Marker trees

[Robert Braun]

I got into trouble a few months ago by daring to call into questions the notion of Indian "marker trees."

For those of us new to the subject, the story goes something like this:

Long before the invasion of white Euro-centric Anglo-NonAmericans to the New World, native people deliberately mis-shaped trees to serve as living markers for direction, trails, water sources and the like. The marker was made by suppsedly bending a sapling 90 degrees, and securing it with a notched stick or leather thong. When the thong or stick rotted away, the tree was permanently bent in an "L" shape or some other distinctive shape. Since the tree is alive, the marker will last a long time... presumably more than 100 years.

There are articles and websites galore on this topic. There is little in the way of evidence to back up this tale, but lots of folks fervently believe the Indian origins of these misshapened trees.

Not suprisingly, so does the Wisconsin DNR. There is an "Indian Marker Tree Trail" at Blue Mound State Park. There, interpretive information indicates that the marker tree itself designated the direction to a nearby spring, and had done so for "about 100 years." This of course begs the question WHY a tree had to be deliberately mishapened circa 1900 just to mark a spring. And who exactly was around to do the deed.

One now-retired UW professor likened these trees to a Druid tree language in Europe. He also identified numerous so-called marker trees at the Wisconsin Heights battlefield. The tress allegedly mark specifics from the battle: the retreat route of the Indians, points of interest, even the location of Thomas Short's grave.

I recently viewed several of these trees at the WH battlefiled. Many of the ones I saw are marked with an aluminum tag-- probably to denote its status in someone's notebook that the tree "made the cut" (sorry, bad pun : as a "marker tree." Most trees claimed to be such trees elsewhere in the U. S. are uniformly identified as white oak. Burr oak-- the variety of tree usually associated with the WH battle) is a variety of white oak, slow growing and high in tannic acid so it resists rot and insects. Certainly such a tree would be a logical choice for the making of a marker tree.

However, for these trees to be legitimate, they would have to have been bent over or otherwise manipulated circa 1900 as well, for no tree appeared older than 100 years. This begs the question... WHO would have had specific knowledge of the battle and know the location of key spots or trails to do the tree marking suggested by the professor and former DNR employees?

Bob.

[pshrake]

Bob,

Both H.E. Cole and Charles E. Brown knew of the battlesite location around that time, and in 1906 the founding members of the Sauk County Historical Society hosted a "pilgrimage" to the battlefield. During this event Brown presented a lecture citing extensive research proving the battle site at its current location. Apparently there was a strong sentiment in Sauk City at that time that the battle was fought directly across the river from the town and Brown notes the lack of enthusiasm he recieved because of his research.

However, it is difficult to say that either Cole or Brown knew of the specific details of battle enough to mark the site with multiple "marker trees." And I have not found any account of the pilgrimage noting that the battlefield was marked to identify specific locations.

At any rate, why would someone note the site with marker trees, in 1900? The site was privately owned and such a marking system would indicate that the private owner was willing to have toursits come onto his property. If the trees were shaped by Indians, who among the Ho-Chunk at that time would have knowledge of the battlefield layout in enough detail to mark the site? Assuming for the moment that either Brown or Cole marked the site, why use trees. Why not concrete posts or some other permanant marking system?

Pete

[Matthew S. Schweitzer]

Hello Bob,

I was perusing the board and stumbled across this little thread and found it interesting that there is some doubt as to the authenticity of these so-called "Indian marker Trees". Are you aware of any investigative research on this subject? I am from Ohio and these marker trees are found quite frequently across the Midwest from what I understand and are often marked by the state park services as being just that, trees deliberately misshapen by natives to mark important trails or springs, etc. The description above concerning the trees at the battlefield site which were mentioned to have dated from around 1900 does seem a bit late for such trees to be made. Were these trees known to have been dated to the turn of the century or could they have pre-dated that time? I find this to be an interesting topic as there are a number of these trees here in Ohio that have also been tied to certain historical events and there seems to be little scholarly research on the subject that I have seen. Just curious.

Matthew Schweitzer

[Robert Braun]

Hello Matthew and thank you for your note.

Regarding so-called marker trees at Wisconsin Heights, my claim as to their age is tied to girth measurement of the varieties of trees labeled as "marker trees." A comparison of these trees to similar varieties whose age can be reasonably estimated indicated (to me) that whatever the reason or reasons for the deformations, they are not marker trees

Regarding any study, the labeling of so-called marker trees came as a result of a 1995 study done by Dr. James P. Scherz (UW Madison) on the battlefield. In his narrative, Dr. Scherz attempted a linkage to Druid tree language, etc. as part of his explaination for the trees he claims were deliberately manipulated. This comparison is arrant nonsense-- and more competent heads than mine came to a similar conclusion.

The far more obvious question is: WHO would have enough first hand-knowledge of the battle to return to the site and mark it in the fashion Dr. Scherz suggests? If in fact it could be shown that humans DID manipulate these trees, statistically it would have to have been a white, not a red, person.


Having said this, I fully concede the possibility of authentic marker trees-- ones manipulated deliberately by red and white people. This concession is supported by either the age of the tree or written account.

However, in so conceding the possibility, one must then move to to the "probable" In my opinion, the probability of so-called Indian marker trees at Wisconsin Heights does not stand up to informed scruitiny.

Yours most cordially,

Bob.

zohoe said:

Hello Bob,

I was perusing the board and stumbled across this little thread and found it interesting that there is some doubt as to the authenticity of these so-called "Indian marker Trees". Are you aware of any investigative research on this subject? I am from Ohio and these marker trees are found quite frequently across the Midwest from what I understand and are often marked by the state park services as being just that, trees deliberately misshapen by natives to mark important trails or springs, etc. The description above concerning the trees at the battlefield site which were mentioned to have dated from around 1900 does seem a bit late for such trees to be made. Were these trees known to have been dated to the turn of the century or could they have pre-dated that time? I find this to be an interesting topic as there are a number of these trees here in Ohio that have also been tied to certain historical events and there seems to be little scholarly research on the subject that I have seen. Just curious.

Matthew Schweitzer

[Larry Koschkee]

A few comments here:

Former WDNR employee, Mr. David Gjeston was directly involved in tagging the trees at Wisconsin Heights Battlefield and would make an excellent guest speaker at a OLRHS meeting. I also believe Mr. Wayne Schutte, former WDNR employee stationed at Tower Hill State Park was directly involved as well.

I usually avoid the topic of "marker trees" because it is a very controversial subject.I do believe there are still authentic "marker trees" still in existence, but they are rapidly passing silently into history. My rule of thumb in researching or viewing "marker trees" is if there are more than one unusual tree at intervals along a course it is a safe bet that they are "marker trees" and not a deformity of nature. Secondly, if there is a suspicous looking tree near a spring it most likely is a "marker tree." Above and beyond that it is probably conjecture.

Bob said: "for no tree appeared older than 100 years." IMHO, you can not rely on the appearance or size of a tree to determine it's age. Because of their distorted shapes and the stress it causes, many trees grow very slowly, therefore their age is often underestimated. Only way to be reasonably sure is to obtain core samplings and count the growth rings. A personal case in point is some stunted Eastern Red Cedar trees growing on a craggy, rock outcropping on some land I own in southwestern Wisconsin.

In 1977, I decided to cut a couple of the trees to improve the view of the valley extending into the Wisconsin River valley. Fornuately I only cut two, stunted looking trees, because later I learned one tree trunk had 181 growth rings and the other 186, therefore, one tree began life in 1791 and the other 1796.

The average girth of the two trees was only 8.5 inches. Relying on tree girth measurement to determine age is sometimes futile.

Did GLO survey crews highlight "marker trees" in their field notes?

I have not seen any notations, perhaps others have.

[Robert Braun]

Larry-- thanks as always for informed and interesting commentary. I, too, believe there are genuine trees that served as markers... made by both red and white men.

Your point regarding girth is well-put. Core sampling would be the only affirmative method of dating the tree-- short of cutting it down (not a real great option.) I would note that similar non-manipulated stock near the so-called "marker trees" at WH appear to have girths that are similar.

Also.. it is instructive to note that trees do not grow as, say humans do. Trees grow (I understand) from the top up; from the bottom down, and from the inside out. One's initials carved in a tree three feet off the ground would still be three feet off the ground 20 years later.

Per your request, I consulted the surveyor's notes for Section 24, T9N R6E. The notes mention "battleground" along the eastern boundary, and also mentioned "set oak post for 1/4 section corner." The noted for this section end with "Sand hilly and Stoney 3d rate timber Oak." No mention of misshapened trees.

I remain highly suspicious of the authenticity of presumptive "Indian marker trees" at Wisconsin Heights.

Regards,

Bob.

[Larry Koschkee]

Hello, Bob.

Just a further note on tree age determination which is relative to the Black Hawk War.

You will note on this message board that we have discussed the location of Funk's Fort in the Southeast 1/4, section 30 of present day Monticello Township, Lafayette County Wisconsin. When I first visited the region of this site, I was stunned to see a beautiful example of an "oak opening" made up of Bur and White Oak trees south of the road. My immediate thought was - is this a remanent of the historical cited Funk's Grove or Wiley's Grove? History tells us that there was a grove of trees first called Funk's Grove. Funk and Wiley families resided together for awhile then Funk moved on to some land east of there. Subsequently, the grove became known as Wiley's Grove.

The GLO Survey notes indicated the area was "scattering timber."

After about a year of discussion with present day property owners some Amigos and I obtained permission to conduct some select tree bore samplings in 2003 to determine if the trees growing in this "oak opening" would have been present at the time of the BHW. Tree cores indicated the trees would have ranged between 95 to 110 years old in 1832.

Larry

[Robert Braun]

larrykoschkee said:

Hello, Bob.

Just a further note on tree age determination which is relative to the Black Hawk War.

You will note on this message board that we have discussed the location of Funk's Fort in the Southeast 1/4, section 30 of present day Monticello Township, Lafayette County Wisconsin. When I first visited the region of this site, I was stunned to see a beautiful example of an "oak opening" made up of Bur and White Oak trees south of the road. My immediate thought was - is this a remanent of the historical cited Funk's Grove or Wiley's Grove? History tells us that there was a grove of trees first called Funk's Grove. Funk and Wiley families resided together for awhile then Funk moved on to some land east of there. Subsequently, the grove became known as Wiley's Grove.

The GLO Survey notes indicated the area was "scattering timber."

After about a year of discussion with present day property owners some Amigos and I obtained permission to conduct some select tree bore samplings in 2003 to determine if the trees growing in this "oak opening" would have been present at the time of the BHW. Tree cores indicated the trees would have ranged between 95 to 110 years old in 1832.

Larry

This is fascinating stuff! Your work is proof that evidence, not speculation, is the surest route to seperating the "presumptive" from the "actual."

To be clear, I yield regarding the use of tree girth (circumference) alone as an indicator for age. I concede that native people may have actually used tree "markers" to perhaps mark trails or locate water sources-- this has been my consistent position.

However, I do not concede that the trees at Wisconsin Heights are "markers" for anything. Misshapened though they may be, their existance must mean that people with enough knowledge of the batttle and it particulars returned to the site to deliberately (and comprehensibly) mark the site post 1832.

[Larry Koschkee]

Through correspondence with David Gjestson, former WDNR employee, I have gleaned a little more information on the "marker trees."

Bob, If your interested let me know and I will share information off-site.

Larry

[Robert Braun]

I am definately interested--

[e-mail]

Many thanks!

Bob

BTW, I would be very greatful if you would consent to review a manuscript that I have nearly completed.

r.

[Larry Koschkee]

Ok -Bob,

I fired off the basic information through the contact portion of this message board.

[Robert Braun]

Speaking with Dave G. at the 175th he acknowledged that of the "marker trees" he helped mark, borings indicated that only one of the many trees dated to 1832.

I think as far as Wisconsin heights is concerned, the question of the valididty of so-called "marker trees" has been solved.

Case closed.

Bob.