buying and leasing land within the reservation. By the end of the Early Reservation Period (1868-1934) the white settler was well on the way to owning or dominating the reservation and determining its economy by leasing nearly all the land. The period came to a close by passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934 which reversed the trend of 134 Indian policy away from forced acculturation. Indian values thereafter were to be encouraged and Indians were to be involved in decision making. CHAPTER VII LATE RESERVATION PERIOD 1934-1971 Demography Pohhlation The Crow probably never numbered more than 7,000 people and by 1804 had been reduced by smallpox and warfare to an estimated 3,500.1 Estimates of early population figures were little more than crude guesses based primarily on the number of lodges. In recent decades population data have been more reliable but several obstacles to accuracy remain. One problem has been to identify who shall be counted as a Crow and who Shall not. Throughout the nineteenth century many people married into or were adopted by the tribe and were counted as Crow. Agents were required to submit annual reports listing the total population and the number receiving rations. With all the evidence of corruption it is not unlikely that population figures were sometimes inflated by the agent to cover up misappropriations of annuities and goods. Even after the start of the reservation period it 1Reuben G. Thwaites (ed.), Ori inal Journals of Lewis had Clgrk (New York: Antiquarian Press, 19595, Vol. I, p. 2 0. 135 136 was difficult to make an accurate estimate of Crow pOpulation for they roamed freely on and off the reservation. Thus, based on all available evidence the agent's report of 4,100 Crow in 1871 seems greatly exaggerated.2 Since the first official enumeration of Indians in Indian Territory in 1890 population data have improved con- 3 Census data have provided more accurate infor- siderably. mation in recent decades, but it is still difficult to get a reliable count because increasing numbers of Crow are moving off the reservation and settling throughout the United States. Population data are further complicated by a 1953 tribal decision to count as enrolled tribal members only those people who have at least one-fourth Crow blood. Early population estimates were limited by the fact that anybody living with the Crow’was counted as a Crow. Today many people formerly counted as Crow are no longer so counted. In the long run the current practice of counting only those with a fourth or more Crow blood for census purposes will have the benefit of much greater accuracy. At the present time, however, Census data must be looked at with a certain amount of skepticism. Despite a seemingly endless supply of 2Letter from agent F. D. Pease to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, August 31, 1871 (copy in the files at Crow Agency, Montana). 3Leon Truesdale, The Edian PopulatiggLof the United Statgs and Alaska, U.S. Government Printing Office, 193 , p. . 137 records the Bureau of Indian Affairs can still provide little more than a rough estimate of the current Crow population on and off the reservation. Because of the questionable reliability of various population estimates, especially those for the period prior to 1930, the most practical use of early census data is to notice the trends. Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century Crow pOpulation steadily declined until the mid-1930's (Table 2). After reaching an all time low of 1,625 in the early 1930's the population began to in- crease. Most of the decline in population was caused by a rising death rate and increased infant mortality after the start of the reservation period in the 1870's. The estab- lishment of greatly improved medical facilities in the early 1930's reduced the death rate and infant mortality and the pOpulation began to increase rapidly. The Crow population increased from 1,674 in 1930 to 2,348 in 1942. This high rate of increase represented a doubling time for Crow population of just over twenty years -- a rate which gives cause for alarm to demographers when it occurs on a national basis. The Crow pOpulation continued to increase quite rapidly throughout the 1940's and 1950's. Between 1942 and 1952 the population increased 138 TABLE 2 CROW POPULATION 1890-1969a Year Population 1890 O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 II 0 2 , 287 1904 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1,826 1910 I O O O O O O O O O O O. O 1’ 799 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . J . 1,786 1930 O O I O O O O O O O O 0‘ O 1, 674 1937 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O 0‘ O 2 ’ 173b 1942 O O O O O O O O O O O O. O 2 , 348b 1952 C O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 ’ 245 1964 O O O O O O O O O O I O. O 4, 6883 1969 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 ,028 Notes: The Federal Census does not report the number of Indians residing on the Crow Reservation in its regular ten year reports. Dates selected were chosen because of availability of data or to reflect important changes or trends in pOpulation. aData for the years 1890 through 1937 are from John R. Swanton, "The Indian Tribes of North America," Bureau of Amerlcan Ethhology, Bul. 145, Gov. Printing Office, 3P0 - bCplppral and Economic Status of the Crow People, U.S. Dept. o t e terior, Bureau 0 Ian airs, Missouri River Basin Investigations Project, Billin s, Montana, 1955, Report #147, p. 9. Includes non-reSIdents. CBureau of Indian Affairs, Grow A ency, Montana. Unpublished report. Includes all enrol ed members of tribe on and off the reservation. dThe Montana-W omin Indian, U.S. De t. of the Interior, B.I.A., Bi11ings Area Office, Ju y, 1968, un- paginated. Includes all enrolled members on and off the reservation but excludes 260 non-enrolled members. 139 4 By the late 1960's the rate by 38% or nearly 4% per year. of growth had slowed somewhat but still equalled approx- imately 3% per year. Thus, for the last three decades the Crow have increased at one of the highest rates in the world.5 By 1952 the Crow population had increased to 3,245. By this time census data had become much more reliable and complete and some interesting and significant patterns could be discerned. The 2,309 Crow living on the reservation in 1952 were fairly equally divided by SEX'With 1,137 males and 1,172 females.6 The big difference was in the marriageable age group (age 15 to 24) with 115 females for each 100 males. Among the age sixty-five and older group the reverse was true with 84 females for each 100 males. More significant, perhaps, than the sex distribution was the age distribution. In 1952 nearly 46% of the resident Crow pOpulation was age fourteen or younger compared to 29% for the state of Montana. Moreover, only 3% of the Crow were age sixty-five or older compared to 9% for Montana. 4 Cpltural and Economic Status of the Crow PeOple Missouri River Basin Investigations Project, Report 47, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana, 1955, p. 13. 5For a list of growth rates for selected countries see, Glenn T. Trewartha A Geo ra h of POpulation: World . Patterns (New‘York: JoEfi Wi1ey & Sons, 5, pp. 52-58. 6Cu t ral and conomic Status of the Crow Peo 1e, Report #147, 1955, p. 13? 140 Thus, a young population with an unbalanced sex ratio has affected the marriage, death, and birth rates, and the population growth rate. During the 1930's a few Crow began working and living off the reservation. By the beginning of World war II the number had increased Significantly, but following the war many returned to the reservation to live. By the late 1960's approximately 1,500 Crow’were living off the reservation. This has helped relieve the pOpulation pressure, but Should many of these non-residents return to the reservation over- crowding could become very serious. The reservation population increased from 2,100 in 1942 to approximately 3,500 in 1969, deSpite the increase in non- residents. This represents a 66% increase in twenty-seven years or a growth rate of over 2% per year -- nearly double the present growth rate of the United States.7 The Crow Reservation is located primarily in Big Horn County but a small part is in Yellowstone County. The population of Big Horn County includes 3,600 Crow, perhaps 200 other Indians, and approximately 6,200 non-Indians.8 From 1940 to 1970 the population of Big Horn County has declined slightly from 10,419 to 10,057. During the same 7Trewartha, p. 54. . 8Pre1iminary report of the U.S. Census, 1970, U.S. Gov. Printing Office. 141 period the Crow’population has increased from approximately 2,200 to the present total of 3,600 -- an increase of over 50%. Thus, in the last three decades the non-Indian population of Big Horn County has decreased by over a thousand while the Crow’population.has increased by about 1,300. Such trends can have serious economic consequences. Because of mounting population pressure and the absence of job opportunities on or near the reservation the Crow’may be forced to try farming again in order to improve their economic plight. It is doubtful that farming alone, how- ever, can solve the problem of mounting population. Should many Crow’decide to try farming there would be greater pressure on their land which is already limited. At a time when the trend nationawide is toward fewer and larger farms it is not encouraging that population pressure may force the Crow to go counter to this trend. The Crow are involved in a rural to urban migration similar to the nation-wide pattern. 'Unlike the nation-wide pattern, however, much of the Crow'migration in the past has been temporary and cyclical with many migrants returning periodically to the security of the reservation. Since 1942 when 264 Crow'lived and worked off the reservation the number of non-residents had grown to 900 in 1952 and 1,538 by 1968.9 The number varies considerably as people leave 9 . . lhe‘Monthhfi-Wyoming lpdian,'U.S. De t. of the Interior Bureau 0 Ian airs, 1 gS Area Of ice, July 1968, ’ unpaginated. 142 and return to the reservation as job Opportunities fluctuate. In 1969 approximately 115 Crow'were living in Hardin and 310 in Billings, Montana.10 In 1962, approximately 1,500 Crow were living in twenty-seven states.11 Population density on the Crow Reservation is approx- imately two persons per square mile. This is less than half the average for the entire state but about average for rural 12 The reservation consists of approx- counties in Montana. imately 3,500 Crow and about the same number of non-Indians. Density figures are misleading, however, as much of the reservation is mountainous or range land good for little other than grazing cattle. Settlement Patterns Nearly all dwellings, both Indian and non-Indian, are located along major streams on the reservation -- the Big Horn and Little Big Horn rivers, and Lodge Grass and Pryor Creeks (Figure 8). Fewer than two dozen houses are located away from these four main streams. 10Estimate provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Agency, Montana. 11Famil Plan Pro ram Crow Reservation, Missouri River Basin Investigation, Report #184 ‘U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, May, 1867, p. l . 12Mo ta Statistical Review, Montana Dept. of Planning and Economic Development, Helena, Montana, 1968, p. 38. 143 Indian and non-Indian houses are widely interspersed. South of the village of Pryor most of the houses are occupied by Crow families. North of Pryor most houses are occupied by non-Indians. Along the Big Horn River approx- imately 60% of the houses are occupied by non-Indians. Along the Little Big Horn River a little over half of the houses are occupied by Indians. Somewhat over half of the houses along Lodge Grass Creek are occupied by non-Indians. Population figures for the six villages and towns on the reservation are unavailable except for Lodge Grass which is listed in the United States Census. The Bureau of Indian Affairs at Crow Agency, Montana periodically reports population estimates but they are normally based on mailing addresses or districts rather than for individual villages. Thus, the village populations listed in Table 3 are estimates based on the actual number of dwellings multiplied by the average number of inhabitants per dwelling reported in a 1965 study.13 Five of the six villages are inhabited primarily by Indians. Fort Smith is a government village for employees of Yellowtail Dam, and nearly all the residents are non- Indians. Most non-Indians living in Crow Agency are government employees. 13Indian Housin Situation Crow Reservation, Missouri River Basin Investigations, Report #183, Bureau of Indian w Affairs, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, September, 1965, p. 16. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION, 1969 144 TABLE 3 —————T———==——=——=====T=== Location Number of Houses Population ndian Non-Indian Total Rural Pryor Creek 49 55 104 -- Big Horn River 58 96 154 -- Little Big Horn R. 155 131 286 ~- Lodge Grass Creek 28 35 63 -- Sub Total T90 T17 607 Towns and Villages a Lodge Grass 121 35 156 806 Crow Agency 90 60 150 800 Pryor 22 12 34 150 St. Xavier 25 l 26 125 Wyola 22 15 37 150 Fort Smith 2 75 77 399 Sub Total 237 ES 136 Total 572 515 1087 aFrom 1970 Preliminary Census Report. Other figures in column are estimates based on house count. Table 3 reflects an actual count of reservation dwellings made during the summer of 1969. Paid informants identified the houses occupied by Indians and non-Indians. This information was verified by names on mail boxes as well as school and agency records. Abandoned houses are scattered throughout the re- servation. Some have been abandoned in recent years when 145 O-|Il.l.lt-ll _ II.... 0 I...I..I.I 0 one; Val-Io Doc. clined 01.... .0 ad...- 60...- ... a... 32.20.5mE55 026:0: 02¢ mzmwhhf. hszwJFhwm 20_h<>mwwwc 2(52. 380 I. e K“ .2! 3 ... \..\- / .N ‘ 00 W a: av M 0 It or. i... ‘03? o \.I o L al.- ~/ :u r w. o 00.9. I o. I. 1: M o 0- ‘3‘ 51 AT _ I. I 1 u: ., on.) \ u. o. o ./ \&I N n .0... .8.- 58d .8. / v. (I ) ...\ x .3 / so are. do... a a \\Il.'. do: in: den.- dnnd o:d nib. I Ed 146 former residents moved into villages on the reservation or left the reservation. Others were abandoned when new'housing was provided by a housing project. A.few of the more badly deteriorated and dilapidated structures remain as a reminder of the depression years during the 1930's when many Crow families moved from their rural allotments to take jobs with the Civilian Construction Corps, Works Progress Administration and various other governmental projects. During the past two or three decades there has been a slow but steady migration away from farmsteads to communities on the reservation or to off-reservation localities such as Hardin, Billings and elsewhere. Prior to 1930 most Crow families lived on their rural allotments.14 In 1952 an estimated 50% of all Crow families lived in villages on the reservation, but by the late 1960's an estimated 60% were 15 Part of living on their own allotments in rural areas. this change is due to Bureau of Indian Affairs' encourage- ment in getting Crow families to return to their allotments and take up farming. Houging A 1952 study listed a total of 424 Crow houses on the reservation with about one half being farm or rural non-farm 14M.R.B.I., Report No. 147, p. 10. 15B.I.A. unpublished report, Crow Agency Montana, 1967, unpaginated. 147 16 Twenty per cent of all Crow dwellings (85) dwellings. were log cabins. A 1962 study found that over 70% of all Crow homes on the reservation were sub-standard.17 In 1965 there were 585 Crow dwellings on the reser- vation of which approximately 40% were located in villages.18 The number of log cabins had been reduced to twenty-five. By the summer of 1969 the number of Crow dwellings was 572 and less than a dozen were of exterior log construction. Despite the rapidly growing population there were fewer Crow dwellings in 1969 than in 1965. The reason for this is un- clear, but there are several possible explanations. Many people continue to leave the reservations. An estimated 10% of Crow families have a non-Crow spouse and were counted as non-Indian for the purposes of identifying housing patterns.19 During the time of the survey of settlements on the reser- vation in the summer of 1969, nearly fifty new houses were soon to be occupied by families then living with relatives or friends. According to a 1964 study, 32% of Crow housing was in poor condition and 31% was in only fair condition.20 16M..R.B.I., Report No. 147, p. 10. 17Absaraka 1968, ed. Eloise W, Pease, A yearbook ublished earlydbw’ffie Crow Tribe with aSSIstance of the Bureau of dian Affairs, Crow'Agency, Montana, p. 58. 18M..R.B.I., Report No. 183, p. l. 19M.R.B.I., Report No. 184, p. 2. 20Ibid., p: 4: 148 Overcrowding was still a problem but less so than in 1952 when there were an average of two persons per room through- out the reservation. Since implementation of a new'housing program Crow housing has improved considerably in the last five years. Many new'and attractive homes dot the reservation.landscape, especially in rural areas. Nearly all homes have electricity, somewhat less than half are heated with gas, and 60% are connected to a sewer or septic tank.21 Only the Pryor area is still without phone service, and it remains in many ways the backwater of the reservation being without highway connections to the rest of the reservation except by a long and circuitous route. ECONOMY Land Ownership Patterns By 1934 a total of 218,136 acres of allotted land had been removed from trust status by sales to non-Indians and issuance of fee-patents (titles) to Indians.22 After 1950 the sale of Crow land to non-Indians was greatly accelerated. 21ML.R.B.I., Report No. 183, p. 13. 22Report'with respfict to House Resolution author- izing the Committee on terior and Insular Affairs to conduct an investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dec. 15, 1952, U.S. Congress. 149 In 1953 there were 2,282,764 acres on the Crow Reservation (Table 4). Of these, 1,971,439 were held in trust by the United States Government (1,690,411 acres were allotted to individual Indians and 281,028 acres were owned collectively by the Crow). Nearly all the 276,062 acres of deeded land was owned by non-Indians. The State of Montana controlled 34,000 acres which had been set aside for school purposes. Thus, approximately 74% of the reservation was in allotted trust, 12% was tribally owned, and 14% was deeded land. By 1961 the Crow had sold a total of nearly 665,000 acres -- nearly one-third of the reservation. Allotted trust land had been reduced by approximately 381,000 acres -- a decrease of 22.5% from 1953 or 2.5% per year. Nearly all this reduction resulted from the sale of land to non-Indian farmers and ranchers. Only 1% of the deeded land was owned by Indians in 1961.23 Most of the deeded land is located near roads, rivers or creeks, or Springs. The United States Government owned very little land on the reservation, but purchased 6,499 acres for development of Yellowtail Dam and Recreation Area along the upper Big Horn River. 23Leasin of Indian Trust Lands on Crow Reservation, Missouri R ver Bas Investigation, Report #170, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Sept., 1963, p. 1. 150 TABLE 4 LAND OWNERSHIP, 1953, 1961, AND 1967 1953a 1961a 1967b acres % % acres % Allgtied Trust 1,330,4%% {g 1,3g2,213 5; 1,247,333 52 Tri a 0 0 319 5 1 1,971,439 86' 1,575,721 69 1,567,348 69 Deeded 2;2,062 1% 662,684 23 674,127 30 State owned 000 3 000 32 980 —""57310,o I2: W 1 771—70 , 0 II Federall owned Yell ail Dam -- - 6,499 6,499 Willow Creek Res. 500 - 1,097 1,097 Custer Battle- field 763 _; 763 763 T235’ .1 Ej§§§ '71 37536 '35 Total Reservation 2,282,764 100 2,282,764 100 2,282,764 100 aLeasin of Indian Trust Lands on Crow Reservation, U.S. De t. of the Interior, Bureau of In ian River Basin Investigations Project, Report No. 170, Missour airs, Billings, Montana, September, 1963, p. b Montana-Wyoming Indian, U.S. Degt. of the Interior, B.I.A., Billings rea 0 ice, July, 19 8, unpaginated appendix. 152 After the early 1960's the practice of selling land to non-Indians was halted by the Secretary of the Interior. By 1963, however, approximately 460 non-Indian farmers and ranchers owned deeded land on the Crow Reservation.24 Throughout most of the last decade the Crow Tribe has tried to buy land as it comes on the market. Between 1961 and 1968 the tribe had purchased approximately 55,000 acres of land that might otherwise have been purchased by non-Indians.25 Non-Indians have tended to be selective in their purchase of Crow land, preferring land which was especially attractive for ranching and farming operations. The avail- ability of water for stock watering and for irrigation were major considerations. Access to roads and railroads were of secondary importance. Figure 9 indicates that non-Indians have acquired land everywhere on the reservation, but their practice of selective buying has resulted in several in- teresting patterns which are readily discernible. The most noticeable pattern extends along the Big Horn River, the Little Big Horn River, and Pryor Creek. Few Indians still own land fronting on any of these three streams. Along the Little Big Horn River nearly all the land along the river is owned by non-Indians. Along the Big Horn River somewhat 24Hardin Herald Tribgne, February 28, 1963. 25The Montana-Wyoming Indigg, U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Indian A fairs, Billings Area Office, July, 1968, unpaginated appendix. 153 less than half the land along the river is still owned by Indians. Non-Indians own most of the land along the lower part of Pryor Creek, and Indians own most of the land along the upper part near the Pryor Mountains in the southwestern part of the Reservation. The most valuable and most expensive land on the reservation is a strip four to six miles wide along the Big Horn River Valley where irrigation is most wideSpread. Non- Indians own half or more of the land bordering the Big Horn River, but the size of individual land parcels is much smaller than elsewhere on the reservation because of the cost of the land. Many parcels are only forty or eighty acres in size whereas away from the Big Horn Valley the parcels are sometimes several sections or larger in size. Such selective buying of Indian-owned lands has enabled non-Indians to acquire nearly one-third of the reservation by 1961, but it has also resulted in excessive fragmenting of the reservation, making cattle grazing or development of irrigation projects extremely difficult. The sale of additional land to non-Indians is at least temporarily terminated, but the past purchases of strategically located tracts of land, even though often small in size, has enabled non-Indians to dominate or control much larger areas of land than they actually own (Figure 10). Small acreage along Tullock Creek has been purchased so that non-Indians own all 154 NON-INDIAN OWNED LAND CROW INDIAN RESERVATION TOWNSHIP No.15. RANGE No. 36 E. >——‘p ‘Reeervellen ”Sounder! ‘ /‘ r.— ! I - ‘ I I / Source:Bureou of Indian Affairs. Crow Agency. Montene.1967 0 1 - WhiIe-Owned miles W Stare Owned JWS Figure l0 155 the land with access to water in the streams. Large areas of Indian-owned land surrounding the creek are virtually worthless without stock.water since most of the land is grazing land. Thus, Indian owners are more or less forced to lease their land to non-Indians, often at a price dictated by the latter. Similar patterns of non-Indian land owner- ship, although less discernible, were developing elsewhere on the reservation but are temporarily stopped by the policy of giving the Crow Tribe first priority for purchasing land on the reservation. The practice was far enough along, how- ever, that along with the willingness of most Crow land owners to lease their land, a system has developed which enables non-Indians to effectively dominate the land use and agricultural economy of the reservation. Leas Land was first leased on the Crow Reservation in 1882 when a herd of Army cattle was permitted to graze there. During the 1880's and 1890's all grazing permits and leases were handled by reservation agents who were frequently criticized for allowing illegal grazing. The first Crow- approved leases began after passage of an 1891 act permitting old or disabled Crow land holders to lease their land.26 26U.S., Statutes at Large, XXVI, 794. 156 Reduction in the size of the Crow Reservation through land cessions to the United States Government in 1882, 1891, and 1904 did not satisfy the lust of white settlers for more land. After the northern part of the reservation was ceded to the government in 1904 and opened to settlement in 1906 many white homesteaders moved into the ceded area and began agitating about the large amount of land owned by the Crow. Several bills were introduced in Congress in 1910, 1915, and 1919 to open the reservation to white settlement but all 27 Denied the right to homestead the failed to pass. reservation, many non-Indians began buying or leasing Indian lands to expand their holdings. Congress yielded to white demands and passed a series of leasing laws. During World war I the government arranged for Thomas D. Campbell to lease a large part of the reservation to grow wheat to sustain the United States' war effort.28 Starting with a modest 7,000 acres in 1918 this was soon expanded to 40,000 acres by 1920. Prodded by complaints from non-Indians about the failure of the Crow to properly use their land, Congress greatly expanded leasing opportunities and leasing eventually became the major source of income for most Crow. 27Joe Medicine-Crow and Daniel Press, Handbook of Crow Indian Laws and Treaties (Billings: 'Western LitHo, 1966), p. 2. 28Missouri River Basin Investigation, Report #139, p. 10, The Leasing of Indian Trust Land on the Crow Reservation, 1954. 157 Leasing became pOpular for several reasons. Many Crow families had tried to farm and raise stock but were for the most part unsuccessful. After World war I the price of cattle dropped and the size of Crow herds was reduced to practically nothing. Many CrOW'began leasing their land. During the depression years many Crow abandoned their farms and small gardens to work in special government projects and leased their land.29 The major impetus to widespread leasing was passage of the 1920 Crow'Allotment Act which eventually opened the 30 Under entire reservation to invasion by the white man. this act the entire reservation was allotted to individuals except for the mountainous areas which became tribally owned. Every Crow received grazing and farm land. .A few CrowHwere declared "competent" and received fee patent (title) to their land. The "competent Indian" idea gave full responsibility to the land owner to do whatever he wanted with his land. Many so-called "competent" Crow sold or leased their land. Non-Indians who bought land moved on the reservation in large numbers and soon outnumbered the Crow population. Prior to allotment of the reservation the Crow lived anywhere they pleased and the agency superintendent handled all leasing arrangements. Following allotment and passage of new 291bid., p. 30. 30 .S., Stat t at Lar e, XLI, Part I, 751. 158 legislation most Indians handled their own leasing arrange- ments with the non-Indians who took advantage of the Indian's ignorance Of economics. By the mid-1930's most Crow'were leasing their land and getting paid while someone else did all the work. By 1937 non-Indians were Operating 1,965,700 acres (92%) Of Indian-owned land while Indians were Oper- ating only 158,148 acres (7%).31 A few'non-Indians became quite wealthy by signing long term leases at ridiculously low rental rates and then sub-leased the land to smaller Operators. Major Operators usually paid the smallest rates and got the most favorable terms, and even though lease money never amounted to very large sums the Indian came to rely on it. A 1926 act granted competent Indians permission to lease not only their own land but that of their children as well for up to five years, and required only that all leases be recorded with the agency superintendent.32 In 1949 a new law declared every Crow’male age 21 or over and every female over 18 competent provided that at at least one Of their parents had been competent.34 The only 31Joe Medicine Crow, "The Effects Of EurOpean Culture Contacts Upon the Economic, Social, and Reli ious Life of the Crow Indians" (Unpublished Master's thes 3 Dept. Of AnthrOpOlogy, University of S. California, 1939), p. 17. 32U.S. Statutes at Lar e, XLIV, 566. 33U.S. Stat tes at Lar e, LXII, 80. 34U.s. Statutes at Large, LXIII, 695. 159 exceptions were for those who were declared incompetent by a court or state law. Thus, as Of 1949 nearly every adult Crow'could lease his own land and that Of his minor children and any land he inherited if fewer than six heirs are in- volved. The original purpose of the competency acts was to provide individual Crow'control over their own prOperty if they were self-supporting adults and had proven they could handle their own affairs. Later amendments made nearly everyone competent. By 1962 only twenty-two adult Crow were classified as incompetent.35 In addition to making a mockery Of the word "competent" the practice Of making every- one competent and permitting individuals to make their own leasing arrangements has led to serious economic problems for many Crow. Some protection was provided the Indian by limiting the length Of time a lease may cover. Leases were originally limited to three years. This was later changed to five years and special provisions permitted ten year leases for irrigated 36 land in the Big Horn Valley. The ten year lease was to enable farmers to recover their investments in irrigation 35Leasing Of Indian Trust Lands on Crow’Reservation, Missouri River Basin Investigations, Report 0, , p. 4. 36H S Laws of the 79th Congress, 2nd. Sess., 1946, Chap. 4 , . . . 160 projects. By 1962 nearly 75% of all leases were competent leases and 99% were for the full five year period permitted by law.37 Kinds of Legggg Once leasing became an important part of the Crow economy three basic types were develOped.38 The first type, the offic lease, was handled by Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel for a small number of Indians. Mbst Office leases are for five years and payment is made annually. Prior to 1920 the Bureau Of Indian Affairs closely supervised all leases, collected rental payments, and distributed the money. After the series Of competency acts were passed most Indians handled their own leases. By 1952 the Bureau Of Indian Affairs handled leases primarily for peOple classified as incompetent, for land owned by six or more heirs, and for non-probated lands. This amounted to less than 10% Of all trust land in 1952. A second type lease, also handled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was the so-called grazing range lease. The entire reservation was divided into fifty grazing units Of pooled land resources. The number of cattle permitted on 37 p. 11. 38 . The Legging of India Trust Land on the Crow W, M.R.B.I., Report #139, 1954, p. 2. Lea§ing of Indian Trust Land, M.R.B.I., Report #170, 161 these units was closely regulated to prevent overgrazing. Although basically sound in principle the idea gradually proved unworkable as most Crow preferred to handle their own leasing arrangements. By 1952 only 25% of the grazing land on the reservation was in grazing units and most of these were in unallotted mountainous areas.39 By 1962 grazing unit leases were insignificant in number and importance. The third and by far the most important form Of lease is the individually arranged or competent type. In 1952 approximately 70% of all leased acreage was by competent lease. By 1962 a total Of 66% Of the allotted trust land was under competent lease, 22% was under office lease, and 12% was not formally leased.40 Most competent leases are for the maximum five year period and are paid for in advance at a discounted rate equal to the going rate for bank loans. Because many Indians squander the entire rental payment in a short time, the lease is renewed each year by tearing up the Old lease and writing a new five year lease and paying an additional year's rent. The result is a continuous lease which the non-Indian can perpetuate because most Indians need the money each year and cannot afford to let their leases expire and try for more favorable terms. 391bid., p. 3. 40Lea in Of Indian Trust Lands, M.R.B.I., Report #170, p. i. 162 Amount of Land Leased In 1952, 85% Of the allotted trust land was leased to non-Indians.41 A total Of 1,140,363 acreas were leased by competent Indians and 135,663 acres were under office leases (Table 5). By 1962 competent leases accounted for only 871,865 acres and Office leases nearly doubled to 265,415 acres. The decrease in competent lease acreage by over 250,000 acres between 1952 and 1962 resulted largely from the sale Of much Of the allotted land previously under competent lease. The increase in acreage under Office leases was due in part to the increasing number Of allotments in heirship status. Land owned by deceased persons is normally divided among several heirs and must by law be administered by Office lease when six or more heirs are involved. Despite the decline in total leased acreage between 1952 and 1962, non-Indians were leasing approximately 90% of the allotted land on the reservation in 1962 -- an increase from the 85% figure for 1952.42 While the number Of acres Of grazing land which was leased was declining between 1952 and 1962, there was a noticeable increase in the amount Of dry farm land acreage which was leased, especially under 41 e Leasin of India Trust La d, M.R.B.I., Report # 9, , p, , 42 Leasing of Indian Trust Lands, M;R.B.I., Report #170, 19 3, p. i. 163 TABLE 5a AMOUNT AND TYPE OF LEASE LAND, 1952 AND 1962 1952 1962 Type acres % acres % Grazing 1,135,528 89 950,307 83 Dry Farm Land 103,968 8 145,873 13 Irrigated Land 36 530 3 41 100 4 I,276,026 I56 1,137,280 156 Competent Lease Grazing 1,054,411 92.5 737,106 84J5 Dry Farm 62,125 5.4 102,694 1128 Irri ated 23 827 2 l 32 065 3:7 8 my , o, ""100 3717363 I'T'o Office Lease Grazing 81,117 59.8 213,201 80.3 Dry Farm 41,843 30.8 43,179 16.3 Irrigated 12 703 9 4 9 035 4 1551363 To 2337.13 'ToLo a r—TET——T— U.S. De t. O t e Interior, B.I. ., M.R.B.I., Report NO. 170, Billings, Montana, September, 1963, pp. 7-1 Leasin of Indian Trust Lands on CrOW'Reservation, 164 competent lease. The total amount Of leased irrigation acreage increased slightly overall but declined for office leases. Lease Rates In 1952 rates for leasing grazing land averaged $ .22 for competent leases and $ .24 for Office leases (Table 6). Dry farm rates ranged from $ .50 tO $5.00 per acre per year but averaged $1.62 for competent leases and $1.27 for Office leases. The determining factor for lease rental rates is the availability of water for stock.watering and raising crops. The accessibility and productivity of the land is also important. Rates for irrigated land ranged from $1.00 to $10.00 per acre per year, being slightly higher for competent leases with an average of $2.67 compared to $2.36 for Office leases. Thus, during 1952 competent and office lease rates averaged about the same for grazing leases, but competent rates were higher for dry farm and irrigated land. The reverse was true in 1962 when Office lease rates had more than doubled while competent rates had increased very little. In comparing 1962 rates, however, it must be remembered that competent lease rates as shown were discounted an average of 7% for four years because they were paid in advance. Even when making considerations for the discount rate, Office leases paid significantly higher rates in 1962 than did competent leasesfi 165 AThe 1962 Office rates not only paid a higher average rental but also included fewer exceptionally low rental rates and considerably more high rental rates (Table 7). A total of 92.5% of Office leases for grazing land paid $ .40 or more per acre compared to only 21.4% of the competent leases. Nearly two-thirds Of the competent leases earned less than $ .30 per acre compared to less than 3% of the Office leases. The pattern is roughly the same for dry land leases. Over half the competent leases earned less than $2.00 per acre compared to only 9% of the Office leases. Moreover, nearly 37% Of the Office leases were for $4.00 or more per acre compared to less than 5% Of the competent leases. Office lease rates for irrigated land were sig- nificantly better than for competent leases in 1962. Nearly two-thirds of the competent leases were for less than $2.00 per acre. This contrasts greatly with Office leases of which over 45% were for $5.00 or more per acre. Although.most Crow lessors prefer cash leases, a few crap-share leases are arranged on the basis Of from one- fourth to one-half Of the crop. Despite the fact that the average crop-share for irrigated land was $11.00 per acre and for dry farm land $5.58 per acre in 1952, only 15% of all irrigated land and 46% of the dry farm land was share- crapped.43 Between 1952 and 1962 the amount of irrigated 43135133713 of Ladiafl st Land, M.R.B.I., Report #139, 1954, We " e 166 TABLE 6a CASH LEASE RATES, 1952, 1962, AND 1967 m Type Lease 1952 1962 1967 Competent Grazing .22 .26 .35 Dry Farm Land 1.62 1.84 2.08 Irrigated Land 2.67 3.20 3.58 Office Grazing .24 .47 .61 Dry Farm Land 1.27 3.81 4.30 Irrigated Land 2.36 5.23 7.52 a Leasin Of Indian Trust Lands, M.R.B.I., Report #170, 1963, pp. 59-63. land which was share-cropped increased 9% but still totalled only 3,700 acres.44 During the same period the amount of dry farm land which was share-cropped decreased from 48,000 acres to 27,000. By 1962 less than 45,000 total acres were share-cropped, an amount less than 4% Of the entire allotted land. Considering the fact that share-cropping paid the lessor an average Of $5.24 for dry farm land and over $16.00 44Leasin of Indian T st Land, M.R.B.I., Report #170, 1963, p. . 167 TABLE 7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CASH LEASE RATES, 1962 M Office Competent % % Grazing Land under $ .20 .4 27.3 .20 to .29 2.2 38.9 .30 to .39 4.9 12.4 .40 to .49 71.2 9.1 .50 or more 21,; 12,3 100 100 Dry Farm Land under $1.00 1.9 15.5 1.00 to 1.99 7.5 39.7 2.00 to 2.99 30.2 25.5 3.00 to 3.99 23.6 14.7 $.83 to 4.99 1%.: 3.3 . or more I I Irrigated Land under $2.00 1.8 25.2 2.00 to 2.99 5.7 36.7 3.00 to 3.99 5.7 18.8 4.00 to 4.99 41.5 8.7 2.38 to 5.99 €ge8 2.8 . or more , 100 105 Source: MQR.B.I., Report NO. 170, 1963, pp. 27-29. 168 per share for each acre Of irrigated land in 1962, it seems highly unusual that so little land is share-cropped.45 Cash leases are preferred for several reasons. Most Crow prefer to get their money immediately (usually in advance) rather than wait until the end of the harvest season. In addition there is always the chance Of crop failure and no income at all. Another advantage of cash leasing is the Opportunity of Obtaining an advance payment on the lease in emergency situations. Importance Of Lease Income By 1952 nearly 42% Of all cash income received by the 46 Crow came from land leases. Of the 470 families on the reservation at that time, only fifty-one received no lease income. The lease income received by the 419 families ranged from a few’pennies to over $8,200 per year and averaged $1,228. Thirty per cent Of the families received over half their total income from leasing, but nearly 76% Of the families receiving lease income got less than $1,500 per year.47 Lease income was the sole income for forty families 451bide, ppe 33-34e 46C%;tura1 and Economic Status of the Crow, M.R.B.I., Report #1 , a P- - 47 Leasin of Indian Trust Lsgg, M.R.B.I., Report #139, 1954, p. 21. 169 and over half the income for an additional 153 families.48 Thus, 193 families (4l% of all families) depended heavily on lease money for their livelihood in 1952. By 1962 lease income was still a major source Of income for Crow families even though between 1952 and 1962 over 300,000 acres of allotted trust land had been sold to non-Indians. Since the early 1960's the sale Of Indian land to non-Indians has been discouraged and the tribe has tried to purchase land as it came on the market. Regardless Of whom the individual Crow land owner sells his land to, every sale leaves that much less land available for leasing and leasing becomes less important in the overall economy Of the Crow. Nevertheless, leasing remains an important source of income for many Crow families. For some it is the only source of income. Trends in Leasing A 1962 study found many errors and defects in leasing contracts.49 Many had no rental rate per acre nor total rental fee listed. In some cases the legal description Of the land was in error. Some contracts omitted acreage figures or lacked signatures or notarization. A few’were for periods longer than permitted by law. 48Cgltural and Economic Status Of_§he Crow, Report #147, pp. 22-2 . 49Leasin of I dian Trust Lands, M.R.B.I., Report #170, 1963, p. 23. 170 The Crow tribal attorney, Bert W. Kronmiller, wrote to the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior in 1960 to challenge the legality Of the practice Of annually 50 The Solicitor ruled that extending the five year leases. under certain conditions which limit the Opportunity of the lessor to seek other lessees and to renegotiate the terms Of the lease the contract may void the lease. Several improvements in leasing arrangements followed this decision. The number Of annual cancellations and renewals of competent leases declined, rental rates increased for many new'leases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs became more careful to ensure that proper leasing arrangements were followed, new provisions were added to contracts to ensure that soil conservation measures were carried out by the lessee, and a bonus payment was provided for if the price Of beef exceeded a certain level.51 By 1961 the practice Of discounting advance payments Of competent cash leases was becoming rare at the insistence of the Crow. As a result leases were drawn up at a lower rate but the average amount Of rental remained about the same. By 1963 the practice of discounting payments was dis- continued. Many Indians did not understand the practice, few could explain it, and some did not even know'if their own leases were discounted. SOIbid. , p. iVe 511b;d., pp? 55-59. 171 After winning a legal settlement against the United States in the early 1960's the Crow'Tribe established a one million dollar loan program to help competent lessors break the cycle of continually renewing their leases each year at disadvantageous rates.52 The idea was to loan the lessor money in place of the advance payment and thus put him in a more competitive position to seek higher lease rental or change lessees. Loans were to be repaid after the lease expired. By 1963 a total of 157 loans had been made on 45,306 acres of land.53 This represented just over 5% of all land under competent lease. Security for the loan is a mortgage on the property involved. The agency superintendent reported that many Crow'were able to substantially increase their rental rates after the loan program was initiated.54 Most Crow'would make more money if the leasing system were changed. As suggested earlier a much greater profit is possible on a share-crOp basis even if the lessor helps pay for seed and fertilizer. A.major improvement would certainly follow if the Crow would discontinue the practice of annually renewing their leases and thus create a more competitive system. 52Ibid., p. 60. 531616. 54W, M.R.B.I., Report #184, 1967, p. 41. 172 A survey Of sixty-three lessors in 1962 revealed that over half did not want to change the system and 95% pre- 55 ferred to retain their competency status. Nearly every adult is classified as competent and is proud of it for it provides a degree Of status. Many of those classified as competent would have great difficulty convincing an un- biased observer Of their business skills or sense of economics. Few keep records of their transactions except in their heads. In 1962 thirty-eight lease contracts were 56 Many complain about inequities signed by a thumbprint only. in the leasing arrangements but few really seem interested in changing the system. There are several reasons why the leasing system continues. Non-Indians have purchased land around streams and water holes in a pattern which.makes large tracts Of Indian land virtually worthless because of the lack Of water for stock or lack of access. The Indian land owner is forced to accept whatever he can get. In some cases the rental rate is extremely low, especially if the land is isolated. In 1952 one such tract of nearly 1,000 acres was leased for $25.00 (2.5 cents per acre).57 55;%a§ing of Indian Tr st Land, M.R.B.I., Report #170, 1963, p. . 56Ibid., p. 11. 4 ”Leasing gt Indgs' p Iggst Land, M.R.B.I., Report #139,- 195 , Po 0 173 Another reason why the leasing system continues is the fragmented land holdings Of many Indians. Under the original allotment act in 1887 individuals were permitted to take only part of their allotment along streams. As a result, many Crow, perhaps most, have allotments consisting Of two or more parcels of land oftentimes many miles apart and thus unsuited for grazing livestock. The sale of land to non- Indians has added to the problem Of fragmentation. Still another reason for the continuance Of the leasing system is the fact that many Crow left their allotments in the 1930's and became accustomed to living Off their lease money and now find it difficult to break the cycle. The Crow prefer the present system of competent leases because there is less red tape and it is generally easier to arrange a competent lease than an Office lease. The idea of being able to get an advance payment in an emergency is especially appealing to many Grow. A major disadvantage Of the present leasing system is that it ties up land for five years and thus makes it difficult to sell the land. In addition, because of reduced competition the rental rates are usually less. From the point of view Of the lessee the competent lease is preferred. There is less red tape and it is easier to deal with an individual Indian than with the agency staff. However, many lessees complain that the Indian land Owner 174 makes a nuisance of himself by repeatedly asking for Special favors or emergency funds. In addition, it is difficult to Obtain signatures from all the land owners and it is frequently necessary to pay what amounts to a bribe in order to get some to sign. ‘When office leases are involved the agency personnel handle most Of the paper work and red tape. Still another drawback of competency leases is the question Of the legality Of such leases. Some lessees feel the system Of competent leases helps improve the business skills of the Indian, but others say it makes beggars and loafers out Of them. At the present time the leasing system remains virtually unchanged. The tribal loan program has helped some lessors break the questionable practice of continually renewing their leases every year. This has helped make the leasing system more competitive as the threat to seek a new lessee Often results in more favorable leasing arrangements and less exploitation Of the Indian. There is a gradual trend by the Crow to use their own land, but farming still holds little appeal for most Of them. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and leasing will continue to be a very important source Of income for many Crow. Several development projects currently underway or in the planning stage which are designed to provide new roads and water supplies might help encourage some Crow to farm 175 their own land. Such projects should provide higher lease rates if the current system continues. Heirship Problems The usual practice upon the death of a Crow allottee is to divide interest in his estate among his heirs. The land itself is not divided or sold, but the various heirs hold an interest in the land, share in any income it produces based on the amount of interest held, and have a voice in its use. The degree of complexity and difficulty of management involved in fragmented land owned by large numbers of heirs can perhaps be shown by three examples of actual cases Of contemporary land ownership.58 Allotment number 5 originally provided 160 acres under the 1887 Allotment Act to a child born in 1904 who died in 1905. The land subsequently passed to fifty-three heirs but was consolidated in 1968 to thirty- six heirs. After consolidation the heir with the largest share owned 6,480/38,880 Of the original 160 acres (less than 25 acres); the second largest share was for 3,240/38,880, and five heirs each owned 120/38,880 Of 160 acres (less than one- half acre). Allotment 13 also provided 160 acres to an individual under the 1887 Allotment Act. The allotment eventually passed 58Taken from land records Of the Bureau Of Indian Affairs, Crow Agency, Montana during July of 1969. 176 to a total Of 245 heirs but was consolidated in 1967 into 86 claims. The largest claim is for 25,401,600/355,622,400 Of the 160 acres (about 11 acres); several other heirs each own 122,304/355,622,400 of 160 acres, and the smallest claim is 33,075/355,622,400 (.0014 acres). Allotment 79 also involves 160 acres. After the original allottee died the land passed to 158 heirs and was later consolidated to 101 heirs in 1967. An indication Of hOW’the heirship practice grows in complexity can be illustrated by noting recent changes in the status of this allotment. One heir died in 1966 and left his share of 7/270 Of 160 acres to his wife and eight children. Another heir died in 1965 and left 5/288 Of 160 acres to her five children. In 1963 a heir left 1/64 of 160 acres to her eleven children. In 1962 a share of 7/135 Of 160 acres was divided among five surviving Children and ten grandchildren. In this case the heir left eight acres to be divided among fifteen heirs. The Bureau Of Indian Affairs handles leasing arrange- ments for most of the land which is owned under complicated heirship status and makes annual payments to each person owning a share of the property. On rare occasions shares are so small that the yearly income amounts to only a few pennies. One heir who owns .0014 acres of allotment thirteen illustrates this problem. Assuming the land in 177 question is grazing land renting for $ .50 per acre, the owner would receive less than one cent for a year's rent. If his .0014 acres are irrigated and rent for ten dollars per acre, his share amounts to fourteen cents. In addition to the problems created for agency personnel the heirship practice makes land ownership patterns so complicated that it is difficult to make wise use Of the land since every heir must agree to its use. Bureau regulations permit the Superintendent to negotiate leases 'without signatures when heirs cannot agree upon a lease, but the general practice has been to require all owners tO sign a lease. Since many owners no longer reside on the reser- vation the Crow Tribe passed a resolution in 1961 requesting that a lease require the signature Of only 75% Of the owners e 59 Development of irrigation on the reservation as well as Crow'farming and ranching Operations is also seriously impeded by the heirship problem. Ownership Of a sample township being considered for a new irrigation project was divided into 124 separate parcels of land and owned by 1,470 6.60 individuals in 196 Eight of the parcels were only forty 59Missouri River Basin Report #170, Leasing Of Indian Tnthmm,p.8. 60Ralph E. ward and Clarence W. Jensen, An Economic A raisal of Develo in the Hardin Unit for Irrigation, Bul. 639, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, 1970, p. 22. 178 acres each and the three biggest were 640 acres. TWenty Of the 124 parcels were owned by individual Indians, sixty- three by two or more heirs, thirty by non-Indians, five by the tribe, two by the state, and four were in question. Such fragmented ownership seriously complicates deve10pment Of the land and rules out wise use Of the land in some cases. The Crow Tribe is buying allotments or partial allotments and attempting to consolidate the ownership of some of the more complicated problem tracts with multiple heirs. Until the problem is solved economic development of the reservation will be greatly limited. Cattle Ranghing In the early 1900's a small tribally-owned herd Of cattle was reported operating successfully and by 1920 had increased tO 12,250 cattle.61 A total Of 228 individual Crow ranchers owned an additional 2,648 cattle. The 1920 Allotment Act included provisions for loans for cattle and machinery and required that the tribal herd be divided among tribal members to encourage individual cattle Operations.62 This division of the tribal herd along with severe winter 61W. R. Centerwall, "Working Plan Report of the Grazing Resources and Activities of the Crow Indian Reservation,“ Dec. 1930 (a typed report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the files at Crow'Agency, MOntana). 62U.S., Statutes at Lar e, XLI, Part I, 751. 179 losses resulted in a sharp reduction in the number Of Crow- owned cattle. By 1930 only 337 cattle were owned by Indians and all available grazing land on the reservation was leased to non-Indians for fees ranging from eight to twenty-five cents per acre per year.63 During the 1930's funds were provided from various sources to enlarge the cattle herds Of individual ranchers. In 1934 a cattle loan program jointly sponsored by the Crow Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was established. Cattle were loaned to qualified Indians and repayment was made by either heifers or cash. By 1953 the program was discontinued but while in Operation it had loaned over 1,600 cattle to tribal members. A revolving credit fund was also established to make loans for machinery, livestock, feed, seed, permanent improvements, and other items required for farming or ranching. Interest rates were kept low and members were encouraged to seek credit through commercial channels as well. Since most Indian land is held in trust and cannot be mortgaged commercial loans were difficult to get. Between 1936 and 1953 the number Of Crowaowned beef cattle rose steadily from 4,200 tO over 10,400.64 In 1936 63Ral hIE. Ward, et a1, Indians in A riculture, I, Cattle Ranc ing on the Crow'Reservation, Bul. 522, MQR.B.I., B.I.A., U.S. Dept. of Interior, July, 1956, p. 43. 64Ibid., p. 44: — 180 beef cattle accounted for 86% of all Crow livestock and by 1953 for 96%. During the same period the number of dairy cows averaged less than 200 head, and sheep, poultry and pigs were also relatively insignificant. Attempts were made to upgrade the importance Of other livestock beside beef cattle but were generally ineffectual. Table 8 indicates that although the number of cattle and the average herd size owned by Crow ranchers steadily increased from 1947 to 1953, the number and percentage of Crow'families involved in cattle ranching steadily decreased. MOSt of those who dropped out of the cattle business had fewer than fifty cattle each. The year 1953 was a very bad year for ranchers as the price Of cattle dropped nearly in half from $160 per head in 1950 to $71 in 1953.65 This drastic reduction in cattle prices had a very serious effect on the income of Crow ranchers since most grew few if any cash crops. During the same year the program for loaning cattle was discontinued and the Congress Of the United States was discussing the idea of terminating Indian reservations. Together these and other circumstances did little to encourage cattle ranching among the Crow. By the late 1950's there had been no large-scale liquidation Of Crow herds despite the decline in cattle prices, but the total number 65Ibid., p. 46. 181 of cattle declined significantly and many small operators dropped out of the cattle business. Throughout the 1960's the number of cattle and the average herd size increased, but fewer families now raise cattle and small Operators find it even more difficult to be successful. In 1953 only 185 of the 595 Crow’families on the reservation had agricultural incomes.66 Of these 185 families 140 had beef cattle but only eighty-nine had twenty or more. Only fifty-four Of the eighty-nine families had usuable records and earned over half their cash income from the sale of range livestock. Analysis Of these fifty-four ranches provides an in- sight into the problems of cattle ranching on the Crow Reservation by Indian operators. Only two of the ranches had sheep, most had from twenty to one hundred chickens, but few ranches had hogs. Many Of the ranches formerly kept large herds of horses but by 1953 they were insignificant. Forty- four per cent of the ranches had gardens, 25% had milk cows, 37% grew their own meat, and 63% used deer, elk, or buffalo.67 A typical Crow ranch included range and hay land, a few buildings, some modern ranch equipment, recently installed 66Ibid., p. 6. 67A tribally-owned herd of several hundred buffalo was kept in the Big Horn MOuntains until the early 1960's when it was destroyed to prevent the Spread of brucellosis. 182 electricity, and a car or truck. A few'were still using horse-drawn equipment in 1953. The average ranch size was 1,750 acres of which 96% was grazing land, and the average herd size was 94 head (compared to 75 for all Crow ranches, Table 8). Seveml ranch Operators were working in family groups or partnerships. Some of the ranch lands were contiguous but others were several miles apart. Approximately 20% of the ranchers held part-time jobs Off the ranch, usually in sugar beet fields, a sugar factory, or fighting forest fires. Income from such employment averaged $1,300 per year (only $700 if the two largest off- farm incomes are excluded). In addition, 85% Of the ranchers received lease income. Total non-farm income averaged $2,152 for'the fifty-four ranches.68 The fifty-four ranches were divided into three groups for comparative purposes. The twenty-two small ranches with 20 to 50 cattle and an average total investment Of nearly $16,000 Operated at a net loss Of $234 (Table 9). The twenty ranches with 51 to 100 cattle and an average invest- ment of over $26,000 made an average profit of only $106. The twelve large ranches with over 100 cattle and an average investment Of over $67,000 showed a profit of $3,602. From 68ward, et al, p. 34. 183 TABLE 8 TRENDS IN THE SIZE OF CROW CATTLE HERDS, 1947-1968 # of Beef Ave. Size Crow Families on Reserva- Cattle Herd t’on _;_ 7FL # With ‘7. With Cattle Cattle 1947 8,854 49 455 181 40 1949 9,742 57 460 171 37 1951 9,250 44 473 165 36 1953 10,437 75 595 140 24 1964 6,000 71 675 84 12 1968 7,600 117 700 65 9 Source: Data for years 1947-1953 from Ral h E. Ward, I dians in A riculture, Bul. 522, 1956, pp. 46-4 . Data for 1964 and I968 is from B.I.A. estimates. these figures it can be seen that cattle ranching in the early 1950's was not a very lucrative proposition for Crow ranchers unless the ranch had over 100 cattle. Non-farm income was a very important source of income, especially for the two smaller groups of ranches. The smaller ranches would have been money ahead had they invested their assets in a bank and drawn interest. Despite the rather poor return many ranchers in 1953 expressed a desire to get more cattle and more land. Land competition was keen and the practice of long-term leasing 184 complicated the problem. Although the tribe owned con- siderable acreage capable of supporting cattle much of the land was in mountainous areas and thus limited largely to summer pasture. TABLE 9 CROW CATTLE RANCHES, 1953 Group I Group II Group III Number of ranches 22 20 12 Number of cattle 20-50 51-100 101-600 Size of ranch (acres) 748 1,350 4,260 Ave. total a investment $15,940 $26,223 $67,417 Net ranch incomgb - $ 234 $ 106 3,602 Non-farm income 2 116 2 176 2 76 Total income g I,882 %'2f2§2 , Source: Indians in A riculture, Bul. 522, M.R.B.I., 1956, pp. 9'27 0 aIncludes owned land, buildings, livestock and equipment. bIncludes sale of stock and craps, perquisites (rental allowance for dwelling, meat, dairy products and garden produce), less depreciation and operating expenses. cIncludes income from land lease, off-farm work, G.I. Training Allowance, etc. 185 A 1958 study of agricultural possibilities on the reservation considered several alternatives for using irri- gation to improve productivity on Crow ranches and farms.69 Livestock operations which use irrigated land for hay and pasture or for intensive crOp production showed considerable promise. Since large areas Of rangeland are adjacent to irrigated land a balanced operation Of the proper size which combined cattle ranching‘and farming was recommended as capable Of providing a modest level of living. Based on the findings of this study two alternative farming-ranching operations were believed to show some promise for Crow ranchers. A cowbyearling operation with about 3,000 acres or rangeland and 157 acres of irrigated land, of which 26 acres are in wheat, 40 in pasture and 91 in alfalfa hay, and a herd of 207 cattle could provide an income of $3,976 on a total investment of $86,000.70 A second possibility recommended was a farm with 140 irrigated acres of which 84 were in sugar beets and 28 each in wheat and green manure crops. For an investment of $34,000 such an Operation was found to be capable of producing an income of $6,733.71 693 J. Tietema Indians in A ri ulture U.S Dept. of the Interior, B.I.A.,’M.R.B.I., BuI. 5&2, June, 1958. 7°Ibid., p. 37. 711bid., p. 47. 186 To be a successful cattle rancher, however, requires more than the proper size ranch and herd of cattle. It requires a knowledge Of feeding, breeding, weaning and care of calves, market conditions, and efficient organization. In addition, a rancher must knOW'about range and crop manage- ment including the proper placement and number Of stock per unit of land, selection of crops, planting and harvesting of crops, and land conservation practices. In most areas of MOntana, including the Crow Reservation, it is necessary 72 that winter feed be provided. Thus, to be a successful rancher requires a large amount of knowledge and training in addition to a large capital investment. The 1953 study of Crow cattle ranching Operations referred to earlier had poor financial returns because of relatively poor management which resulted in low calf crops and high death rates. Insufficient knowledge and limited capital for enlarging herd and ranch sizes were added burdens. The average herd size of 94 cattle and average ranch size of 1,750 acres had little chance for profitable operation. The proper size operation recommended in 1961 was 3,000 acres of which 150 to 200 acres is irrigated and a herd of 230 cattle.73 Crow ranches fell far below this recommendation on both counts. 725. J. Tietema, Indians in Agriculture, Bul. 555, M.R.B.I., April, 1961, p. 5. 73Ibid., p. 25. 187 In 1964 approximately 84 Indians owned more than 6,000 cattle, but only one-third of the ranches had over 100 head ).74 of cattle (Table 8 0f the fifty-five commercial cattle ranches Operated by Grow in 1965, only 34 had fifty or more TABLE 10 CROW CATTLE RANCHES, 1965 M NUmber of Ranches 16 13 14 7 Number of cattle 1-50 50-99 100-199 200 or more Ave. size herd 33 86 186 511 13:43:20;st $3833 $2 292 $2,271.: $22,333 Total income m $3576 $41963 $23719? Ave. size ranch (acres) 697 1,883 2,701 6,891 Ave. investment $31,930 $56,871 $108,015 $263,710 Source: Crow Cattle Ranching ngrations U.S. Dept. of the Interior, B.I.A., M.R.B.I., Report NO. 187, 1968, pp. 11-160 aFrom sale of cattle and crops less Operating expenses and depreciation. bIncludes Off-ranch wages, lease income, welfare, etc. cattle (Table 10). Most did not utilize intensive management practices, preferring to graze their cattle year round with 74Joe Medicine-Crow unpubliShed mimeo handout, B.I,A., Crow Agency, Montana, 19683 188 little extra hay or feed. Most still sold their cattle in local markets rather than tO central markets. Only seven of the fifty ranches had 200 or more cattle -- the number most frequently recommended as a minimum size Operation. Ranches with fewer than 100 cattle had an average net ranch income Of less than $1,000, while ranches with 100 to 199 cattle averaged $3,516, and those with more than 200 cattle earned an average of $22,393.75 These figures support the earlier findings that economic success in cattle ranching is closely related to the size of the Operation. By supple- menting ranch income with other income the smaller ranches can probably get by. However, ranChes with less than 200 cattle would probably be better off if they invested the money tied up in cattle ranching in a bank and lived Off the interest. In addition to monetary return, however, cattle ranching provides certain non-economic rewards such as satisfying employment, a rather significant degree of status, and the Opportunity to improve one's skills, aspirations, and hopes. Compared to the earlier study in 1953, Crow cattle ranchers have made substantial progress but still need to improve their management skills and the size of their Operations. Much of the apparent improvement noted in 75Crggg;Cattle Ranching ngrations, U.S. Dept. Of the Interior Bureau of Indian ffairs, M.R.B.I., Report #187, July, 1968, p. 1. 189 Table 10 is related to the discontinuation Of many smaller, un-economic Operations, but most Crow ranches still lack sufficient acreage and cattle tO be economically successful. Continued progress was noted in 1968 as sixty-five Crow ranchers owned an estimated 7,600 cattle and over half Of the ranches had 100 or more cattle.76 Farming 0f the total trust acreage on the Crow Reservation only about 12.5% is usuable for dry farming and less than 2% is irrigated (Table 11). Nearly 80% is rangeland and good for little other than grazing cattle. This explains in part why the Crow have never shown much interest in farming since their placement on a reservation. But it is only part of the reason. The main reason is related to cultural pre- ference. Few Crow ever took up farming except grudgingly. After passage of a series of competency acts which made it easy to sell or lease their land and after the economic depression of the 1930's, the reluctance of the Crow to take up farming was re-enforced. In 1937 the Crow’were farming or ranching only 158,148 acres (7% of the entire reservation).77 By the early 1950's 76Unpublished mimeographed report, B. I. A., Crow’Agency, Montana . 77Joe Medicine-Crow "The Effects of European Contacts Upon the Crow Indians," 1939, p. 16 . 190 few Crow had shown much interest in farming. Job Opportun- ities Off the reservation during World War II did little to encourage the Crow to try farming. Introduction to a money economy during the 1930's and 1940's made farming still less attractive. By 1953 the Crow'were farming only 12% of their grazing land, 7% Of their irrigated land, and 5% of their dry farm land (Table 12). The rest Of the land was operated by non-Indians who leased the land. In 1960 and 1964 the figures were about the same. 0f the 1% million acres of trust land in 1964, the Crow were using only 13% of the grazing land, 5% of the irrigated land, and 6% Of the dry farm land. By 1969 they began using slightly more Of their land following the distribution of funds from a legal settlement which made it financially possible for some to begin farming. MOSt of the increase, however, was in grazing land or land used to produce hay or small grains to supplement cattle ranching. From 1936 to 1944 the amount of crop acreage utilized by the Crow averaged approximately 5,000 acres per year, but the amount fluctuated periodically and reached a high Of over 12,500 acres in 1948 (Table 13). In 1952 only nine Crow families were totally dependent on agriculture for a living, and for twenty-six other 191 TABLE 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TRUST LAND, 1968 acres % Grassland 1,223,760 78.1 Brush and Forest 107,612 6.9 Dry Farm Land 196,512 12.5 Irrigated Land 30,005 1.9 6 Waste or Idle 459 T:367f34§ 160‘— Source: Montana-Wyoming Indian, 1968, p. 60. TABLE 12 LAND USED BY THE CROW, 1953, 1960, 1964, AND 1968 1953a 1960b 1964c 1968b Percentage of reservation Grazing 12 10 13 19 Irrigated Land 7 4 5 8 Dry Farm Land 5 6 6 8 aIgdiagg in Agriculture, Bul. 522, p. 6. bMOgtana4wyoming Indians, unpaginated. CCrow’Cattle Ranching Operations, M.R.B.I. Report No. 187, p. 5. families it was a major source of income.78 After reaching a peak in 1948 crop acreage declined considerably to earlier levels. After the bottom fell out of the cattle market in 78Cultural 33% Economic Status of the Crow PeOple, MiR.‘B.I.’ Report 1 , 9 , P. c 192 the early 1950's many marginal ranchers quit the cattle business and most leased their land to non-Indians. Little data concerning the number of Crow farmers and the amount Of crop acreage utilized by them is available for the period since 1953. In neither case was the number very large. Based on the reported number Of cattle ranches and the widely-held opinions Of bureau personnel and tribal Officials interviewed, it can be fairly accurately estimated that fewer than fifty Crow farmed or ranched at any time since 1953. This is supported by a 1964 survey in which only sixty-seven adult Crow listed ranching as their occupation and none identified himself as a farm Operator (Table 15).79 The increase in crop acreage indicated in Table 12 for the period since the mid-1960's is related to the trend toward fewer but larger cattle ranches with greater acreage devoted to hay and small grains. Between 1962 and 1965, ninety-five families used part or all of their award money from the legal settlement to begin or enlarge ranching or farming Operations, and twenty-six families borrowed money 80 for the same purpose. By 1965 the amount of crap acreage had increased to over 13,700 acres, but nearly 10,000 acres 79Ind’ Housin Sit ation, MLR.B.I., Report #183, 1965, p. . 8OOtto Weaver, Superintendent of the Crow Rese ation, 1965 report concerning he Family Fund Program, p. 5 copy on file at Crow Agency, MOntana). 193 Of this were used for hay or small grains on fifty commercial cattle ranches and very little was used for cash cropping. In 1967-1968 the Crow'were using only 185,519 acres of their land, of which 109,513 acres were owned by TABLE 13 TRENDS IN CROP ACREAGE AND NUMBER OF FAMILIES WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOMES 1936-1969 Crop NO. Resident Indian Families With Acreage Indian Agricultural Income Families NO. % 1936 4,802 522 N.A. N.A. 1939 5,155 N.A. 125 N.A. 1942 4,741 328 250 76 1945 6,741 433 230 53 1948 12,580 456 301 66 1951 6,957 473 204 43 1953 5,135 595 185 31 1960 7,000 650 100 16 1965 13,700 685 125 18 1969 15,000 725 125 17 Source: Data for years 1936 through 1953 from ward, et a1, Bul. 522, p. 48. For years 1960 to 1969 the data is estimated from a series of interviews with agency personnel, tribal Officials and members of the tribe. 81 individuals and 76,006 acres by the tribe. Nearly all of this land was used in conjunction with cattle ranching Operations. 81From Bureau of Indian Affairs records, Crow Agency , Montana. 194 It is tempting to explain land-use patterns on the Crow Reservation, especially as they pertain to Crow farmers, in terms of cultural attitudes and economic necessity. Opportunities for leasing their land support the cultural bias of the Crow against farming. While it is true that sale of land to non-Indians has limited opportunities for farming, this alone does not explain why so few Crow are farmers. A comparison Of the Crow with several other Montana tribes suggests that there are other factors involved. The Northern Cheyenne Reservation is much smaller in size and population than the other three reservations but is included because it is adjacent to the Crow Reservation and has similar soils, vegetation and tOpography (Table 14). The Crow Reservation is much larger than the Fort Peck, Blackfoot or Cheyenne reservations both in total size and the amount of land remaining in trust status. Both the Fort Peck (Sioux and Assiniboine) and Blackfoot reservations have larger Indian pOpulations than does the CrOW'Reservation. Thus, the Crow are much better Off in terms of per capita trust land. There is little climatic difference between the four reservations and all are over two-thirds grazing land. Non-Indians own a smaller percentage of the Crow Reservation than is true for the Fort Peck or Blackfoot reservations. There is little difference in the percentage of individually-owned Indian land between the Crow and Blackfoot, but Fort Peck Indians own considerably less trust 195 land individually. Thus, in terms of total size of the reservation, Indian population, per capita land ownership, and percentage of the reservation owned by non-Indians, the Crow are much better Off than the other Indians. Between 1960 and 1968 the Crow increased the amount of trust land acreage which they were using in all categories, but they still use far less of their land than any of the other three reservation groups. Fort Peck Indians use relatively little of their land for farming but still do more farming than the Crow. A comparison of Crow and Cheyenne use of trust land is especially informative. The Cheyenne have sold very little of their land to non-Indians, perhaps because they have had so little to begin with, and a much larger percentage of the reservation is owned jointly by the tribe. The Cheyenne farm nearly all their land while the Crow farm very little. All four reservations are inhabited by Plains Indians who formerly lived by hunting buffalo and were inexperienced in agricultural pursuits. Why then have the Crow not under- taken farming to the same extent as these other tribes? Sale of land to non-Indians is not the answer, for non-Indians have purchased even larger percentages of the Blackfoot and Fort Peck reservations where farming is widely practiced by Indians. Perhaps a better answer is that the Crow have been given more authority than any other tribe to lease their own 196 TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF LAND USE ON SELECTED MONTANA INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 1968 CrOW' Fort Peck Blackfeet N. Cheyenne Size of Reser- vation (acres) 2,282,764 2,093,124 1,525,712 444,157 Trust Land (acres) 1,567,348 1,009,827 947,224 433,274 Population 3,490 3,523 5,823 2,319 Per Capita Trust Land (acres) 450 287 162 187 Grazing Land (% of Trust Land) 78.1 66.3 71.0 78.4 Per cent Of Total Reservation owned by“ Non-Indian 31.3 53.4 37.9 2.5 Indian 54.7 31.7 51.4 39.8 Tribe 14 10.8 10.1 57.8 Per cent of Trust Land used by Indians for: Grazing 1960 10 18 61 52 1968 19 25 76 98 Dry Farm 1960 6 34 14 42 1968 8 51 ll 84 Irri- gation 1960 4 62 35 10 1968 8 48 34 73 Total 1960 10 24 56 51 1968 17 34 65 98 Source: The Mbntana-W omin Indians. B.I.A., Billings Area Office, 19 , unpaginated appendix. land without permission from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.82 With a large reservation and relatively few restraints against leasing, the Crow have found an economically viable azzhe Mbntanaawyoming Indian, p; 26. 197 alternative to farming and have chosen to live Off their lease income. Thus, land use patterns on the Crow Reser- vation reflect not only the Crow bias against farming but also a series of decisions made many years ago by the United States Government which included the allotment of the entire Crow Reservation and the "competent Indian" idea. Em o ent ort ities The main employment Opportunities on or near the reservation are primarily in farming or ranching and related pursuits. As farms and ranches become larger, however, the tendency is to mechanize and thus the job Opportunities decline. Many jobs in agriculture are seasonal and result in unemployment for a large part Of the year. The most frequently listed is commm laborer or working for the government or Crow Tribe (Table 15). In 1969 the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Public Health Service between them employed 131 people.83 Of the 508 families listing an occupation only sixty-seven (13%) listed ranching and thirty- nine others said they were ranch laborers. Thus, in an area where farming and ranching are the major economic activities only 21% list ranching or related work as their occupation and no one identified himself as a farmer. 83"An Overall Economic Development Plan for the Big Horn Economic Develo ent District " a mimeographed report he Economic Develom Corporation, Barr in, dMontana, B1669orn partially unpaginated (copy on file at CrOW'Agency, Montana 198 A total of 1,172 families were identified in a 1964 survey.84 Of this number, 585 family heads were owner- Occupants or renters but only 322 (55%) listed an occupation. Among the other 587 who were mostly young adults age eighteen or over and single, only 186 (32%) reported an occupation. A total Of 508 (44%) of the 1,172 families listed an occupation, but many of these were probably identifying a work experience or future aspiration rather than an occupation. Those not reporting an occupation were mostly elderly, young adults not yet settled in an occupation, or casual laborers who were frequently unemployed. The Crow Tribe provided one million dollars from the judgment funds Obtained in a legal settlement to attract and 85 establish industrial Opportunities on the reservation. Part of the money was used to supplement a federal grant from the Economic Development Administration to build a sixty-five acre industrial park at Crow’Agency in 1966. The project provides approximately a dozen industrial sites and has paved streets, water, sewer, gas, and power. The first firm to begin Operations manufactured electric toothbrush components for about a year and employed seventy-five people before 84Indian Housin Situation Crow Reservation, Missouri River Basin Investigations, Report #183, Billings, Montana, p. 19. The term family is here interpreted to mean each eighteen year Old or Older male or female whether married or single. 85 The Mentana-W omin Indian, p. 6. 199 TABLE 15 CROW OCCUPATIONS, 1964 Common Labor . . . . . . . . . . . 182 TribeorB.I.A. . . . . . . . . . 147 Ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Ranch Labor . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Skill or Trade . . . . . . . . . . 37 othe r O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 3 6 508 ceasing Operations in 1967. A small carpet mill began Operating shortly thereafter. It presently employs approx- imately seventy-five people and has plans to double the number of employees in the near future. All employees except the top four or five managers are CrOW’Indians. Another small factory is located at Lodge Grass and employs about fifty people. It manufactures novelty products and has had mixed success. The Little Horn Feed Mill was also sponsored by the tribe. It employs about ten men. A commercial cattle feed lot employs approximately a dozen Crow’laborers. The Holly sugar factory in Hardin employs approx- imately 100 Crow laborers on a seasonal basis from about October to January. A feW’others work in a sugar factory in Billings. After the sugar campaign ends, unemployment 200 grows to 45% or higher until April or May when other seasonal jobs in agriculture or construction become available.86 Construction of Yellowtail Dam on the Big Horn River near the north end Of the Big Horn Mountains has created a reservoir seventy miles long. The Crow Tribe and the United States National Park Service jointly Operate and administer the Big Horn Canyon Recreation Area. Plans are being de- veloped to build a lodge and marina and make the area an important tourist center. The Crow Tribe is also develOping a motel, restaurant, and campground complex near the Custer Battlefield. This will provide new job Opportunities and experience at various levels of management for a large number of Crow. Other deve10pments still in the planning stage include the expansion Of Plenty Coups Park at Pryor, construction of a water pipeline from Yellowtail Dam to industrial sites, and a new road connection between St. Xavier and Pryor. A new road should help Pryor considerably since the only road connection at the present time with the rest of the reser- vation is little more than a jeep or truck trail which is impassible much of the year. Despite attempts to attract industry to the reservation it seems that the best hopes for future economic development 86Bureau Of Indian Affairs estimate, unpublished mimeo, Crow Agency, Montana. 201 lie in the agricultural sector, perhaps in factories which process agricultural products. Less than 3% of the Crow ‘work force commuted Off the reservation in 1969 and few express a desire to do 30.87 Sources of Income The Crow'were first introduced to a money economy during the 1930's when many were employed in government- sponsored projects on the reservation. World war 11 provided new job Opportunities in Billings and elsewhere around the country. After the war many Crow returned to the reservation and found few opportunities for employment of any type. In 1952 the fEW’jObS which were available were mostly in agriculture. The major employers were the Bureau Of Indian Affairs and the Crow Tribe who hired nineteen and twenty-three full time workers respectively.88 The Holly sugar factory in Hardin employed a few seasonal workers. Of the 406 persons employed during 1952 only 120 (30%) worked full time.89 A total Of 268 worked for wages, but only fifty-eight were fully employed. Others who worked full 87QxeIa11_Eccnomis_2exeleamen£_fieesr£- 880 t ral and Economic Status of Ehé.%£%§-E%%g%9’ Missouri River Basin Investigations, Report 1 , , Billings, Montana, p. 21. 89Ibid. 202 time included forty-one self-employed farmers and ranchers and twenty-one peOple who worked at a combination of jobs. The number one source of income for Crow families in 1952 was from land leases (Table 16). Ninety-two percent of all Crow families received lease income. For forty families lease income was the sole source Of money and for 153 other families lease money provided over half the total family 90 Lease income provided 42% Of the total income income. reported by Crow families in 1952. Wage income was second only to lease income in 1952 accounting for 28% of the total income. A total of 291 families (62% of all families) received some income from wages. Agriculture accounted for 16% Of the total 1952 Crow income, and 117 families (25%) received money from this source. Livestock provided 75% of all agricultural income. Only nine families were wholly dependent on agricultural income, but for twenty-six others it was a major source of income. Money from leases, wages, and agriculture accounted for 86% Of all Crow'income in 1952. The median family income was $2,686, but seventy-four families (16% of all families) golbido, Pp. 24-260 203 .Ouo .waasflmuH OOH one so .mcoamsom .Ohmmams mousaocHO .NN .a .moma .mmH .oz unease ..H.m.m.zn .NN .a .mmaa .naa .ez unease ..H.m.m.zm new pm: oam.amm.m new. A . N.H Hence Na nae on are emu mm eeN an ooo men .eaaz e>onm an suesausm mm RAH ea ooo.naa .wa mm ham or awa.moe.a No new as ooo.nmm mums: mm can mm emn.ame Na awe Ne ooo.ANm sauna a. a scam OEOOGH m0 .N. «w oopsom nOnmz w scum OEOOaH m sea: neaanamm a assess rue: uuaaasmu a nausea semen mmmaa «can nz< Nmaa .szOZH zomu no momsom az< azaozm ea mamas 204 received less than $1,000 and only forty-one (7%) received over $5,000.91 By 1964 total lease income had increased by nearly 40% but represented only 25% of the total cash income. The big change in income sources between 1952 and 1964 was the increase in wages. Although data reported for 1964 combined income from wages and agriculture it can be assumed that most of the reported 1.4 million dollars was for wages. Only 106 families out of 508 which reported occupations listed ranching or ranch labor as an occupation and none listed farming (Table 15). Between 1952 and 1964 lease income increased by approx- imately $214,000 while income from wages and agriculture combined increased by $850,000. Total income more than doubled increasing by 1.6 million dollars to nearly 2.9 million dollars. In 1959, 57% of all Crow families had poverty level incomes (below$3,000).92 A year later the median family income for Crow families was $2,373 compared to $5,128 for Hardin families.93 In 1964 nearly 46% of the 585 Crow family 91Cultural 3%% Economic Status gf the Crow People, M.R.B.I., Report , l , pp. - . 92"An Overall Economic Development Report," 1969, unpaginated. 93Ibid. 205 heads who owned or rented their houses earned less than $3,000 and only 16% earned over $6,000 (Table 17). TABLE 17 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CROW FAMILY INCOME, 1964 Amount Ngmggg, Per Cent Less than $1,000 51 9 1,000 to 1,999 103 18 2,000 to 2,999 114 19 3,000 to 3,999 93 16 4,000 to 4,999 70 12 5,000 to 5,999 57 10 6,000 and over 3%% I%% Source: M;R.B.I. Report NO. 183, 1965, p. 22. Includes only family heads who were owner-occupants or rented a house. Unemployment A 1967 study reported that only 35% of the Crow“work force of 880 persons was employed full time, 30% part time, and 35% were unemployed.94 According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 44% Of the employable work force were unemployed in March, 1967.95 This reflects the seasonal unemployment 94H. Fagg De elo nt ortunities Crow Ind n Re ervati n, U.S. Office 0 Economic Opportunity, as ington, D.C. 1967, unpaginated. 95Unpublished fact sheet, Crow Agency, Montana. 206 following the sugar beet harvest and prior to the upswing in agricultural opportunities during the Spring and summer. The bureau estimated the year round unemployment in 1967 to be about 15 to 20%. By 1969 an estimated two-thirds of all CrOW’income resulted from leasing, sale Of crOps and livestock, or from 96 Cattle, sugar beets, and wheat are the leading farm labor. agricultural products. Although income from wages is considerably greater than for either lease income or agri- cultural income, development Of the agricultural potential of the reservation seems to provide some hOpe for the future. The Crow’Tribe is buying land as it comes on the market and giving leasing preference to Crow Indians to encourage in- creased agricultural activity. Many Crow have indicated a desire to become active in ranching and farming but few have actually done so. Of the nearly 400 families submitting family plans for total expenditures of nearly a million dollars in 1965, only a few indicated a preference for be- ginning Or enlarging agricultural operations. Only 8% of the money was allocated for the purchase of livestock and less than 3% for agricultural machinery and equipment.97 96Wmlmn£ilam B.I.A.. 1969- 97M.R.B.I. Report No. 184, 1965, p. 18. 207 Economic and Cultural Develogmgnt To improve job Opportunities and upgrade the quality of life on the reservation the Crow Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs are actively promoting various projects for economic and cultural development. .Attracting new'industries to the reservation, however, will serve little purpose with- out a qualified and active labor force tO fill the job re- quirements. These qualifications include not only develOping job skills and experience but also motivation and desire. Encouraging Crow families to begin or enlarge agri- cultural enterprises will be self—defeating if inexperienced and reluctant farmers and ranchers are enticed to enter risky ventures where chances Of failure are increased geometrically by undercapitalization and less than enthusiastic desire on the part of the entrepreneur. As mentioned earlier in a comparison with other Montana Indians the Crow make far different use of their land (Table 14). In trying to account for this difference it was suggested that a cultural bias against farming was partially responsible. This bias has been reenforced by bitter memories of attempts to forcefully make farmers of the Crow while destroying their culture. In the absence of such forced change, cultures and cultural traits change at a differential rate and some traits are more persistent than others. The Crow bias against farming is an 208 example of cultural persistence or cultural continuity.98 If the Crow are to maximize economic Opportunities and fully develop agriculture on their reservation it will be necessary to change this bias against farming. This can be done through training, encouragement, and economic assistance. With this in mind the Crow Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are trying to upgrade the education, job skills, and morale of the CrOW’people by a series of government assisted programs. The efforts of the Crow Tribe to improve their skills and job Opportunities have been greatly aided by judgment funds won in legal settlements against the United States Government. In 1881 Congress authorized the Court of Claims to adjudicate complaints of Indian tribes against the United States.99 In 1904 the Crow Tribe initiated their first legal proceedings against the government asking for additional compensation for land taken or ceded to the United States.100 In 1961 the Court of Indian Claims awarded the Crow approx- imately ten and one-quarter million dollars. After payment 98For a complete develo ent of this idea see Symmes Oliver, "Ecology and Cultura Continuity as Contributing Factors in the Social Organization of the Plains Indians," U ' ersit of California Pub ications in American Archaeology mug , XLV '- -°' 99Thomas LeDuc "The Work of the Indian Claims Commission Under the Act of 1946," Pacific Historical Review, XXVI, 1957, p. 1. 100Interview'with Joseph M. Ten Bear, Tribal Secretary, July 10, 1969. 209 Of legal fees the Crow received $9,238,500.101 In 1963 a second settlement awarded the Crow'two million dollars as additional compensation for land sold to the United States for construction of Yellowtail Dam and Reservoir. Under terms of an agreement reached by Tribal Council these funds were to be utilized for the social and economic betterment of the Crow Tribe under the supervision and assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Tribal Council (Table 18). Dividend payments of $250 went to each enrolled member of the tribe. One million dollars was provided for each of three programs -- land purchase, industrial development, and a loan program to assist those persons who wished to break the cycle of continuous leases to non-Indians. In addition, the tribal credit program was expanded, a college scholarship program established, and a new'jail and tribal headquarters built. The largest amount of money went into the Family Plan Program which provided $1,000 to each enrolled member. Each family or single adult had to submit a plan outlining how his money was to be used. Use of the funds was restricted with preference given to housing, furniture, appliances, wells and pumps, education, Special medical or dental needs, or to 101Fami. F d Pro ram, Crow Reservation, M.R.B.I., Report #1 , 6 Po - 210 TABLE 18 DISBURSEMENT OF JUDGMENT FUNDS Family Plan 4,336,000 Dividend Payments 1,193,500 Land Purchase 1,000,000 Loan Program 1,000,000 Industrial Development 1,000,000 Tribal Credit Plan 275,000 Scholarships 200,000 Tribal Headquarters 120,000 Law Enforcement 100,000 Reserve Fund l4,000 0 3 3 Source: Family Plan Program, M;R.B.I. Report NO. 184, 1967, p. I. begin or enlarge farming-ranching Operations or other 102 business enterprises. NO funds were to be used for living expenses, debts, or pleasures. A problem which was believed to be largely responsible for the negative attitudes of many Crow’was the overall de- terioration Of housing throughout the reservation. A Special economic development plan prepared in 1962 found that 70% of Crow housing was sub-standard.103 Because of this most Crow 102Unpublished report of the Superintendent of the Crow Reservation, Otto K. Weaver, 1965, p. 5. 1°3Ibid. 211 were encouraged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal Officials to use their judgment money for housing improve- ments. By 1967 a total of 271 new“houses were constructed, 236 were remodeled or given major repairs, and sixty-six were purchased. For many Crow it meant living together as a family unit for the first time without relatives. In 1964 it was found that 109 married couples were living with their 104 parents or relatives. By 1969 every home had electricity and most had wells, pumps, modern bathrooms, a refrigerator, a stove, and a washing machine. Many, perhaps most, homes now have both radios and television sets. Although nearly every family used their judgment money for housing improvements, ninety-five used all or part of their funds to start or enlarge farming-ranching Operations and twenty-six started businesses or self-employment projects. Land Deyelgpment Projects The Bureau of Indian Affairs is assisting the CfOW’in developing economic Opportunities on the reservation in a variety of land deve10pment projects. Construction of roads, bridges, dams, spillways, reservoirs, erosion control and drainage projects as well as development of springs are all part of a long range plan to improve the economic and social conditim Of Crow families. Experimental range management 104 d' Housin S tuation Crow Reservation, MQR.B.I.: Report #1 g 9 a P0 ° 212 projects with emphasis on soil and water conservation practices, weed control, improved use of fertilizer, and new varieties of seeds are helping increase crop yields. All of these projects are contributing to the develOp- ment Of the reservation, but unless the Crow actively under- take farming and ranching the benefits will accrue largely to the non-Indians who currently account for approximately one-half the total reservation pOpulation, own one-third of the land, and utilize over 90% of the land on the reservation. The only benefit to the Crow will be increased land rental rates. Of all the deve10pment projects on the reservation the ones with the greatest potential seem to be the irrigation works. The first irrigation works on the reservation were begun in 1885.105 Others were started in the 1890's. The first crOps grown under irrigation were native hay and alfalfa, but new irrigation projects added in the 1920's shifted the emphasis to small grains and sugar beets. Sugar beets are today the most important crop by value and alfalfa is the leading crOp in acreage on irrigated land (Table 19). As indicated in Table 19 per acre yields increase significantly forwmost crOps when irrigated. Because winter wheat yields increase less when irrigated than other crops 1OSRalph E. ward and Clarence W. Gensen, Ag Econqmls YA aisal of De elo in the Hardin Unit for Irrigation, Bul. 639, p. 12. 213 very little wheat acreage is irrigated and dry land wheat is by far the leading crop in acreage on the reservation. Sugar beets cannot be grown profitably except under irrigation. They are second in importance to alfalfa in irrigated acreage but rank.number one in value despite the high cost of growing them. Other hay and barley are also important crOps which are grown under irrigation although barley is also a major dry land crop. Economic returns from irrigated land are much greater than from dry land farming despite the high cost of deve10pment and operation, but in 1964 Crow farmers used only 740 acres of the possible 16,000 acres of irrigated land which they owned.106 Nine irrigation units currently supervised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs contain 50,112 acres of which 40,835 are irrigable at the present time.107 Not all of the irrigated land is farmed in a given year because of problems Of drainage and because of individual preference Of the farm operator, but on an average approximately 30,000 to 34,000 acres are farmed annually. Most of this is farmed by non- Indians who owned about 25% of the irrigated land on the reservation in 1952 and 35% by 1970.108 An additional 106M.R.B.I. Report No. 187, 1968, p. 31. 107Economic Appraisal of Developlng the Hardin Unit, Bul. 639, p. 1 . 108Ibid. 214 .AH .a .oomH .uuoqom uoanumaa GOHum>meaou nouoz paw Haom onomhwwm. “mounom .sc ooo.mmc.a oom.ec .oe ma ooo.oc .oc mm oom.e odocz.ncuca3 .una ooo.ema ooo.a .una co oo~.c .ana can oom.o coon cmadnas .sn ooo.ema oom.a~ .sc om oom.m~ .oc am ooo.c honour e aaN.AH ooH.NH upon o.H ooc.m e m.a oom.c an: porno e ooo.oma ooh.m - - e c.mH oo~.m enoom nmmsm upon ooo.mm oom.a coop o.a oom.e~ coon a.a ooo.ca ace anemone race» cocoa header apnea once» monoa HOOOH same man oouowfiunH moan .ZOHH<>ammmm some may 20 magma» memo area mmm ma amfin 215 20,000 acres of irrigated land are privately developed by corporations or individuals. Thus, in 1970 approximately 55,000 acres are irrigated on the reservation. Two prOposals to develop new irrigation projects show great promise. If approved they will greatly increase the total number of irrigated acres on the reservation. A prOposal to develOp a large area known as the Garvin Basin in the Big Horn Mountains would directly benefit the Crow Tribe since most Of the area is owned by the tribe. This area cannot at the present time support winter grazing. A second proposal would greatlyenlarge irrigation along the Big Horn River between the town of Hardin and the Big Horn Mountains. The plan, if adOpted, will irrigate an additional 34,000 acres on the reservation (nearly double the current amount of non-private irrigation acreage).109 The land to be irrigated under this proposal, however, is presently (late 1960's) being used by twenty-two farmers and ranchers who lease approximately two-thirds of the land from the Crow.110 The projected value of a crap-share to the land owner under this project is about twenty dollars per acre as Opposed to six dollars on dry farm land. As a result, Crow land owners could expect to receive more income from crop-share leases or cash leases if the irrigation project is developed. 109Ibld., p. 10. 11°1bid-. p. 4. 216 Before the project is undertaken many problems will have to be solved, including the fragmented, checkerboard pattern Of land ownership in the area under consideration. Land for the proposed irrigation unit is owned by ninety-two non-Indians, and the 283 tracts owned by Indians have a total of 821 owners with 3,695 individual shares of interest.111 The problem becomes more complicated with the passage of time as additional heirs become involved upon the death of an owner or part owner. Of the 283 tracts of Indian land, 27% were owned by individual Indians and 73% by a varying number of heirs as Of 1966. A total of 107 tracts involve anywhere from ten to ninety-nine heirs and three tracts involve over 100 heirs each. Education An important aspect of economic development is a well- trained, intelligent work force. As part of the long range plan to improve the economic and social quality of life on the reservation, the Crow Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs are seeking to upgrade the education standards of the Crow peOple and provide new'opportunities for higher education. In 1968 there were 1,732 school age tribal members.112 This represented 35% of the total enrolled membership Of the 111 112Report of the Superintendent of the Crow Reservation to the Area Director, Bil in s Area Office Aof the M.I.A regard g the education of Crow children, ril 17,1968, . 1. copy on file at Crow Agency, Montana? Ibid., p. 20. 217 reservation. Approximately 1,400 of these lived on the reservation or nearby and 1,100 attended public schools. The six public elementary schools on the reservation and one in Hardin, MOntana enrolled 806 Indian children and 964 non-Indians in 1967.113 Two Mission schools enrolled 152 Indian children and three non-Indians. Two hundred and twenty-two Crow children attended high school in 1967. Approximately two-thirds of these attended Lodge Grass High School and the remainder attended off-reservation schools in Hardin or Edgar, Montana. Ninety-three students were enrolled in federal schools in various parts of the United States in 1967. Thirty-two were attending college and forty-two were at Haskell Institute or in Special vocational schools through- out the nation. There have been no federal schools on the Crow Reser- vation since 1920. The federal government reimburses public schools for the education of Indian children under the "impacted areas" provision Of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.114 Although the non-Indian population of the reservation is approximately the same as the Crow population, school 113The Montana-Wyomlpg Indian, B.I.A., Billings Area Office, 1968, p. 57. 114Interview'with Ardell Anderson, Education Officer, Crow Agency, Montana, June 25, 1969. 218 enrollments are racially imbalanced. Among the elementary schools Pryor has 100% Indian enrollment, CrOW'Agency 90%, and Wyola and Lodge Grass about 70%. Only Fort Smith has a large white enrollment in the elementary school. Many non- Indian children are taken by bus to Off-reservation schools in Hardin. The school drOp-out rate among Crow children has been a serious problem for many years. In 1961 only 44% of all Crow children were finishing high school.115 This had been improved somewhat due to increased efforts by the Crow and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many reasons are given for the large drop-out rate, including lack of interest, un- satisfactory performance due at least in part to a language barrier, and economic problems. Some Indian students are several years older than their classmates and feel out of place. In other cases, girls with babies tend to drop out of school prior to graduation. Various programs Of the Office of Economic Opportunity have been started on the reservation to improve the educational achievements of Crow children. Perhaps the most helpful has been Head Start which has tried to remove or minimize the language barrier of pre-school children which has been a major barrier to educational advancement. It is estimated that 90% 115Ibid. 219 of all five year Old Crow children speak Crow.116 Many speak no English and have difficulty learning to read. Other federally Sponsored programs include Upward Bound which is designed to help high school students improve their skills prior to entering college. Vocational rehabilitation and adult education classes are also available. Thus, some progress is being made in education despite the problems. In 1962 a record number of twenty-eight students were graduated from high school and since 1965 an average of over fifty students per year have been graduated.117 The median years of education has increased from 8.35 in 1952 to 8.5 by 1968. Fifty-two Crow have attended college at some time or other. By 1968 a record thirty-two were enrolled and four were graduated bringing the total number of Crow college graduates to approximately twenty.118 Plans are underway to develop a junior college on the reservation which will provide additional advanced training Opportunities for many people who would otherwise be unable to attend college Off the reservation because of the time and expense involved. 220 Increased educational opportunities on and Off the reservation have been a very important part of Crow acculturation. Many of the old CrOW'values are scorned by the younger, better-educated Crow; 'With continued improve- ment in education, acculturation becomes more complete as the old ways give way to the new. Trade, Transpgrtation and Communication The only railroad service on the reservation is the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy line which runs north from Sheridan, Wyoming through'Wyola, Lodge Grass, and Crow Agency to Hardin. The railroad follows the Little Big Horn Valley across the reservation (see Figure 8, p. 145). In 1969 one freight train and one passenger train crossed the reservation in each direction six days per week. Passenger trains do not make regular stops but can be flagged down by customers. Non-Indian ranchers ship their cattle by railroad to central markets, but most Crow ranchers still prefer to ship their cattle by truck to Billings.119 The only major highway serving the reservation (US 87- lnterstate 90) parallels the railroad and provides highway connections between Wyola, Lodge Grass, Crow Agency, and Hardin. Highway US 87 leaves the reservation at Hardin, 119Ralph E. Ward, et a1 Indians in A riculture, Bul. 522, 1956, Missouri River Basin Investigations Project, Billings, Montana, p. 17. 221 swings west and crosses a small area of the northwest corner of the reservation. A second highway (US 212) enters the reservation from the east and connects with US 87 just south of Crow Agency. All other roads on the reservation are county roads or Indian-service roads. County Road 313 is paved and runs between Hardin and Fort Smith following the Big Horn Valley. A new (1968) specially designated road (Indian-service Road 1) connects County Road 313 with.US 87 at Crow Agency. Secondary paved roads run southwest out of Lodge Grass and Wyola for a distance of about ten miles each and are for local traffic only. The only other paved road on the reservation runs north from Pryor to US 87 on the western side of the reservation. Several gravel or dirt roads connect with the larger arteries but many are little more than jeep trails, impassable much of the year. In 1969 each of the six villages on the reservation had at least one grocery store, gas station, restaurant, auto repair facility, post office, and church. There are no bars on the reservation because of tribal regulations except for one in Fort Smith which is essentially a temporary government settlement for the construction and maintenance of Yellowtail Dam and Recreation Area. There are no drug stores on the reservation, perhaps because available medical facilities at Crow'Agency rule out the need for them. MOtels or hotels are available in or near every village except St. Xavier. There 222 Ha oedema \ \ \ \ 2.3.3. .uoeeoc no.0 \ 2...; :22: .0 sec...- “09:... 30¢ 4u><¢c III l 0108 Ol>¢t Ill .2. 832396 96m ZO_._.<>mmwmm 2.4.02. >>Om0 u .. u 0». c. _ m .. ,x _ m w m 3...! a. \\\\l I II‘ \ w ... m Qsfi .é 00“! C 52.004 00.0. — .300 .SE. 3‘s... (Lt... 223 are no auditoriums, bowling alleys, swimming pools, golf courses, libraries, or museums on the reservation, but all are available in Hardin. The only doctors, dentists, and hOSpital facilities are located in Croqugency. Hardin, a town of 2,900 people, is the nearest off- reservation trade center. It is the focus for most Crow trade. It is located twelve miles north of Crow.Agency and compared to the six villages on the reservation, it is a major trade center. It is estimated that 60% of all trade in Hardin comes from the Crow and Northern Cheyenne reser- 120 vations. For major purchases, however, many CIOW’ShOp in Billings or Sheridan which are each approximately sixty miles from Crow Agency. Hardin has a radio station and a weekly newspaper. The nearest television channels are in Billings which also has two radio stations and a daily paper. Billings is also the location of the nearest four year college. Telephone service is available everywhere on the reservation except Pryor which may be reached only by privately owned radio-telephone. MOVie theaters are available in Hardin and Billings. Hardin has over a dozen bars but many are not patronized by Indians. Two or three bars on the south side of town are commonly referred to as "Indian bars." 120An Overall Economic Development Plan, p. 72. 224 Although.many Crow families own automobiles or trucks, hitchhiking remains a very popular form of travel for many peOple. There is no regular bus service on the reservation. Bicycles and motor bikes are becoming increasingly popular. Lodge Grass has a slightly larger population, more commercial establishments, and more churches than does Crow Agency. However, most Of the economic, social, and political activity on the reservation occurs at Crow Agency because of the presence there of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Public Health Service hospital, and tribal headquarters. Crow Agency is, thus, the focus of most activity on the reservation. Tribal members living in outlying areas of the reser- vation such as wyola and Pryor sometimes complain that their needs are neglected while the residents of Crow Agency are given preferential treatment. Tribal government is organized in a way to minimize such feelings and protect the interests Of all parts of the reservation. The Crow Tribe adOpted a written constitution in 1948 and formally organized a town council-type of government.121 Every adult enrolled member of the tribe has a vote in council and 100 voters must be present to form a quorum. The council has the authority to represent and promote the interests of 121M.R.B.I. Report NO. 147, Cultural and Economic Status of the Crow Peo 1e, 1955, unpaginated appendix. 225 the entire tribe and serves as a recommending agency to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribal officers are elected by the council every two years. Special committees have re- presentation from each Of the six districts on the reservation. Despite this arrangement there is considerable grumbling among residents of wyola and Pryor about the diSproportionate share of political power held by residents Of Crow Agency. Summagy of Processes of Change The Late Reservation Period (1934-1971) began with passage of the Indian Reorganization.Act. This act resulted in a large number of important changes which directly affected the Crow. Perhaps the most important change was the abandon- ment of attempts to "Americanize" the Indians by a process of forced acculturation. Whereas the previous policy had been to destroy native culture and tribal organizations, the Indian Reorganization Act was an attempt to encourage the develop- ment of Indian culture and use it as a vehicle for progress. The two major principles of the act were to protect the Indian and make him self-supporting, while permitting him to develop his own culture and helping him adjust to modern civilization.122 The government was to have less control over the Indian and the latter was to be given more self-government. The 122Lloyd Blauch, Educational Services for Indians (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1939), . 21. 226 Crow adopted a written constitution in 1948 and organized tribal government along the lines of a town council. However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs continued to make most of the decisions affecting the Crow'and the Tribal Council served only in an advisory capacity on most issues. The Crow were permitted to handle more internal matters directly affecting the tribe and received far more authority for handling their own leasing arrangements than any other tribe. During the last thirty years the role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not decreased. The United States Govern- ment holds title to trust lands on the reservation but passes the benefits to the Crow. The Bureau Of Indian Affairs provides technical assistance to the Crow, supervises the leasing of certain land as well as mineral and timber rights, maintains records, provides medical care, and looks after the general welfare Of the tribe. Following passage Of new lease laws many Crow'leased or sold their land and abandoned their farms and rural allotments to take up residence in villages on the reservation. This not only greatly affected settlement patterns on the reservation and resulted in idleness for many people, but also had a lasting effect on the Crow economy which persists to the present day. Beginning in the mid-1930's the Crow'were given more freedom to leave the reservation without special permission. 227 The rapid increase in pOpulation and the sale Of large amounts of land to non-Indians were factors which encouraged Crow families to leave the reservation in search Of economic Opportunities. Many left permanently but others returned periodically. The attempt to relocate a number of Crow families in Los Angeles and other large cities around the country in the 1950's was largely a failure as many event- ually returned to the reservation unable or unwilling to compete in urban environments;123 The idea of relocating Crow families off the reservation was an attempt to relieve pOpulation pressure and provide new employment Opportunities both on and off the reservation. For many Crow relocation provided the first experience with living in large cities, indoor plumbing, and high pressure salesmen. Introduction to a money economy led to a further diminution of interest in farming. Many Crow*who left the reservation removed themselves from many Of the restrictions of their native culture. Some later returned to the reser- vation with new'views which challenged the old ways. Improved employment, travel, and educational opportunities affected styles of dress. Industrial development and improved education provided neW’types of job Opportunities but also new levels of experience. Unfortunately, a money economy 123John Price, "The Mi ration and Adaptation of American Indians to Los Ange es," Human Or anization, XXVII, 1968, pp. 169-171. 228 also introduced the CfOW’tO unemployment and periodic loss of income. The cultural compulsion to share goods with others added to the problem. Jobs in industry demand punctuality and caused a new awareness for many Crow Of the importance of a clock and a calendar. Dates and time have taken on new meaning and are important considerations for those who seek to work for wages. Exposure to new ideas was hastened by greatly increased travel opportunities resulting from Off-reservation jobs and schools, military service, and improved transportation. Volunteers are flown to Alaska and elsewhere to fight forest fires. Military service during both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam have provided Opportunities for international travel. Improved communications following the introduction Of electricity, radio, telephone, and television have also increased the exposure of the Crow to new ideas. Educational opportunities were greatly expanded during the Late Reservation Period. A larger percentage of Crow children now graduate from high school and college or receive Special vocational training. A number Of CfOW’WOrk as teachers, nurses, and various other white collar jobs. Several have received graduate degrees or have done advanced work toward a graduate degree. New government-supported programs have improved Opportunities for education and training at all levels. 229 Most of the changes occurring during the last few decades represent new ideas and new'ways of doing things, and an assault on the Old ways. Competition in the white man's world seemed to demand that one be more like the white man. Old values were subjected to new challenges. Young people were the main recipients of education and were the first to challenge the Old values and ideas. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Degree of Acculturation The purpose of this research has been to trace the evolution of Crow culture and to analyze the effect of culture change on the land, economy, and settlement patterns of the Grow. The degree of acculturation attained by the CrOW'can be measured by identifying and accounting for those aspects of the culture which have survived. It has been suggested that the failure of the CIOW’tO be completely acculturated and assimilated into American society is attributable to cultural persistence and cultural continuity of certain traitsvand values. A better reason might be that attempts by the dominant white culture to force acculturation by destroying Indian culture were so extreme that the resultant sullenness of the Crow made acculturation more difficult. Still another cause of the failure of the Crow to be fully assimilated into American society is the Anglo-Saxon attitude of racial and cultural superiority. The Crow found such an attitude offensive and rejected many of the white man's values even though they adopted many of his material goods. Intermarriage between Indians and non-Indians has 230 231 helped soften the arrogant and destructive nature of the assumed superiority on the part of the non-Indians. How- ever, intolerance of Indian culture by the white man has acted like a wedge to keep the two cultures apart. Bitter memories of past experiences cause a certain degree of aloofness and suSpicion of the white man by the Crow; Faced with poverty, a dependency status, lack of education, unemployment, and a language barrier, many Crow have tried to emulate the white man to take better advantage of existing economic Opportunities. To compete with the white man, one had to be like him, or so the argument went. Yet, to be too much like the white man brought criticism for "taking on airs." Perhaps like an iceberg, much of what remains of Crow culture is not readily visible. A few signs remain of the top Of the iceberg, but the important and meaningful part lies hidden from view. The most visible and thus the most Obvious evidence of Crow culture which remains is the style of dress. Most Older and middle age Crowwwomen wear long braids, moccasins, and leggings. The younger women and girls have adopted modern styles of dress. A few old men still wear high hats and braids, but most males wear only modern clothes. Wrist watches, wedding bands, and other rings and jewelry are worn by most Crow, especially the younger generation. 232 There is little visible evidence, however, Of a Crow cultural landscape on the reservation. The most Obvious feature is the ubiquitous sweat tipi. Many families have sweat tipis in their back yards and use them regularly, eSpecially during the summer months. Many elderly Crow complain, however, that the religious meaning has dis- appeared from the sweat bath and the young make a joke of it. A second visible feature is the occurrence of names on rural mailboxes. Many names are unmistakenly Indian. Many homes, perhaps most, have a large number of very long lodge poles learning against the side of the house or a tree. The lodge poles are used during the annual summer Crow Fair and other Special occasions, and tend to identify those homes which are inhabited by Indians. Crow houses look pretty much like other houses on the reservation. There are no architectural or structural features which identify a CrOW'house. Many of the newer houses are painted with bright colors. In 1903 only 47. of all Crow Spoke English.1 Today nearly everyone Speaks English, but the CrOW'language is very much alive and most Crow are bilingual. It is estimated that 90% or more of the children Speak Crow.2 There are some teachers who Will not permit CrOW'children to speak their native language while on the school grounds. M0st Crow prefer 1Billings Gazette, June 20, 1965. 2Personal interview with Joe Ten-Bear, Tribal Vice- Secretary, June 27, 1969. 233 to converse in their native language. Tribal resolutions 3 are read in English and translated into Crow. One elderly Crow man who preferred to remain anonymous claimed to be proud to be a Crow'and proud of his Indian heritage, but he 'will not permit the CrOW'language to be spoken in his home because it serves only to hold back his children in school and elsewhere. MOSt Crow have retained their Indian names, but a few have shortened them or taken non-Indian names. Many have both a CrOW'name and a non-Indian name. Some of the Older Crow'express resentment toward those who change their Indian name just so they can "be more like the white man." It is difficult to provide precise figures on the per- centage of CtOW‘WhO have adopted the Christian faith. Many who say they are Christians admit to never attending church or practicing the faith. In 1969 there were fifteen churches on the reservation representing five major denominations and several smaller ones which were mostly Pentecostal types. The Catholic faith is best represented with four churches. There are two Baptist churches and one Methodist church. Several churches have both Indian and non-Indian congregations but many are strictly Indian. The Crow still hold periodic Indian ceremonies. During the summer of 1969 two Sun Dances were held. Each lasted for 3Hardin Herald Tribune, November 2, 1967. 234 over two days and included two or three non-Indian dancers. At least one Of the ceremonies was held to celebrate the safe return of a Crow soldier from Vietnam. Erection of the Sun Dance lodge carefully followed the tradition as outlined by Lowie.4 The dancing and accompanying music was highly ritualized. A few peOple, especially the Older ones, exhibited rather intense emotional involvement. Many younger Crow Observers (teenagers) could not interpret what was happening and did not know the purpose of the Sun Dance. A highly ritualized Tobacco Adoption ceremony was also performed during the summer Of 1969. The ceremonial lodge was carefully erected under the supervision of Henry Old Coyote. Everything was organized from memory as there are no written instructions. A cordial invitation was extended to me to watch the ceremony and to take all the pictures needed, but I was warned about violating certain taboos once the ceremony began. The ceremony lasted several hours. Few Crow spectators came to watch. The number varied from hour to hour as people came and went. I could find feW'CrOW'who could explain the meaning and purpose of much of the ceremony. Nonetheless, to many Crow it remains a meaningful experience and an honor to participate and be adopted into the Tobacco Society. Both the Sun Dance and Tobacco Adoption ceremonies 4Robert H. Lowie, The Crow Indians (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1956), pp. 297-326. 235 are gradually being altered. As evidence of cultural decay the use of filter tip cigarettes and ice cold snap-top cans of pop in the ceremonies seems to underline the change which is occurring as the Old ways give way to the new. Peyote ceremonies are still held fairly regularly by a small number of people. The meetings are generally held in a tent, beginning on Saturday night and ending the next morning. The practice of chewing on parts of a Special cactus can produce hallucinations, feelings of exhilaration and depression, and cause the pupils of the eyes to dilate. Peyote services combine aspects of Christianity and native beliefs and provides a religious experience for the partici- pants. For some, the use of peyote stimulants represents the vision quest of earlier years; to others it provides a chance to escape from the contemporary realities of a frustrating existence. During the summer of 1969 five or six middle-age or younger Crow reportedly fasted in the Pryor Mountains and searched for a vision. The fact that the event was newsworthy indicates that it was a rare occurrence. A few tribal members still boast of their clan affiliations, but many teenage Crow could not name the clan to which they or their parents belong. The clan system holds little meaning today for most Crow, yet one woman in her late thirties was extremely proud of her clan membership and said 236 it was very important to her. One elderly man was not sure what clan his second wife belonged to. Most Crow still place little emphasis on the accumu- lation of private wealth or personal gain. Little prestige is accorded people who are selfish with their personal goods. Gift giving remains important to many Crow.‘ Following a Sun Dance in 1969 large numbers of beautiful new blankets were exchanged as gifts. Everyone seemed to bring a blanket and went home with a different one. At the time of the termination controversy in the early 1950's, four major sociO-cultural groups Of CrOW’were dis- cernible.5 The smallest group was made up primarily of the elderly who preferred to cling to native values, perpetuate the Old social values and religious practices, and retain the reservation. A second group with modified native views represented the majority Opinion, still valuing the Old culture but recognizing the need for adjustments to changing conditions. ‘While they did not participate in aboriginal ceremonies this group believed in group solidarity and were critical of those who refused to take part in group activities. Like the elderly people, they preferred to keep the reser- vation for the security it Offered. A third group favored integration into American culture while retaining membership 5Fred Voget, "Crow Socio Cultural Groups," Inter-. . national Congress of Americanists Proceedin s, 1952, pp. 88-93. 237 in the subordinate Crow society. Characteristically, this group participated in Christianity, stressed education for their children, and an economy which permitted "getting ahead." Many of this group had a good command of English and became involved in tribal politics and administration and worked closely with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These were the doers, the activists. A fourth group of Crow'were largely culturally integrated into American society. They did not participate in Crow socio cultural activities and identified with non-Indians. All four of these groups can still be recognized on the reservation today. Although traditional native ceremonies remain meaningful experiences for the elderly, their already small numbers are being continually decimated by death. Group two with its modified native views still represent the majority Opinion and seeks to preserve as much of Crow culture as possible while adjusting to contemporary economic, social, and political realities. Torn between group loyalties and the demands of modern society, this group tends to compromise and retain some of both cultures. Group three continues to adopt most Of the ideas of the dominant American culture, but seeks to recognize the merit and need to salvage some of the Old culture such as language, heritage, and identity. The fourth group is thoroughly Americanized in thought and action. Although some remain on the reservation, many prefer to 238 settle nearby or far away depending on the Opportunities. Members of this group have settled all over the United States and their number is growing. Readlness for Assimilation Final assimilation of the Crow into the mainstream of American society probably will not occur until the trust status of the United States Government is dissolved and the reservation terminated. During the latter part Of the Truman administration in 1950 a new policy aimed at termina- tion of most if not all Indian reservations was introduced.6 This policy was taken up by the Eisenhower administration in 1952. The idea itself was not a new one, for the ultimate goal of the United States' policy has always been to acculturate and integrate the Indian into American culture. Some tribes were believed ready for immediate termina- tion in 1952. The Crow, it was believed, could be terminated in five or ten years or by the early 1960's.7 As a result of Indian Opposition and public reaction to the idea Of termina- tion it was gradually abandoned. In 1962 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Philleo Nash, said no tribe would be 6Henry F. Dobyns, "The Indian Reorganization Act and Federal Withdrawal," A lied Anthro OlO , VII, Spring, 1948, p. 35. 71bid. 239 terminated until clearly ready and until tribal members voted in favor of it.8 The Crow opposed the idea Of termination when first introduced in 1950 and are still Opposed to it. Most realize that someday the reservation will be closed but hOpe that this 'will not happen for fifty years or more. The Crow'want to keep their identity as Indians, maintain their language, and preserve as much of their culture as possible. The concensus of non-Indians both on and off the reservation seems to be for termination of the reservation in the near future. Most non-Indians believe the Crow'are being pampered by the Bureau.of Indian Affairs and paid to remain in idleness. They further believe that the Crow should be forced to take up farming or seek other occupations immediately. Many non-Indians resent the fact that the Crow coming to town in Hardin always seem to have plenty Of spending money despite the fact that they seldom work. In response to the question "What do the Crow most need in order to improve themselves economically and socially," nearly every- one replied "ambition" or "willingness to get ahead." Al- though some Crow agree that lack of ambition is a serious 8"Indian Bureau Chief Bans Termination," The Christian Centu , September 26, 1962, p. 1154. Remarks by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Philleo Nash, to the National Congress Of American Indians (no author). 240 problem, most believe that greater job Opportunities at satisfying employment in farming, ranching, or industry is the greatest need. The Crow quite obviously are not ready for complete assimilation into the white society at this time. Termina- tion of their reservation anytime in the near future would create great financial hardship and result in economic and social disaster for them. The Crow have demonstrated through their handling of their own leasing arrangements that they are not ready to be turned loose without Bureau of Indian Affairs supervision. Some individuals would undoubtedly sell their land immediately if given the opportunity, spend the money in a short time, and become public welfare cases. The Crow need more time to improve their job skills, educational level, and their incentives for getting ahead before they can ever become self-supporting. Educationally they lag far behind the median years of schooling of all residents of Montana. Thus, they would have to take the least desirable jobs, overcome racial discrimination, and learn to compete against unfavorable Odds. The jobs which require the least education and skills to perform and which are most prevalent on and near the reservation are in agri- culture and related activities. Unless there is a change of attitude many Crow will have to leave the reservation and perhaps the state to find employment. Considering that 241 approximately half of all Crow'families were at poverty level incomes in the mid-1960's, there is little reason for Optimism. Termination would drastically reduce even this modest income level in terms of effective purchasing power, for free medicine and hospitalization, and tax-free property would not be forthcoming. Those who predicted in the early 1950's that the Crow could be terminated by the early 1960's have been proven wrong by events of the past two decades. However, it is possible that if the government set a final date for termina- tion of the reservation, and provided that date were far enough in the future (ten years at least), the Crow might be able to make the necessary adjustments. Chances for success- ful assimilation into American society would be greatly improved if the target date were moved forward twenty-five years. Predictions The CrOW'Reservation is not likely to be terminated anytime in the next twenty-five years. Contrary to the views Of some tribal leaders and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel, farming is not likely to be the solution to the economic problems of the Crow. Even if they wanted to become farmers the outlook would not be too promising. As matters stand today, the CtOW’dO not want to farm. Many say they would 242 like to ranch and they might reluctantly grow a few crops to supplement their cattle Operations. But the national economy seems to be working against entry into farming Operations, esPecially by small-scale farmers. Increasingly fewer farmers are needed on a national basis, and large numbers of experienced and willing farmers are being forced to give up farming. The future seems to Offer two alternatives to the Crow. Industry and jobs must be brought to the reservation or the Crow'must go to where the jobs are located. The latter probably offers the best hOpe, especially if the population continues to grow at its present high rate. If given a choice of staying on the reservation and maintaining the small degree of Crow culture while living in poverty, or leaving the reservation where greater economic opportunity can be found, the CtOW”Will choose the latter. Much depends, of course, on the attitude taken by the federal government. The United States is rich enough to make it attractive for industry to locate on or near Indian reservations and provide jobs for them. Whether we have the ‘will or not is a different matter. NO culture is guaranteed survival. Certainly western civilization with all its power is not assured of survival. The Crow should be permitted to make the choice whether they want to be assimilated into the dominant culture or to remain 243 apart from it. HOpefully, they will be given the choice, but should they choose to retain their reservation and their culture they may have to be willing to settle for a lower standard of living than might otherwise be possible. Crow culture is not likely to survive if transplanted and fragmented into small groups around the country in the major industrial or urban areas. Nor is it likely to survive another generation of poverty. The lowering Of racial barriers to jobs, education, and housing will likely hasten the migration from the rural poverty of the reservation to the economic opportunity provided by the cities and suburbs of America. Despite our preachments, the Crow remain another example of America's unfinished business. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Abbott, Newton C. Montana in the Makin . Billings: Gazette Printing Co., 1964. Bradley, James H. The March of the Montana Column. Edited by Edgar Stewart. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. Branch, E. Douglas. The Huntin of the Buffalo. Lincoln: University of NebrasEE Fress, I962. Basile Robert M. A Geo raphy of Soils. Dubuque Iowa: W. Brown Co., 1971. ’ Beckwourth, James P. The Life and Adventures of James Beckwourth. Edite by T. D. Bonner. Lon on: MacMillan.& Co., 1856. Brown, Mark H. The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone. New York: Putnam and Sons, . Bruner, Edward M. "Mandan." Persgsctives in American Indian Culture Chan e. Edited by ar H. Spicer. C cago: UniversIty 0% Chicago Press, 1961. Burlingame, Merrill G. The Montana Frontigg, Helena: State Publishing Company, 1 . Burlingame, Merrill G. and Toole, K. Ross. A Histo of Montana. New York: Lewis Historical Pub ishing Co., Carrington, Margaret I. Absaraka: Home of the Crows. Chicago: Donnelley & Sons, 1950. Catlin, George. North American Indians. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, . Chittenden, Hiram M. and Richardson, Alfred T. Life, Letters, and Travelspgf Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet. New York: Francis P. Harper, 1905. 245 246 Clark, Andrew H. "Historical Geography." American Geography: Inventogy and Prosppct. Edited by P. E. James and C. J. JOnes. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press for the Association of American Geographers, 1954. Clark, Ella E. Indian Le ends From the Northern Rockies. Norman: University of OEIanma Press, 1966. Coues, Elliott. Histopy of the Expgdition Under the Command of Lewis and Clark. Vol. III. New York: Dover Publications, 1965. Denig, Edwin T. "Of the Crow Nation." Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri. Edited by John C. wers. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. DeVoto, Bernard (ed.). The Journals of Lewis and Clark. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1953. Driver, H. E. Indians of North America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 1. Dunraven, Windham T. The Great Divide: Travels in the U r Yellowstone in the Summer of 1874. LincoIn: University of Nebraska Press, I967. Ewers, John C. (ed.). Five Indian Tribes Of the U r Missouri. Norman: University of OkIahoma Press, 1961. . "Historical and Comparative Survey of the Crow Indians." Crow Indian Medicine Bundles. Edited by John C. Ewers. New'York: Museum of tHe American Indian, 1960. . Indian Life On the U r Missouri. Norman: University of OEIaHoma Press, I968. Farnham Thomas. "Travels in the Great Western Plains in 1839." Earl Western Travels 1748-1896. Vol. XXVIII. Edited by Reu en G. Thwaites. CIeveIEHH: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1905. Fenneman, Nevin M. Ph sio ra h of Western United States. New York: McGrawAHiII Book Co., I931. . Ph Sio ra h of Eastern United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1938. Forbes, Jack D. The Indian in Americas Past. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hal , . 247 Gard, wayne. The Great Buffalo Hunt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 19 . Hagan, William T. American Indian. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 19 1. Hamilton, James M. From Wilderness to Statehood: A Histopy OfSMOntana. Portland: Binsford and Mert Pub. Co., 19 . HarperA Allan G. "Salvaging the Wreckage of Indian Land llotments." The Changing Indians. Edited by Oliver LaFarge. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942. Hartshorne, Richard. The Nature of Geo ra h . Lancaster, Pa.: Association of American Geographers, 1%39. . Persppctives on the Nature of Geograph%. Chicago: Rand McNally & CO. or the ssociation of rican Geographers, 1959. Herskovits, Melville J. Acculturation: The Stud of Culture Contact. NeW'York: . . ugustin, 9 . Hyde, G. E. Indians of the Hi h Plains from the Pre-Historic Period to the Comin of Euro ans. Norman: University of OkIahoma Press, I959. . Indians Of the Woodlands From Pre-Historic Times to 1725. Norman: University Of Oklahoma Press, 1962. Jones, Agnes. Crow Countpy. Missoula: State Library Commission, n.d. Keesing, Felix M. Culture Chan e. Stanford, Calif.: tanford Anthropo ogical Series. No. 1, 1953. Kroeber, A. L. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley: University of California Press, I947. LeForge, Thomas H. Memoirs of a White Crow Indian. As told by Thomas B. Marquis. New York: The Century Co., 1928. Linderman, Frank B. Plenty Coups: Chief of the Crows. New York: John Day Co., 1930. . Old Man Coyote. New York: John Day Co., 1931. . Red MOther. NeW'York: John Day Co., 1932. 248 Linton, Ralph, et a1. Acculturation in Seven American Igdian Tribes. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 0. Lynde, Eleanor. Crow Countpy. Billings: Western Litho CO. n. O Lowie, Robert H. The Crow Indians. New York: Holt, Rinehart, an inston, 9 . . "The Crow Indians." The Golden Age of Anthropology. Edited by Mar aret Mead and Ruth Bunzel. New York: George Brazil er, 1960. . Indians of the Plains. Garden City, N.Y.: The NaturaI History Press, 1963. For the American Museum of Natural History. Maximilian, Prince of Wied. "Travels in North America." Earl Western Travels 1748-1896. Edited by Reuben G. Thwaites. CIeveland: A. Clark Co., 1905. McVey, Everett E. The Crow Scout Who Killed Custer. Billings: Reporter Printing and SuppIy Co., 1952. Merriam, Lewis, et al. The Problem of Indian Administration. Baltimore: Johns HOpkins Press, 192 . Murdock, George P. "The Crows of the Western Plains." Our Primitive Contem oraries. New York: MacMillan Co., 19 6. Nabakov, Peter. Two Le in s: The Makin Of a Crow'Warrior. New York: Thos. Y. CrowelI Co., 1957. Norum, E. B., Krantz, B. A., and Haas, H. J. "The Northern Great Plains." Soil the 1957 Yearbook of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Gov. Printing Office, 1958. Raynolds, William F. "The Crow Indians." Exploring the Northern Plains 1804-1876. Edited by L oy McFar ing. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1955. Strahler, Arthur N. Introduction to Physical Geography. New York: John i ey Sons, . Shepard, Ward. "Land Problems of an Expanding Indian Population." The Chan in Indian. Edited by Oliver LaFarge. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942. 249 Thompson, David. David Thompson's Narratives of his Ex lorations in Western Afierica 1784-18I2. Edited by J. B. TyrelI. Toronto, 19I6. Thwaites. Reuben G- (ed.)- WW. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark.Co., 1905. . Ori inal Journals of Lewis and Clark 1804-1806. New York: Afitiquarian Press, 59. Toole, K. Ross. Montana An Uncommon Land. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959. TOpping, E. S. The Chronicles of the Yellowstone. Minneapolis: Ross an Halnes, . Trewartha, Glenn T. A Geography of POpulation: ‘World Patterns. NeW'York: John T. Wiley & Sons, 1969. Truesdale, Leon. The Indian Population of tpp_United States agg Alaska. Washington, D.C.: Gov. Printing Office, 1 0. Wagner, Glendolin D. and Allen, William A. Blankets and Moccasins. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1933. Wedel, Waldo R. Pre-Historic Man on the Great Plains. Norman: University Of O ahoma Press, 1 l. Wildschutt, William. Crow Indian Medicine Bundles. Edited by John C. Ewers. New'YorE: Museum OI tfie American Indian, 1960. Will, George F. and Hyde, George E. Corn Among the Indians of the U r Missouri. Lincoln: ‘University of NebrasEE Press, 1917. Wissler, Clark. Indians Of the United States. Garden City, New'York: DoubIeday E Co., . . North American Indians Of the Plains. NeW'York: American Museum of Natural History, I934. Zelinsky, Wilbur. A Prologpe to Population Geography. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, . 250 Articles and Pgrlpdlggls Bradley, James. "Legend of Creation." Montana: The Ma azine of Western Histo , XIV (May 1964), I3. Billings Gazette. March 27, 1890. Billings Gazette. June 28, 1916. Billings Gazette. June 20, 1965. Billings Post, February 5, 1885. Broom, Leonard, et a1. "Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation." American Anthropologist, LVI (1954), 973-1000. Brown, Mark. "Muddled Men Who Have Muddied the Yellowstone's True Color." Montana: The Ma azine of Western Histo , XI (January, I96I), 25-30. Campbell, W. S. "The Tipis of the Crow Indians." American Anthropologist, XXIX (1927), 87-104. Cheyenne Sun. April 9, 1879. Conner, Stuart W. "Pre-Historic Man in the Yellowstone Valley." Montana: The Ma azine of Western Histo , XIV (April, 19 , 1 " e Deland, Charles E. "Fort C. F. Smith on the Big Horn." South gakota Historical Collections, XV ( 930), 1 " o Dobyns, Henry. "The Indian Reorganization Act and Federal §%t23rawa1." Applied Anthro 010 , VII (Spring, 1948), Ehrlich, Clara. "Tribal Culture in Crow Mythology." Journal of American Folklore, L(l937), 307-408. Ewers, John C. "The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture." Burea of American Ethnolo , Bul. 159, 1955. Fey, Harold E. "Indian Winter." The Christian Centu , March 2, 1955, pp. 265-267. Forbes, Richard G. and Sperry John D. "An Early Man Site in Montana." American Anti uit , XVIII (1952), 127-133. 251 Gibbon, John. "Last Summer's Expedition Against the Sioux." éggrican Catholic Qpprterly Review, 11 (April, 1877), Goldenweiser, A. A. "Remarks On the Social Organization of 5%: 820w Indians." American Anthropologist, XV (1913), Haines, Francis. "The Northward Spread of Horses Among the Zlgigp Indians." American Anthropolo ist, XL (1938), Hamilton, William T. "A Trading Expedition Among the Indians in 1858." Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana, VIII (1900). Hardin Herald Tribune (Hardin, Montana). February 28, 1963. Hardin Herald Tribune (Hardin, Montana). November 2, 1967. Hayden, F. V. "Contributions to the Ethnography and Philology of the Indian Tribes of the Missouri Valley." Transactions of the American Philoso hical Societ , X11 1 3 , 391- O. Hayne, Cge. "Crow Tepee and Temple." Missions, March, 1928, 13 ‘39. Jensen, Margaret. "Indian Fair On the Crow Indian Reservation." American Forests, LXIX (May, 1963), 20-21. Krieg, Fred C. "Chief Plenty Coups: The Final Dignity." Montana: The Magazine of Western Histopy, Autumn, 19 ’ - 9. LeDuc, Thomas. "The Work of the Indian Claims Commission Under the Act of 1946." Pacific Historical Review, XXII, 41-45. Lowie, Robert H. "Alleged Kiowa-Crow Affinities." Southwest Journal of Anthropology, IX (1953), 357-68. . "Crow Curses." Journal of American Folklore, LXXII (1959), 105. "Crow Indian Art." Anthro OlO ical Papers American Museum Of Natural Histopy, XXI (1922), 271-322. . "Crow Indians of Montana." American Museum Journal, XI (1911), 179-81. 252 . "The Crow Langua e." Universit of California Publication American rchaeoIogy and EtHHoIogy, XXX 9 , "' o . "The Crow Sun Dance." Journal of American Folk Lore, XXVII (1914), 94-96. Lowie, Robert H. "Military Societies of the Crow Indians." Anthro Olo ical Pa rs American Museum of Natural Histo , XI (1913), 143-2I7. . "Minor Ceremonies Of the Crow Indians." Afithropological Papers American Museum of Natural HiStO , XXI 9 , - O . "Myths and Traditions of the Crow Indians." Afithro Olo ical Pa ers American Museum Of Natural Histo , XXV (1918;, 1-308. . "The Oral Literature Of the CrOW'Indians." Journal of American Folk Lore, LXXII (1959), 97-104. . "Proverbial Expressions Among the Crow Indians." Afierican Anthro olo ist, XXXIV (l 32), 739-40. . "The Religion of the Crow'Indians." Anthro Olo ical Papprs American Museum of Natural Histogy, XXV (1922;, 09- g . "Social Life of the Crow'Indians." Anthro olO ical Pa rs American Museum of Natural Histo , IX Z19I2§, 179-248. . "Some Problems in the Ethnology Of the Crow'and Village Indians." American Anthropologist, XIV (1912), 60-710 . "The Sun Dance of the Crow Indians." Anthro Olo - ical Papers Amegican Museum Natural History, XVI EI915), 1’50. . "The Tobacco Society of the Crow Indians." Anthro Olo ical Pa ers American Museum of Natural History, XXI (1919;, 101-200. Means, Howard C. "White Man Brings Memories." Rotarian, April, 1948, 3. MOOney, James. "The Handbook of American Indians." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bul. 30), II (1910), 286. 253 Nash, Philleo. "Indian Bureau Chief Bans Termination." The Christian Centu , September 26, 1962, 47-49. O'Keane, Jose hine. ”The Faith of Plenty Coups." The Ave Maria, pril 26, 1952, 524-27. Oliver, Symmes. "Ecology and Cultural Continuity as Contributing Factors In the Social Organization of the Plains Indians." Universigy of California Publications American Archaeology and Ethnolo , XLVIII (1962), 1-90. Parkman, Francis. "Parkman's Story of the Verendryes." South Dakota Historical Collections, VII (1914), 380- 02. Partridge, William L. "An Analysis of Crow Enculturation." F orida Anthropologist, XVIII (1965), 225-34. Price, John. "The Migration and Adaptation of American Indians to Los Angeles." Hpman Organization, XXVII (1968), 168-75. Rocky Mountain prbandman (Great Falls, MOntana). July 9, 1942. Royce, Charles C.‘ "Indian Land Sessions in the United States." Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report, 1896-97, Pt. II, 786-898: Simms, S. C. "Cultivation of Medicine Tobacco by the Crows." American Anthropologist, VI (1904), 331-335. . "A Crow MOnument to Shame." American Anthropologist, V (1903), 374-5. Swanton, John R. "Crow Indians." Bureau of American Ethnolo , Bul. 145, 1952, 390-93. Voget, Fred. "Crow Socio-Cultural Groups." International Congress of Americanistg, XXIX (1952), 88-93. "Individual Motivation in the Diffusion of the Wind River Shoshone Sun Dance to the Crow Indians." American Anthgopologist, L (1948), 634-45. Wedel, Waldo R. "Some ASpects of Human Ecology in the Central Plains." American AnthrOpglpgist, LV (1953), 499-514. 254 Wiltsey, Norman B. "Plenty Coups: Statesman Chief of the Crows." Montana: The Magazine of western Histo , Autumn, 19 3, - 9. Wissler, Clark. "The Influence of the Horse in the DevelOpment of Plains Culture." American Anthro OlO ist, XVI (1914), 1-25. Public Documents and Reportp Blauch, Lloyd E. Educational Services for Indians. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939. Matthews, washington. "Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa Indians." U S Geolo ic and Geo ra hic Surve . Misc. Publications #7. WasEington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1877. Truesdale, Leon. The Indian Po ulation of the United States and Alaska. Wasfiington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937. Montana. Department of Indian Affairs. Montana Indian Reservations. Edited by K. W. Bergan. Helena: n.d. Montana. Department of Planning and Economic Development. Montana Statistical Review. Helena, 1968. Montana. Department of Public Instruction. "A Report of Indian Education in Montana, 1963-64." Helena, Montana, 1965. Montana. University of Montana Publications in Social Sciences. "The Hagan Site, A Pre-Historic Village on the Lower Yellowstone," by William Mulloy. Missoula, Montana, 1942. U.S. Congress. American State Pa ers, Indian Affairs, Vol. II. Documents, Legislative and Executive of the U.S. Congress. washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834. U.S. Congress. Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Vol. III. Edited by CharIes J. Kappler. 62nd. Cong., 2nd. Sess., 1913. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Report with respect to House Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to conduct an investigation Of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 82nd Cong., lst Sess., December 15, 1952. 255 Congress. U.S, Laws, Chap. 475, Public Law 441. 79th Cong., 2nd. Sess., 1946. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Preliminapy Report of the Twentieth Census of the United States: 19 0. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. Department of Commerce. Climates of the States (Montana). Ed. R. A. Dightman. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. Department of Commerce. Climates of the Statgp (North Dakota). By Frank J. BavendicE. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1959. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Economic Opportunity. Development Opportunities, 939w Indian Reservation, by Harrison G. Fagg. washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Economic Opportunity. Crow Indian Reservation. washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of ice, 68. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Branch of Industrial Development. An Industrial Survey of the Crow Indian Reservation. Crow Agency, Montana, 19 0. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual Report from Agent H. J. Armstrong to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1884. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual Report from Agent H. J. Armstrong to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1882. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual Report from Agent F. D. Pease to the Commissioner Of Indian Affairs, 1871. Department of the Interior. Bureau Of Indian Affairs. A Sketch ofgthe DevelOpment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and of Indian Polic . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 0 ice, 1956. Department of the Interior. Bureau Of Indian Affairs. The Indian and the Law, by Theodore H. Haas. Was ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949. U.S. 256 Department Of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Regplations of the Indian Department. washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1884. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. A report from Otto Weaver, Superintendent of the Crow Reservation, to the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, MOntana regarding the status of education for Crow children. April 17, 1968. Department Of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Working Plan Relort of the Grazing Resources and Activities Of the Crow Indian Reservatiop, by W. R. Centerwall. December, 1930. Department Of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 187. Crow Cattle Ranching Operations. Billings, MOntana, 9 . Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 147. Cultural and Economic Status Of the Crow People, Crow Reservation. Montana. Billings, MOntana, 1955. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 183. Indian Housing Situation, Crow Reservation. Billings, Montana, 9 . Department Of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Bul. 555. Indians in A riculture: O portunities in Cattle Ranchin , BIackfeet and Cgow In ian Reservations, S. J. Tietema. Montana A ricuIture ExperimentaI Station. Bozeman, Montana, 961. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Bul. 542. Indians in Agriculture: Alternatives in Irrigation Farming, Black eet an Crow In ian Reservations, y S. . Tietema. Montana riculture ExperimentaI Station. Bozeman, Montana, 958. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Bul. 522. Indians in Agriculture: Cattle Ranching on the Crow Reservation, by Ralph E. Ward, et a1. Mentana Agriculture Experimental Station. Bozeman, Montana, 1956. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 257 Department of the Interior. Bureau Of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 139. The Leasin .of Indian Trust Land on the Crow Reservation. BilIings, MOntana, I954. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 170. Leasing Of Indiap_Trust Land on the Crow Reservation. Billings, Montana, 1963. Department Of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Report NO. 184. Family Fund Program. Billings, Montana, 1967. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Missouri River Basin Investigations. Bul. 639. An Economic Appraisal of Developing the Hardin Unit for Irri ation, by Ralph E. Ward and Clarence W. Jensen. Montana A riculture Experimental Station. Bozeman, Montana, I970. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Billings Area Office. De artment Of the Interior. e Montana-wyoming Indian. Billings, Montana, 1968. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Narrative Highlights, 1967. Department of the Interior. Branch of Land Operations. Billings, Montana, 1967. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Pictoral Highlights, 1968. Department of the Interior. Branch of Land Operations. Billings, MOntana, 1968. Statutes at Large. Vol. XV. Statutes at Large. Vol. XXII. Statutes at Large. Vol. XXVI. Statutes at Large. Vol. XXXIII. Statutes at~Large. Vol. XLI. Statutes at Large. Vol. XLIV. Statutes at Large. Vol. LXII. Statutes at Large. Vol. LXIII. 258 Pamphlets and Repprts Absaraka, 1968. Edited by Eloise W. Pease. Yearbook published by the Crow Tribe with assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Crow Agency, Montana. Ackerman, Edward. Geo ra h as a Fundamental Research Discipline. Researcfi Paper No. 53. CHicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1958. Big Horn Economic DevelOpment Corporation. An Overall Economic Develo ment Plan for the Bi Horn Economic DeveIOpment District. Hardin, Montana, 1969. Bi Horn Soil and water Conservation District Report. Hardin, Montana, 1964. Chatfield, W. H. "The Peaceful Grows." A mimeographed report (undated). Billings, Montana Public Library. Medicine-Crow, Joe and Press, Daniel. A Handbook of Crow Indian Laws and Treaties. Billings, Montana: western Litho, 19 O. Norris, Philetus W. Pre-Historic Remains in Montana Between Fort Ellis and t e Ye owstone River. SmIt sonian nual Report or . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880. The Science of Geography, Edited by Edward Ackerman, et a1. National Aca emy of Sciences National Research Council. Publication NO. 1277. Washington, D.C., 1965. Weaver, Otto. Mimeo Report concerning the Family Fund Prggram on the Crow Reservation. Crow Agency, Mentana, 19 . Unpublished Material Bowers, Alfred W. "A History Of the Mandan and Hidatsa." Unpgblished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 19 . Medicine-Crow, Joe. "The Effects of EurOpean Culture Upon the Economic, Social and Religious Life of the Crow Indians." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of AnthrOpology, University of Southern California, 1939. letter from Agent H. J. Armstrong to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1886. 259 Letter from A ent F. D. Pease to the Commissioner of Indian fairs, August 31, 1871. Letter from the Board of Stock Commission at Fort McGinnis, Mentana to the Secretary of the Interior, February 15, 1886. Personal Interviews Anderson, Ardell, Education Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Agency, MOntana. June 25, 1969. Ausmus, William, Big Horn County Surveyor and Appraiser, Hardin, MOntana. July 9, 1969. Bear Dont Walk, Ray. Member of Crow'Tribe. Lodge Grass, Montana. June 28, 1969. Bends, William. Member of Crow Tribe and former Tribal Chairman. Crow'Agency, Mentana. July 15, 1969. Blanket Bull (Ezra Turner). Member Of Crow Tribe. Crow Agency, Montana. July 2, 1969. Bowman, William. Rancher and Superintendent Of Plenty Coups Memorial Park, Pryor, MOntana. June 15, 1969. Bradley, Paul. Employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Soil Conservation Service, Crow Agency, Montana. June 20, 1969. Connor, Stuart. Attorney and recorder of Crow history and anthropology. Billings, Montana. June 24, 1969. Corkins, Williams, Finance Specialist, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Agency, MOntana. June 17, 1969. Green, Opal, Operator of General Store and Restaurant, Pryor, MOntana. July 7, 1969. Falls Down, Danetta. Member of Crow'Tribe. Crow'Agency, Montana. June 19, 1969. Hastin s, Thomas R. Rev. Pastor of Crow Agency Baptist hurch, Crow'Agency, Montana. August 30, 196 . Heidenreich, Adrian, Director of the Center for Indian . Studies, Rocky Mountain College, Billings, Montana. July 11, 1969. 260 Holliday, Ronald, Parks and Recreation Manager, Montana gispgzgd Game Department, Billings, Montana. July , O Jaramillo, Richard, Employment Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Agency, Montana. July 8, 1969. Maroney, Michael, Principal of Pryor Elementary School, Pryor, Mentana. July 20, 1969. Medicine Crow, Joe, Tribal Historian and Land Appraiser, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow'Agency, Montana. June 23, 1969. Nicholas, William, Plant Manager, MOhasco Carpet Mill, CrOW'Agency, Montana. July 16, 1969. Nurre, Patricia, Big Horn County Librarian, Hardin, Montana. June 20, 1969. Old Coyote, Henry, member Of Crow Tribe and cattle rancher, Crow Agency, Montana. June 21, 1969. Old Coyote, Lloyd, member of Crow Tribe and Assistant Director of the Community Action Program, Office of Economic Opportunity, Crow Agency, Montana, June 21, 1969. Salveson, Alice, restaurant and motel Operator, Crow'Agency, Montana. July 18, 1969. Schick, Lyle, Principal, Lodge Grass High School, Lodge Grass, MOntana, July 1 , 1969. Steen, Albert, Operator of a general store, Crow Agency, Montana, June 27, 1969. Ten Bear, Joseph, Tribal Secretary. Crow Agency, Montana. July 10, 1969. Tobacco, Tom, member of Crow Tribe. Crow Agency, Montana. June 29, 1969. Traskos, Richard, VISTA volunteer. Wyola, Montana. July 14, 1969. Whiteman, John, member of Crow Tribe. Lodge Grass, Montana. July 18, 1969. APPENDIX APPENDIX A Biography of Selected Crow Informants Tom Tobacco.--age 79. Mr. Tobacco was born in a tepee in 1892 just north of Crow Agency, MOntana. At age six he was forced to go to boarding school, cut his hair, and wear "civilized clothes" like a white man. After attending school for several years he finally quit in the fourth grade 'when he was eighteen years old. Contrary to Grow custom both.Mr. Tobacco and his wife were members of the same clan. He observed the other clan taboos, however, and never Spoke to his mother-in-law or sister-in-law. He has never danced in a Sun Dance. He is a baptized Christian but believes the peyote ceremony of the Native American Church is a worthwhile practice when run right. He also believes that the sweat bath is still a good experience for both bathing and religious purposes even in near-zero weather, and he is critical of the yOung Crow who have ignored the sweat bath and make fun of it. Like many of the Older members Of the tribe Mr. Tobacco does not like to see young Crow girls dress "almost naked" and dance with their sisters and brothers like white men. He would like to see the reservation continue for 100 years but doubts that it will. 262 263 Television is a waste of time, "too much violence," he says. He also believes going to the moon is a waste of time and money, and believes we should help poor people like the Navaho, or Spend money for the "good of the country." William BendS.--age 88. Mr. Bends was born near Absarokee, Montana in 1883 in a tepee. His family moved near the new agency at Crow Agency shortly after his first birth- day. At age seven he was sent to boarding school at Crow Agency. He attended this school for twelve years before dropping out and taking up farming in 1901. Mr. Bends is representative of the Crow who have be- come highly acculturated. He served as Tribal Chairman from 1926-1931. In 1932 he was a member of the state con- vention in Helena. He became one of the first Crow to own an automobile when he bought his first one in 1926. In 1934 he cut off his long braids. Mr. Bends never participated in a Sun Dance but was in a war dance. He is proud of the fact that he has never smoked nor drunk, and has never been arrested. He belongs to the Piegan clan and his wife is a member of the Greasy Mouth clan. Never in his life did he ever Speak to his mother-in-law. Mr. Bends is a Baptist and a member of the Four Square Baptist Church in Crow Agency. When last interviewed in 1969, Mr. Bends was the oldest living Crow and was in remarkably good health. He has worn contact lenses since cataract surgery in 1966. He has no teeth and refuses to wear false teeth. 264 Mr. Bends feels it is "no good that the old culture is gone. The young children ignore the old traditions and make a joke of the sweat bath." He also feels that Crow children get married at too young an age today. Being an avid television viewer, he says it is "a good time killer." He watches and enjoys everything. In reSponse to a question regarding moon exploration, Mr. Bends replied it is "a waste of money, foolishness. We should use money to help the poor." John Whiteman.--age 77. Mr. Whiteman was born in 1894 near Lodge Grass, Montana. His father, White Man Runs Him, was a scout for General George Custer at the battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876. As a young man Mr. Whiteman lived in a tent and was forced to attend boarding school, out his hair, and wear non-Indian Clothes. For several years he rode a horse a half dozen miles to school. Mr. Whiteman is a full blooded Crow and proud of it, but he has readily accepted most of the white culture. He has retained part of the old culture, however. There is a sweat bath in his backyard, and his wife still makes pemmican. He has not worn long braids Since 1929. In 1930, he pur- chased his first automobile. The Whiteman family belongs to a Baptist church; they live in a modern house which is furnished with a piano and television among other things. 265 Mr. Whiteman is a chain smoker, he uses a cigarette lighter, wears a wedding band, and loves to watch television. Thus, in many ways he has become acculturated to the white man's ways, but he is critical of young Crow who do not reSpect the old clan relationships. He would like to see the reser- vation and the old culture continue but doubts that either will survive for long because there are "only a few full bloods left." Ray Bear (formerly Bear Don't Walk).--age 62. Mr. Bear was born in 1909 on the reservation. He is a full-blooded Crow, but his wife is a Chippewa and Speaks no Crow. Educated in mission schools for nine years, Mr. Bear dropped out of school to take up farming. As a young man he once chewed peyote to excess and ended up in a hospital. When his brother died in 1938, he cut off a finger to mourn him, but today he is apologetic for doing so. After trying farming for twelve years, he quit in 1956 and has leased his land ever Since. Mr. Bear represents a little of the old culture and a great deal of the new; He is a frequent visitor to the library in Hardin, Montana, and reads a wide variety of books. One of his children is a brick layer in California. No Crow is Spoken in the Bear home, but there is a sweat tepee in the backyard. 266 Ezra Turner (Blanket Bull).--age 63. Mr. Turner was born in 1908 near Crow'Agency. He attended boarding school in Crow Agency for a short time and then Spent two years in a Kansas school. He remembers his early years on the reservation and recalls seeing people living in tepees and tents. He also remembers seeing tree and scaffold burials throughout the reservation. Like many Crow, Mr. Turner leases all his land and lives off the lease income. On occassion he takes a part time job as a forest fire fighter or other miscellaneous jobs. He is limited in what he can do because of poor health. Despite having no automobile he does most of his shopping in Hardin, Montana. Hitchhiking is his main form of transporta- tion. Joe Ten Bear.--age 30. Mr. Ten Bear represents the new leadership of the Crow. He has attended college and served the tribe in various leadership capacities including the promotion of economic development on the reservation and improved educational opportunities. He believes the Crow would readily turn to ranching and farming if they had the opportunity. The white man, however, has kept the Crow from farming by purchasing the best land and fragmenting the Crow land into small uneconomic units. 267 The Crow, he believes, need improved education in order to better themselves, so he is pushing the idea of a junior college on the reservation. If sufficiently trained, the Crow can attract more industry to the reservation, he feels. According to Mr. Ten Bear, termination of the Crow Reservation at this time would be a disaster. The Crow need fifty more years before they can make it on their own, he feels. He favors retaining as much of the old culture as possible, especially the language, but also believes that the Crow must adapt to many of the modern ways and seek help from the white man to develOp the reservation and provide jobs for everybody. HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES \ll\INWIWINHIIHIWIHIVlilillllNIHWHIHHHI 31293101873325