Warren’s citing of Chequamegon Point as the scene of a great battle between Ojibwa and
Dakota warriors also is problematic, though it probably contains factual elements. That he refers
to a place corresponding to what we now call Long Island is evident from Warren’s descriptive
passage:

This point or peninsula does not average in width more than twenty rods [100 m or 330 ft], and in many
places it is not more than six rods [30 m or 99 fi] across. It is covered with a growth of scrubby oak and
pine, and the extreme end where the Dakotas lay in ambush, is said in those days to have been covered
with numerous sand hillocks, which the winds and waves have since nearly blown and washed away.
[Warren 1974:102-103]

Warren’s characterization of Shag-a-waum-ik-ong is certainly consistent with the general
appearance of Chequamegon Point and Long Island today. Once again, however, Warren is quick
to point out the powerful forces at work in the Lake Superior basin. Even if the reader accepts
this account exactly as written, it should be obvious that nature already had substantially modified
the landscape in question when Warren wrote in 1852. Any evidence of a battle on Long Island,
therefore, is likely to have been lost years ago to the unrelenting winds and waves of Lake
Superior.

Later in his History, Warren casts a thread of hope to those who might seek out the
battleground. He writes, "Over the whole point of Shag-a-waum-ik-ong, are still strewn small
particles of bones, which are said to be the remains of the warriors who fell in this bloody fight"
(Warren 1974:104). This is doubtless an exercise in hyperbole, however, as it is unlikely that
any battle between those two small forces would Jeave sufficient dead to cover all of
Chequamegon Point. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the second- or third-hand,
unsubstantiated claims relating to human osteological identifications were correct in the first
place, particularly if the bones were fragmentary and scattered.

Despite problems with History of the Ojibway Nation, the work now stands as a classic
reference on native political developments and conflict before the period of white contact.
Warren was the first to set down on paper a synthesis of Ojibwa tribal traditions, and because
times were fast changing no other scholar could ever achieve that same result (nor independently
confirm the accuracy of his sources, unfortunately). It is deficient, of course, with respect to
many of the social and cultural issues that would interest scholars today (Buffalohead 1984:xv),
but has much utility when read with circumspection.

One stands on much firmer ground when tracing the chronology of Euroamerican activities
in the region, a topic to which we now turn. The French, in the persons of Pierre Esprit
Radisson and Médard Chouart, Sieur des Groseillers, are known to have visited Chequamegon
Bay as early as 1659. The team of Radisson and des Groseillers later set up a trading post at the
tip of Chequamegon Point in 1660. Daniel Greysolon Dulhut [Duluth] also built a fort on
Chequamegon after the Sioux and rival British traders forced him to move from the head of the
lake. That enterprise lasted from 1690 through 1693, when Pierre Le Sueur moved the trading
concern to what is now called Grant’s Point on Madeline Island (Holzhueter 1986:16-20).



REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, G.C.
1984 Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi
Valley, 1650-1862. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Birmingham, R.A., and R.J. Salzer
1986 The Marina Site Excavations. Monograph No. 1. The Wisconsin Archaeological
Society, Milwaukee.

Bona, L.
1990 Geomorphology and Recent Geologic History of Long Island, Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Master’s thesis, Department of Geology, University of
Wisconsin, Madison.

Buffalohead, W.R.
1984 Introduction. In History of the Ojibway People, by W.W. Warren. Reprinted.
Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. Originally published 1885, Collections of
the Minnesota Historical Society Vol. 5, St. Paul.

Cleland, C.E.
1992 Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Hickerson, H.
1988 The Chippewa and Their Neighbors: A Study in Ethnohistory. Revised and
expanded edition. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Holzhueter, J.O.
1986 Madeline Island and the Chequamegon Region. The State Historical Society of
Wisconsin, Madison.

Hyde, C.K.
1986 The Northern Lights: Lighthouses of the Upper Great Lakes. TwoPeninsula Press,
Lansing, Michigan.

Noble, V.E.
1993 The Archeological Investigation of Four Lighthouse Complexes at the Western
End of Lake Superior: The 1988 Testing Program within Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore. Technical Report No. 8. Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln.

29



CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The 1992 archeological survey of Long Island provides National Park Service managers
with the baseline cultural resources data necessary for proper stewardship of that Apostle Islands
unit. The survey found no evidence of either prehistoric or early historic sites on the island.
Rather, the only sites recorded during the 1992 project were several previously known historic
sites dating from the mid-nineteenth century at the earliest. Nevertheless, the limited
documentation of those sites generated sufficient new information to develop the following
management recommendations.

Much of the old La Pointe light is still in remarkably good condition. Although most of
the frame members are now gone, enough remain that conclusions can be drawn concerning room
placement and size, stair configurations, and aspects of the lighthouse interior. Outbuildings and
other dependencies differ in their conditions, ranging from the nearly pristine oil vault behind the
light to the almost unrecognizable boathouse at the former shoreline, Further, one can note
several walkways, rail tracks, refuse dumps, and numerous isolated artifacts at various locations
about the site.

In short, the La Pointe site comprises virtually all the elements of a late nineteenth-century
Great Lakes lighthouse. Whereas other lights in the Apostle Islands have been maintained in
fairly good order, whether lighted or not, the old La Pointe light is the only abandoned lighthouse
in this part of Lake Superior that is now in ruins. Accordingly, the site affords considerable
opportunities for archeological research into lighthouse operations and site abandonment behavior,
as well as the chance to interpret aspects of the lighthouse service in a manner that would differ
markedly from approaches taken at Raspberry Island, where a navigational light is. still
operational and the original lighthouse in need of only moderate restoration.

The new La Pointe light station is also abandoned by its keepers, but in more recent times
and owing to automation rather than replacement. As a consequence, in many respects the
compound looks from the outside as though it were still occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard
personnel who last operated the station. It is also apparent, however, that modern attitudes
toward facility maintenance and site abandonment might not have left much in the way of
archeological remains. Perhaps for that reason, archeological reconnaissance was unable to locate
any historic refuse dumps in the immediate site area. Further, it seems that the demolition of
certain associated structures, and removal of the resultant debris, was very thorough. Be that as
it may, the remaining structures are important cultural resources that contribute to our
appreciation of the times and processes they represent. It would be appropriate, therefore, that
the National Park Service expedite the study of those structures and give full consideration to
their restoration.

Unlike the two La Pointe stations, the Chequamegon Point light did not possess a keeper’s

quarters or other associated structures. Instead, it stood alone on the point and shone from atop
an isolated steel tower facing Chequamegon Bay. It was not long ago, however, that the U.S.

25



Figure 4. Aerial view of Long Island toward mainland, 1992.





Figure 44. LeBel fish camp in relation to Chequamegon Point light, ca. 1940s.

62



sapneanid “S474 all M2aiemg #0 2K

“0681 ‘@Asasal aug BT Jo dew YyoroysS “g] omnBIy

TERRE aT

5 + i
“aye
+
cane 6 Gea "QI "88g oF AwAUNe ane
Grees wmiguory WON NOLLYANISIE
hose IRL

“a aag

Ixvq

SNOILVAS TWNOIS 904 FLNIOd VI ON ILWD07

“SIM (LNIOd NOOANVNOAHO

44



LA POINTE

LIGHT STATION,

Come

“a
Fixed Rea. Wik
Poew! Mane . - L5 Ventanas IN free uf Reservation 1 MAM be a.

Reservation Surveved Sept 718 17H. by Tears Gittinen

‘True Meridian

A

“le go vp AM EG@ ON

~— EXVLASsriONS. —

Vier Mayuctie Mectination i i386 non tye
toh beads NOOR iI elton ae
OF Petar tu eR Cours ys
© taht Taner.
ais Manendury of Nesenation,
MW lane Mt

Figure 14. Sketch map of La Pointe reserve, 1876 (annotated).

42



Figure 24. Wood stove west of the lighthouse ruins.

48



Figure 30. Undated historic image of the converted La Pointe lighthouse, view from northwest.

52



Figure 11. Survey crew in heavy interior vegetation.

Figure 12. The sparse vegetation of the “Breaks.

40


12


O’Brien, T.M.
1976 Guardians of the Eighth Sea: A History of the U.S, Coast Guard on the Great
Lakes. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Quimby, G.I.
1966 Indian Culture and European Trade Goods: The Archaeology of the Historic
Period in the Western Great Lakes Region. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Rathbun, P. A.

1988 Special History Study — Light Stations of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
Unapproved draft report prepared by Rathbun Associates, Springfield, Iinois, and
Hollandale, Wisconsin. Submitted to National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office,
Contract No. CX6000-5-0056.

Richner, J.J.
1987 Archeological Investigations at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, 1979-1980.
Report on file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln.

Ross, H.
1960 La Pointe: Village Outpost. Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor.

Salzer, R.J., and D.F. Overstreet
1976 Summary Report: Apostle Islands Project, Inventory and Evaluation of Cultural
Resources within Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin. Manuscript on file,
National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln.

Snyder, D.L.
1992 A Compendium of Written Communication of the Light House Board for the
Twelve Light Stations of the Midwest Region, National Park Service, 1839-1881. On
file, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield, Wisconsin.

Thompson, P.
1978 The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Oxford University Press, New York.

Warren, W.W.
1974 History of the Ojibway Nation. Reprinted. Ross & Haines, Inc., Minneapolis.
Originally published 1885, Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society Vol. 5, St.
Paul.

30



Figure 43. Fishermen lifting nets off Long Island (LeBel fish camp, Chequamegon Point light and
 ) boathouse in background), ca. 1940s.

61



THE 1992 ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF LONG ISLAND, LAKE SUPERIOR,
APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE

By

Vergil E. Noble

Midwest Archeological Center
Technical Report No. 47

United States Department of Interior
National Park Service
Midwest Archeological Center
Lincoln, Nebraska

1996



Figure 47, Collapsed structure at LeBel fish camp.

64



Figure 45. Main dock at the LeBel fish camp, ca. 1940s.

63



Figure 51. Unidentified fishing station.

66



Miscellaneous Cultural Features

In addition to the four sites described above, there are several sportsmen’s cabins of
dubious significance on the island. Chief among those are the Sivertsen cabins, which
incidentally served as base camp for the 1992 archeological team (Figure 50). The group of three
cabins, only one of which is currently serviceable as a domicile, stands approximately midway
along the island’s official length (Figure 13). The cabins, and other structures of marginal
consequence, all appear to be less than 50 years old and have no remarkable associations.
Accordingly, the team made no effort to record spatial arrangement and conditions of those
structures.

North from the Sivertsen cabins, and less than halfway to the new La Pointe light
complex, are the ruins of a small cabin that may have been a fishing camp (Figures 13 and 51).
One thing pointing to that inference is an apparent fish cleaning station, which stands in partial
collapse between the cabin and lake shore (Figure 51). Other debris about the cabin site may also
be related to a small-scale fishing enterprise (Figure 52).

Finally, it is worth noting that the team discovered what appears to be a small mackinaw
boat partly buried in the bay side (west) beach of Long Island, well back from the current
shoreline (Figures 13 and 53). Found serendipitously south of the lower NPS boundary line
during a lunchtime stroll, only a prow and the partial gunwale of the wooden boat are exposed
in the area behind the current strand line (Figures 54 and 55). Since the find lay outside the
legitimate purview of an official National Park Service investigation, the archeological team took
no action beyond photographing the sparse boat wreckage exactly as they found it. For that
reason, it was not possible to confirm the vessel’s type with certainty, nor even to determine the
size and current condition of the small abandoned boat.



The missionary effort at Chequamegon Point also was an important aspect of the early

e European presence in this region, and some prominent seventeenth-century Jesuit missionaries

were involved with it. Among those individuals who ministered briefly to tribes gathered about
the bay in the 1660s were Fr. René Menard, Fr. Claude Allouez, and Fr. Jacques Marquette. The
Sioux pressured Marquette to depart Chequamegon for the Straits of Mackinac in 1671, along
with refugee Huron whom the Iroquois had previously dispatched from their native land east of
Lake Huron. Missionaries would not again enter the region until the early part of the nineteenth
century (Holzhueter 1986:16-18).

The fact that both French missions and fur trading posts were present at Chequamegon
Point during the early Historic period, of course, leaves no doubt that native peoples were also
situated in the area. Their village locations are not revealed precisely in surviving documents,
but it is known that several groups occupied specific creek drainages that empty into the bay.
In the seventeenth century, the Ottawa and Huron were prominent, whereas later years saw the
Sioux and Chippewa enter the region. Though an unlikely spot to sustain a year-round native
village, Chequamegon Point, or Long Island as we know it today, might have been an ideal
setting for the exploitation of a summer fishery and the collection of seasonal berries.

It may be concluded from the above that the early French (and later British) use of
Chequamegon Point was limited in scope and relatively short in duration. Physical evidence of
sites mentioned in the historic record, therefore, probably is sparse, if present at all. Native
seasonal exploitation of Long Island, on the other hand, might have ensued over an extremely
long period. Such specialized and discontinuous use of the landform, however, would likely
create only ephemeral sites that are small in size, characterized by meager material remains and,
therefore, very difficult to detect.

In either case, discovery of such sites is almost entirely dependent upon the
geomorphological stability of Long Island. If Chequamegon Point has, in fact, migrated back and
forth in the shallows of Lake Superior, then it is rather unlikely that the current incarnation of
Long Island conforms with the Chequamegon Point known to the luminaries of history named
in this chapter. It is more probable that any prehistoric or early historic sites associated with this
peninsula sank beneath the waves of Lake Superior long ago.


Incredibly, records and inference combine to show that the contractor hired to build the
La Pointe light put it on the wrong island by mistake. Research into the Light House Board
records for this area by park historian David Snyder shows that the building contractor and crew
arrived at Bayfield in 1857 without specific knowledge of the proposed lighthouse site, to say
nothing of the local geography. The government's representative in Bayfield, lacking clear orders
himself, apparently directed the contractor to proceed with construction on Michigan Island.
Documents also suggest that the contractor may have pressured that decision in order to avoid
the "ruinous" cost of having 38 laborers stand idle for the nearly two months they believed it
would require to obtain clarification from lighthouse authorities in Washington, D.C. (Snyder
1992:22-25).

According to Rathbun (1988:45-47), writing in his unapproved draft study, the old
lighthouse that still stands on Michigan Island is virtually indistinguishable from design
specifications for the authorized La Pointe light. He also points out that the contractor was held
in default in 1857 for not having built the lighthouse according to terms of the contract. That
same year, a conical stone tower with attached keeper’s quarters at "La Pointe" first appears in
the list of Lake Superior lights. Only one year later, however, the list entry indicated that the
La Pointe light was made of wood and was situated on what is today known as Long Island.

Snyder’s (1992:65) research unequivocally disclosed that the Lighthouse Service shut
down the light built on Michigan Island before the end of 1857. The contractor then made good
on his original government contract by building a lighthouse, as had been ordered, on Long
Island. A product of expediency, the La Pointe lighthouse hardly conformed to the original plans
and specifications, executed as it was in frame construction instead of stone.

It also bears noting that other records show a Lighthouse Board expenditure of $6,000 in
1869 for renovations on the Michigan Island lighthouse (Hyde 1986:187). Of importance is the
term "relighting," which is used in reporting that action and which suggests that an existing light
had been out of service for some time, not simply in bad repair:

The Light Station was discontinued in the year 1857. An appropriation of $6,000, approved July 20th,
1868, provides for renovating and relighting it. When the light was discontinued the lantern and deckplate
were removed from the tower. This deckplate was afterwards fitted up & placed upon the L.H. tower at
Windmill Point, Lake St. Clair [between Detroit and Port Huron]. All the doors and windows have since
been carried off & hardly anything remains of the buildings but the bare walls. [cited in Snyder 1992:65]

Thus, all evidence argues that the first "La Pointe" light on Lake Superior operated from
Michigan Island during parts of 1857 and 1858. A second light with that name then went into
service on Long Island. Some ten years later, having witnessed an increase in commercial
shipping traffic into the Bayfield area, officials put the light at Michigan Island back on active
duty as an aid to navigation.

Existence of the town of La Pointe on Madeline Island, of course, adds further to the

possible confusion of place names and actual locations meant. The French settled the town,
which is considered Wisconsin’s oldest continuously occupied community, during the early

15



FIELD METHODS

The methods employed by the Long Island field crew in 1992 were consistent with those
used by other archeologists in similar forested environments throughout the Midwest. Dense
vegetation and ground cover will obscure much of the surface, of course, making basic surface
collection techniques useless in many forest areas. Accordingly, on Long Island it was necessary
to use close-interval transect shovel testing across most of the island. Even in places where the
ground surface was relatively clear of vegetation, the shifting sands could conceal any number
of earlier ground surfaces. Therefore, the shovel testing protocol remained in force regardless
of ambient surface conditions (Figures 11 and 12).

Owing to the need for expeditious data collection, often across considerable distances, the
research team lacked the luxury of carefully surveyed unit locations and precise control over their
excavations. Pacing had to suffice for reckoning distances between points on the ground when
traveling cross-country over irregular terrain and through occasionally thick vegetation.
Accordingly, the locations of shovel tests cannot be accurately plotted on a map of Long Island.
Similarly, the excavation of each shovel test was not strictly controlled in terms of size or depth,
nor were the probes excavated in either stratigraphic or arbitrary levels. Those facts
notwithstanding, excavators did attempt a certain consistency in their work, aiming for an ideal
shovel test of 40 cm in diameter and 50-60 cm in depth. Furthermore, they noted the presence
of soil stratification whenever it occurred in a shovel probe profile — a rare occurrence.

Shovel testing proceeded in a routine manner along transects spaced 20 m apart and at
intervals of 20 m, working in two-person teams. Instead of the teams working abreast, collecting
data on a fixed grid pattern, they traversed each study area in offset fashion separated by 10 m.
In that way, it would be possible to collect data from at least one point every 10 m across a given
study area. The team employed closer transect intervals in those areas where the past human
occupation or use was more likely to have occurred. In other words, more intense scrutiny fell
upon localities in the vicinity of a known site, such as an extant lighthouse complex. Other areas
manifesting a high probability for the presence of archeological sites, such as relatively level,
high ground where experience tells us that prehistoric peoples might have made camp, also
received greater attention in the survey.

As a matter of course, the team logged the findings of each shovel test using standard
field forms developed at the Midwest Archeological Center. Among the varied information
recorded for the excavated shovel tests were their approximate positions along particular transects
and distinctive soil characteristics. Of course, field notations also remarked on the recovery of
any cultural materials in the shovel probes that might indicate the presence of a site.

The investigators marked each bag containing collections with the appropriate provenience
information, the date, and their own initials. Upon completion of the 1992 Apostle Islands field
project, the researchers returned to the Midwest Archeological Center along with the rather
meager artifact collections.

11



24



traditions of the Indians become in the particulars, or details, from a verbal transmission of ages; yet each
must have something real and true for its origins, and for this reason their traditions are more worthy of
attention than people are generally disposed to accord them. [Warren, cited in Buffalohead 1984:xi-xii,
emphasis added].

Warren would not believe, nor should it be suggested here, that oral tradition is without
value to either the historian or the archeologist. On the contrary, such testimonies, even when
far removed in time from the events they report, can have great utility when carefully drawn from
informants and evaluated against certain controls (Thompson 1978). Even Warren would allow,
however, that the circumstances under which he collected information from the Ojibwa were far
from ideal. The above quotation makes clear that the particulars of various oral traditions he
reported are vague and often in conflict with others. He claimed only that they would convey
the essence of factual events and have their ultimate origins in some distant truth. Thus, the oral
traditions are not merely stories, but neither are they entirely accurate histories.

Accuracy. of course, is more than simply a matter of recall; it also is a product of
authority. Warren does not identify his informants, except in the most gencral sense, and no
research notes are known to have survived. Accordingly, there is no way to determine whether
the persons he interviewed could speak authoritatively on any particular subject. Even if we
accept that the oral traditions were essentially correct, as Warren claimed, it is not probable that
every member of every village would have the same knowledge and understanding of tribal lore.
Warren acknowledges that details will vary among accounts, of course, yet his history is replete
with detail, much of which is probably unauthenticated.

Some of Warren’s detailed statements, of course, are readily shown to be based on false
premises and uncritical acceptance of what he had been told. One such leap of faith is revealed
in discussing the manufacture and use of copper implements in the Lake Superior basin. He
writes:

Copper, though abounding on the lakeshore, they never used for common purposes; considering it sacred,
they used it only for medicinal rites, and for ornament on the occasion of the grand Me-da-we
[Midewiwin].

They are not therefore, the people whose ancient tools and marks are now being discovered daily by the
miners on Lake Superior; or, if they are those people, it must have been during a former period of their
ancient history; but their preserving no traditional account of their ancestors ever having worked these
copper mines, would most conclusively prove that they are not the race whose signs of a partial civilized
state, are being daily dug up about the shores of the Great Lakes. [Warren 1974:98-99}

Even if one grants the initial premise that the Ojibwa used copper only for sacred
purposes, which is dubious, it seems that Warren’s way of reconciling conflicts between physical
evidence and oral tradition is simply to reject the physical evidence. Of course, Warren had no
way of knowing scientifically the age of copper artifacts found in the region, not even in relation
to the time of Ojibwa intrusion, and he cannot be faulted for his open speculation. Nevertheless,
since Ojibwa oral tradition is silent on the use of copper, in his view such implements must
represent cither some other culture or an ancient strain of Ojibwa so far removed from the present



Figure 49. LeBel fish camp lagoon and structures, ca. 1940s.

65



& 7 \ 8
¥
1 fa Mertar aan
Ag RK bE}
144 rE
1 4 Pile Z£E {
Joist iN FS soist lois
Boake! POA Mas OF fcc Pocket
door! a Teens
Jeon [ Pee
TT
Lh |
:
3
£
ZI
Debris trom frame i Area
2nd story extends i containing
for 9m West of i stairway
building I rubble
tt
tt
im
3 mt
a
= ith mortored | | Opening situated
Beach cobbles Below Yop footing
Seem wen eourse
1
\ thee
Interior, LZ
pons b f ar

is a 1m drop
the moin structure
to the cellar

{Below door portal
|g a norrow passage
with barrel voult)

Conerate
cover brick

CELLAR

(Filled with debris
from frame structure)

Drain

re

([] Sandstone Footings
BB Porch Step

EB Porch Pier

RN spread Footing

Conerete Footings

a a

Foundation remains,
collapsed wall extends
4m East

Figure 26. Floor plan of the La Pointe ruins.

50



10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

FIGURES

Location of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore ......0.00...0.0.0000000005 31
Apostle Islands of Wisconsin. 2.2... ee eee 32
Long Island 2... 0. eee eee eee 33
Aerial view of Long Island toward mainland, 1992 .........0.......00005 34
Aerial view of Long Island toward point, 1992) 22.2.2... 2 eee eee ee 35
Detail of 1986 Apostle Islands nautical chart 2.2... 00. ee 36
Aerial view of the Long Island "Breaks," 1992 2.0.00... 0.000 c eee e eee 37
Detail of 1964 Long Island 7.5 minute quadrangle ................-.205. 38
Proximity of old La Pointe complex to shore, ca. 1900 ...........0.0000. 39
Aerial view showing beach aggradation, 1992 2.0.0.2... eee eee 39
Survey crew in heavy interior vegetation ©... 0.00.0. eee eee 40
The sparse vegetation of the “Breaks” 2... 2. eee 40
Long Island site location map... 2... tenes Al
Sketch map of La Pointe reserve, 1876 2.0.0.0... eee eee 42
Sketch map of La Pointe reserve, 1895 26... eee ee 43
Sketch map of La Pointe reserve, 1890 2.0... 2 cc eee eee 44
Undated historic image of old La Pointe lighthouse,

view from northeast 2... 2... eee eee eee 45
Undated historic image of old La Pointe lighthouse,

view from northwest... 2. cee eee 45
Boathouse ruins near old La Pointe lighthouse... 0.0... ee eee ee 46
Boathouse ruins with beach beyond treeline.. 0... ee 46

iv


new quarters at the east light in the late 1930s, Because human activities about the Chequamegon
Point site (47AS194) were limited, amenities were few.

With use of the original Chequamegon Point light tower discontinued, owing to
encroachment of the lakeshore, the U.S. Coast Guard detached the historic structure from its
footings and moved it by transport helicopter approximately 31 m (100 ft) east (Figure 42). The
move no doubt was meant to remove the forsaken tower from proximity with its replacement,
where it might interfere with the signal or cause confusion. It is unfortunate, however, that the
place chosen for its relocation also happened to be on part of the LeBel fish camp, described in
the next section, which compromises the historic scene. Further, the manner in which the Coast
Guard moved the old tower caused severe damage to its iron deckplate. The historic tower still
stands in that relocated position at this writing, though it is now beginning to show definite signs
of increasing deterioration from neglect since going out of service. Moreover, the tower's
isolation leaves it easy prey to would-be scavengers and vandals.

It should be recalled that the Chequamegon Point light was not constantly attended, but
serviced initially from the old La Pointe lighthouse and from the new La Pointe light after 1938.
Therefore, in light of the minimal human presence here, it should be no great surprise that
systematic shovel probing turned up nothing of consequence around the original tower site.
Visual inspection of the shoreline area did confirm that the old tower footings are still present,
as well as pilings and tracks along the lakeshore for boat launchings and landings. There is no
obvious evidence of an associated boat house, though several LeBel family photographs, recently
acquired for the Apostle Islands collection, show a boat house near the light tower on
Chequamegon Point (e.g., Figure 43). Doubtless the ever encroaching shoreline claimed it, and
any surviving remains may now lie under water.

LeBel Fish Camp, 47AS193

Because it was a private family enterprise, there is little substantive documentary
information on the LeBel fish camp (47AS193) of Long Island (Figure 13). A government study
of Lake Superior fishing practices in 1894 makes specific mention of a "Mr. LaBelle,” who is
identified as a pound net owner and fisherman of Chequamegon Bay. He is also said to have
come there from below Quebec "about 25 years" earlier, which would put LeBel’s arrival
sometime around 1869 (Record Group 22, Entry 44, 1894 Investigation by Joint International
Commission, Box 9, Volume IT, National Archives, Washington, D.C.). That conclusion is given
added weight by the presence of two structures labeled "Fish Shanties" on the 1876 map of
La Pointe light station (Figure 14). Two more generations of LeBels continued operation of the
fishing station into the 1940s (Figures 44 and 45). By that time the business had expanded to
include a small fleet of fishing boats available for charter.

It is clear, then, that LeBel’s small fishing operation commenced business near the tip of

Chequamegon Point more than 100 years ago. At times, however, LeBel appears to have found
himself in contention with lighthouse operations. Indeed, an August 8, 1893, log entry by the

21



Figure 36. Undated historic image of the 1897 La Pointe light tower.

57



Figure 39. Deteriorated La Pointe pier, boathouse removed.

Figure 40. New cylindrical steel tower at Chequamegon Point.

59



Figure 41. Undated historic image of original Chequamegon
Point light.

60



boundaries, moreover, are ill-defined. Indeed, the Historic American Engineering Record
(HAER) inventory card employed as documentation for the National Register nomination gives
only the UTM coordinates for the new La Pointe light. It would seem, then, that the nomination
does not include the ruins site as part of the listed property, even though it served as the keeper’s
quarters from 1897 to 1938.

As one of the earliest lights in the upper Great Lakes, the historical significance of the
old La Pointe site would seem indisputable. Owing to degradation of the structures, however,
this specific area of the multiple-element complex now would have to be recorded for all practical
purposes as an archeological property. It would seem appropriate, furthermore, to amend the
nomination accordingly and to conduct more a detailed inventory and documentation of cultural
resources exposed about the site. Those data can then be employed in the development of
management recommendations for the protection and stabilization of the old lighthouse ruins and
associated materials.

New La Pointe Light Station, 47AS192

The site of the new La Pointe light station (47AS192), also known in some references as
La Pointe east light, seems at first glance almost too modern to be considered historically
significant. Nevertheless, it has great significance with respect to the history of Great Lakes
shipping, and it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Figures 13, 33-35). The light
complex looks as though personnel abandoned it only in recent years, rather than in 1964 when
the U.S. Coast Guard removed its detail after automating the light. Further, gross appearances
of existing structures at the complex, one of which dates only from 1938, obscure the fact that
this light station went into full operation in 1897 as a replacement for the original La Pointe
lighthouse of 1858 (Hyde 1986:184-185).

In fact, the first aid to navigation installed at the new complex was a fog signal made
operational in 1891 and tended by keepers still quartered at the old light station less than 900 m
(3,000 ft) west, according to the 1964 USGS Long Island 7.5 min Quadrangle. The fog signal
is first shown as completed on the 1895 sketch map previously discussed (Figure 15). That map,
prepared for the Lighthouse Board, appears to show a distance of some 1,100 m (3,500 ft)
between the localities, which is not an excessive discrepancy for a sketch map. Still standing in
the early 1980s, though derelict and modified many times, the 7-m-x-12.5-m (22-ft-x-40-ft)
structure was torn down by the Coast Guard sometime during or shortly after 1986. Its
foundations are still present, however, and associated remains might still exist in the immediate
area (see Hyde 1986:184).

In addition, a 1936 vintage radio beacon tower passed from the scene at about the same,
though its four concrete footings remain. In fact, that beacon was the second that operated at this
location. The former locations of an oil house and a small shed are also among the site amenities
depicted on a plan map of this Long Island complex prepared in a recent draft overview of
lighthouses in the Apostles (Rathbun 1988:Figure 5.4). No doubt other minor structures were

18





ABSTRACT

For two weeks during the summer of 1992, archeologists from the Midwest Archeological
Center carried out a cultural resource survey of Long Island, the most recent addition to Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore. This report summarizes the methods and results of that effort to
inventory the significant sites on that island for future management.



This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A,
Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Field Area Office
and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as
Available

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 (a) (1).



that they can no longer be recognized as being ancestral. It is not evident that Warren considered
any other explanation for his observed disparity of evidence. Nor is it clear whether Warren’s
method of questioning his informants was sufficiently exhaustive to have elicited reports of
secular uses for copper among the Ojibwa.

It must be acknowledged that current thinking on regional chronology would argue
basically the same interpretation from much different initial assumptions and with dissimilar
details. It is indeed probable that the copper items Warren mentions were made by a people
unrelated to the Ojibwa perhaps thousands of years before he wrote. Nevertheless, we now
understand also that the Ojibwa arrival at the western end of Lake Superior was much later than
Warren believed. Thus, it may be said that his claim for the antiquity of Lake Superior copper
implements was correct in its general proposition, but founded on dubious premises and fraught
with spurious particulars.

In regard to the overall accuracy of Warren’s history, it has been observed that:

Warren embraced the 19th-century concept of history as an account of major political events and wars of
the past set forth in a rigid chronology. In doing so, he dismissed the distinction between the tribal view
of the past and his own understanding of Indian history as essentially the ‘somewhat uncertain manner in
which the Indians count time’ in their oral traditions versus the ‘more authentic record of whites.’ . . .
Warren folded Ojibway history into an American framework, causing some serious distortion in the
coverage of the Ojibway past. [Buffalohead 1984:xv, emphasis added]

Warren’s accounts of the Ojibwa migrations and of the Dakota wars, which form the core
of his work, are often at odds with research published by the ethnohistorian Harold Hickerson
(1988). Furthermore, one of the leading modern authorities on Dakota history has written that
Warren’s work "is not supported by French documents, has many inaccuracies, and runs counter
to Sioux oral traditions" (Anderson 1984:47). Accordingly, many of the statements Warren
presents as fact must be called into doubt.

As noted earlier, certain passages in Warren’s History deal directly, or by implication,
with Long Island. Oral traditions of the Ojibwa migration, for example, have the group arriving
at the western end of Lake Superior much earlier than contemporary ethnohistorians and
archeologists have inferred from other sources. The latter would place the Ojibwa in
Chequamegon Bay no earlier than the second half of the seventeenth century and perhaps the last
quarter (Cleland 1992; Hickerson 1988). Through estimation and the counting of native
generations, however, Warren (1974:90) reckoned in 1852 that "it is now three hundred and sixty
years since the Ojibway first collected in one grand central town on the Island of La Pointe
(Madeline Island]."_ It will not be lost on critical readers that Warren thus stakes subtle claim to
the year 1492 for an initial Ojibwa landfall in the Chequamegon Bay region. That most
interesting correspondence with the better-known Columbian Entrada seems an unlikely product
of chance, suggests the presence of a hidden agenda in his writings, and begs the question of
accuracy in all of Warren’s chronology.



CONTENTS

Abstract 2. eet eee eee i
Acknowledgments 20.00. eee eee eee ii
List of Figures 2.0. eee eee iv
Introduction 2... ete eee 1
Background 2... 1... ee eee eee 3
Field Methods 2.2.0... ce eee 11
Results of the Survey 0... eee eee ee 13
Old La Pointe Light Complex, 47AS195 13
New La Pointe Light Station, 47AS192 18
Chequamegon Point Light, 47AS194.............. 20
LeBel Fish Camp, 47AS193. 2.0.2.2... eee eee 21
Miscellaneous Cultural Features... 0.0.02 eee 23
Conclusion and Recommendations ......... 00.6 eee eee 25
References Cited 2.0... cette ene 29
Figures 20. eee eet eee tee 31

iii



RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

The 1992 archeological survey of Long Island produced scant information. Indeed, the
effort added no new sites to the relatively short list of known cultural resources on the island.
Although that result might come as a disappointment, especially in light of initial hopes for the
survey, in no way should the effort be viewed as a failure. To the contrary, confirmation that
the cultural resource inventory is complete as it now stands provides a useful and reliable
framework within which park managers may engage in planning future actions.

An important result of the survey, furthermore, was the visitation of several previously
known historic sites on the island (Figure 13). The examination of structural ruins and areas
lying about extant structures, as well as documentation of the historic features present, will
provide data useful toward the management of those sites. Each of the important sites on Long
Island is described below in the most general fashion. Specifics relating to the light stations on
Long Island, such as construction and removal dates, are derived from data summary sheets
presented in Rathbun’s (1988) Appendix II unless otherwise attributed. Although an unapproved
draft document, that "Special History" of light stations in the Apostle Islands contains a great deal
of valuable historical information.

It should also be noted that the first three areas described below for a time were integrated
elements of a single light station complex. To be sure, the old La Pointe lighthouse of 1858 was
initially an independent aid to navigation. Late in the nineteenth century, however, the modified
structure began serving as quarters for personnel who tended both the new La Pointe light and
the Chequamegon Point light. Keepers subsequently took up residence at the new La Pointe light
in the 1930s, tending it and the Chequamegon Point light from that location. Abandonment of
the old lighthouse, of course, allowed it to begin falling into ruin. Because of the fluidity of
interrelationships, and because each complex at least appears to stand in isolation, the three areas
are treated separately in this report of survey findings.

Old La Pointe Light Complex, 47AS195

The site of the old La Pointe lighthouse (47AS195) lies some 275 m (900 ft) east of the
survey line separating Section 13 of Township 49N, Range 4W, from Section 18 of Township
49N, Range 3W in Ashland County (Figure 13), much as it was shown on map of the station
surveyed in September of 1876 (Figure 14). In addition, an 1895 sketch map depicts proposed
sites for two new navigation developments on Long Island relative to the "present lighthouse,"
which lies about midway between the proposed coast and harbor lights (Figure 15). The
proposed sites were to be realized as the new La Pointe and Chequamegon Point lights,
respectively.

That map, it should be noted, is apparently not the product of a new survey. Rather, it
is almost certainly based on a more carefully executed map of 1890 (Figure 16), in turn traced

13



p-14#2

The 1992 Archeological Survey
of Long Island,Lake Superior,
[Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

T
Lt
|

=

i
Tirrtr i Is {

National Park Service - Midwest Archeological Center

@ PLEASE RETURN TO:

TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
DENVER SERVICE CENTER

N MICROFILM B&W Scans NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Z IH. Zoos



»

CHANNEL

2207 E Mites

Figure 6. Detail of 1986 Apostle Islands nautical chart.

36



42.

44,

AS.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

S51.

53.

54.

55.

New and relocated old Chequamegon Point lights .. 22... ....0.00.0.00005 61
. Fishermen lifting nets off Long Island, ca. 1940s 2.0... 0.0.00... eee eee 61
LeBel fish camp in relation to Chequamegon Point light, ca. 1940s .......... 62
Main dock at the LeBel fish camp, ca. 1940s 22.0.0... eee eee 63
Structural debris at the LeBel fish camp... 2.0.0. eee 64
Collapsed structure at LeBel fish camp ...........-. 0.000000 00 cee 64
Residual LeBel fish camp lagoon ... 2.00.00... 00 cece eee eee 65
LeBel fish camp lagoon and structures, ca. 19408 2.0... 0.0.0. c ee eee 65
Main cabin, Sivertsen compound... 0... ce nee 66
Unidentified fishing station . 0... 2.0.6 eee eee 66
. Surface debris at fishing station 2.0.0... 0... eee ee 67
Buried boat hull in relation to lake 2.1... eee 67
Detail of boat hull... eee eee 68
Section of buried boat... 6... eee eee 68

vi



21.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Al.

Oil house behind La Pointe lighthouse ruins .. 6.2.0.0... 00.2 eee eee 47

. Privy at La Pointe light station complex .......0.0. 000000 cece eee 47
Semi-subterranean storage near La Pointe ruins .. 0.0.0.0 0.0000 e ee eee 48
Wood stove west of the lighthouse ruins 1.2... 0.2... e eee eee 48
Base map of the old La Pointe lighthouse site... 2.0.02. .0 02 eee 49
Floor plan of the La Pointe ruins 2... 20... 0 eee eee 50
Remaining north elevation of the La Pointe ruins ...............00.0005 51
Survey crew recording the La Pointe ruins .. 2.2.0.0... ee eee SI

Undated historic image showing east elevation of
the converted La Pointe lighthouse... 2... 0..0 0.0. eee eee eee 52

Undated historic image of the converted La Pointe lighthouse,

view from northwest . 2... 0.62. ee eee 52
La Pointe quarters, interior north elevation... 2... 0.0.0.0... 00000 eee eee 53
Detail of interior framing, north elevation .. 0.2... 0.0.0... 00 00000 e eee 34
. New La Pointe light station, ca. 1940s 0.0.2.0 55
New La Pointe light station, 1992 2... 2... eee eee 55
Site plan, new La Pointe light station, 1991 2.2.2... eee eee 56
Undated historic image of the 1897 La Pointe light tower. .............00-. 57
Undated historic image of 1938 La Pointe triplex quarters ...............- 58
Steel pier with boathouse at La Pointe, ca. 1950s 2... 0... eee eee eee 58
Deteriorated La Pointe pier, boathouse removed ...........0.0000-0 006. 59
New cylindrical steel tower at Chequamegon Point ...............000005 59

Undated historic image of original Chequamegon
Point light ©... eee ee eee 60



{ From tree tine

| t0 beach is 74m North N
Trees
Tracks”
0 30ft
=
x» Mojor Dune Ridge ) 10m
Tracks,
[Pole VV pole OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE Pole 7
ml Boat
House
Ruins:

DUNE
» Summit

old =

Lighthouse Vent

Ruin Subterranean
Sidewalk 10 Point Light Building

aa] LI Entronce

Dump
@ Stove
a ee, “
iia ae oN
cou MARSH ae ye ~
ee ou - “ ee
cut a

Figure 25. Base map of the old La Pointe lighthouse site.

49



0. 10km
Devils Outer Isiand
Island fe
on North
N Rocky {}1win islana
ear islands) s. Twine. cat
fond (i Cistend stand
Olter fe
“\Jsland -
Sand tslond/\, Cone > Lo ass
Z
ee See ceinne Raspberry yj island

CStsland Va Manitou oS
3 (filer -
ae ~ ook fe island
Ss 0 S
Sey a: \tens
fo Z as ne) pos ° Gull Island
MI a _
oo \ A Hermit “
é Island ‘a -

a LSS , & Michigan. Island
Bayfield Ae ( a.

i.

‘a ( Madeline Island
7 2 :

ARE

x island

LAKE SUPERIOR

wossiurn

Figure 2. Apostle Islands of Wisconsin,

32



It is quite possible, however, that a future architectural survey will find the pier beyond
any possibility of repair, in which casc it would have to be demolished in the interest of safety.
Even so, areas that might be touched by any such demolition should be examined prior to the
undertaking to ascertain whether any other cultural resources will be affected by the activity.
There is, of course, the chance that carlier features might be present, submerged beneath the
water or covered by beach sands.

It bears noting that personnel at this light station also had responsibility for operating the
unmanned Chequamegon Point light near the western tip of Long Island, slightly more than a
mile away. Accordingly, those two points are linked by a two-track road and by a line of utility
poles, both of which run along the ridge of a relict dune for most of the distance. More intensive
survey of that route may yet reveal incidental cultural resources lost or abandoned by the
caretakers. The 1992 survey, however, failed to detect any substantial remains along the lane.

Attempts to locate undocumented cultural resources associated with the new La Pointe
light met with little success. Systematic shovel testing in the wooded area immediately behind
the complex did not produce any archeological evidence of possible significance. Visual
examination of the ground surface about the new La Pointe light station established the presence
a few small, isolated refuse areas, but nothing that could be called a substantial dump site or
tefuse midden. Trash could have been hauled greater distances from the site, dumped into the
lake, or even removed at the time of the detail’s departure. It is also possible, of course, that
cultural resources are indeed present and that our limited site investigation simply failed to detect
them, perhaps because they are deeply buried.

In short, although it is logical to assume the presence of additional archeological remains
associated with the new La Pointe light station, the 1992 survey did not confirm that assumption
to be true. It should be sufficient, however, to underscore the fact that the major visible features
already are all integral elements of a National Register site. That site nomination, of course, at
present fails to define the property boundaries adequately, and it is tempting to focus only on the
central building complex. Managers should be mindful, however, that the actual compass of site
use was probably much greater than what is obvious from the placement of structures. Formal
and informal activities probably ranged much farther afield when personnel occupied the station.

Chequamegon Point Light, 47AS194

The light now operating at Chequamegon Point is a modern cylindrical tower, which the
U.S. Coast Guard installed in 1987 as a replacement for the original skeletal steel light tower at
this end of Long Island (Figure 40). Ninety years earlier, in 1897, the U.S. Lighthouse Board
realized its 1893 authorization calling for a harbor light to be erected approximately 3,500 ft
(1,100 m) west of the La Pointe lighthouse (Figures 13 and 41). The light at Chequamegon
Point, however, would be operated as a companion to the new La Pointe light, which also went
into service in 1897 east of the old lighthouse. Both would be cared for by keepers housed at
the old La Pointe lighthouse, converted for exclusive use as a dwelling, until establishment of

20



Figure 7, Aerial view of the Long Island “Breaks,” 1992.

37



present during the long history of the site, as well as trash dumps, refuse pits, privies, and various
undocumented use areas,

The primary historic structure at the site is the 20-m (65-ft) steel light tower, which went
into service in 1897 (Figure 36). The tower consists of a lantern house above a watch room, both
of which surmount a cylindrical stair enclosure and surrounding pyramidal skeletal support. It
appears that this is the only original structure extant in the complex, and it seems to stand in very
good repair. The La Pointe light now operated and maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard, though
completely automated since 1964, still employs the original lantern house. A small electrical
power unit at the tower’s base, termed a "gratiot hut" by Coast Guard personnel, is believed to
date from a 1982 upgrading of the facilities.

A nearby triplex quarters building is associated with the 1938 light station renovation and
expansion (Figure 37). Upon completion of the triplex, keepers still quartered at the old
La Pointe light station would finally be relocated and brought into proximity with their main
activity area. Built under directives of the Depression Era’s Works Progress Administration, and
at times referred to as a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) building in terms of style, this large,
two-story quarters could house three families with ease. No doubt the designers intended it to
accommodate a lightkeeper and two assistants, as well as their immediate families, in separate
living quarters.

Transfer of U.S. Lighthouse Service duties from the Bureau of Lighthouses (1910-1939),
an agency of the Commerce Department, to the U.S. Coast Guard, then under the Treasury
Department, occurred in 1939 following President Franklin Roosevelt’s directive to reorganize
and combine government functions for economy of effort. As it absorbed the old Lighthouse
Service, the Coast Guard also reorganized its command structure, making the Great Lakes its
Ninth District. Members of the field services were then given the option of retaining civilian
status or taking a military commission (O’Brien 1976:71). Therefore, it was possible for the
same keepers to remain at their posts with little noticeable change. The retention of trained
personnel proved particularly advantageous with the outbreak of war soon thereafter. With the
passage of time, however, and the eventual departure of that cohort of keepers from service,
fewer families would reside at the light stations. Stationing regular Coast Guard enlisted men
for limited tours of duty would largely do away with the need for family accommodations at light
stations after World War II, just as the advent of automation would later eliminate the need for
keepers.

The other substantial structure present at the site, a massive steel-girder pier, is also
associated with modernization of the new La Pointe light during the New Deal. In addition to
the docking facility, a boathouse formerly stood on the pier (Figure 38). Today what remains
of the pier structure is obviously in a very unsafe condition and virtually unusable (Figure 39).
If both feasible and desirable, the structure might someday be restored to its former appearance
and condition, in which case more intense archeological scrutiny will be required where its
support structure is anchored.

19



56



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Numerous individuals contributed to the archeological field research reported here.
Several of them, however, deserve special acknowledgment for their exceptional efforts in our
behalf.

Apostle Islands Superintendent Jerry Banta took a direct interest in our work and
facilitated the survey by putting key members of his staff at our disposal. One member of his
staff in particular, Historian David Snyder, was largely responsible for obtaining project funds
and making preparatory arrangements. In addition, once the project began, he helped orient the
field crew to the area and attended to countless logistical matters, such as scheduling our boat
transportation to and from the island. Later, he provided reference materials, historic
photographs, and useful comments on the draft of this report, all of which have improved the
final product. Of course, we also appreciate the efforts of boat operators and radio dispatchers
at the Lakeshore, who ably conveyed us to and from the island safely and kept us in touch with
the outside world.

Dr. Mark Lynott maintained general project oversight from our offices in Lincoln,
Nebraska. Todd Butler accomplished laboratory processing of materials collected on the island
and compiled the artifact frequency data. John Andresen supervised the entire editorial process,
whereas Ken Gobber had responsibility for the initial editing of the draft manuscript. Bob
Caverzagie and Carrol A. Moxham produced the maps; Carrol also coordinated illustration pro-
duction and finalized the illustration section. Marie Johnson performed word processing and
formatted the camera-ready copy for final printing.

It remains yet to acknowledge those persons who made up the Long Island field crew:
Todd Butler, Dennis Naglich, and Susan Skaggs. The three archeological technicians performed
their jobs well and helped ensure that the survey would be completed within the brief two weeks
allotted for the task.

ii



10


Figure 22. Privy at La Pointe light station complex.

47



Figure 32.

Detail of interior framing. north elevation.

354



this report, may be deemed significant. Indeed, the La Pointe light station is already listed in the

e National Register of Historic Places, and it is probable that the old La Pointe light would be
eligible in its own right as an archeological site. Accordingly, it is hoped that the modest
management recommendations outlined above will be adopted to the extent possible and with all
due speed.

27



Figure 52. Surface debris at fishing station.

Figure 53. Buried boat hull in relation to lake,

67



28


“S61 ‘PAsases aIUTOg ET JO dew yoIoyg “¢] oINBIZ

tess pop le prvog reagpouydi7 ye
ne. uy wae Ciba Tt theday tae heiguncy %

HUW 0g La
POM UHI, a

Avg

“YH 918 98d fo
wrnerdegsahd

© Q t880.
R007 1sten go

Pree

‘UM INrY, Nooawvob Sa)

POU may ruys

&
y
S,
ny “
ps OR
ab a v AWM 40 dno ot Z x?
c ek 3
sysnew Met Rewmesee coore u
amas pid D te
N
aM v7

43



eighteenth century at a time when the entire island was referred to as La Pointe (n.b., though the
community is much older, the name "La Pointe" was not formally given to the familiar settlement
until 1834-1835 [Holzhueter 1986:10]). That coincidence of terms, and the abandoned reserve
of 1853, may be the source of Hyde’s (1986:187) incorrect assertion that the first lighthouse in
the Apostle Islands was on Madeline Island.

As mentioned above, the original 1858 lighthouse built on Long Island was of frame
construction. Indeed, photographs taken of the structure nearly 40 years later show it as one of
the most unassuming lighthouses ever built on the Great Lakes, looking more like an old country
schoolhouse than a guardian of local commerce (Figures 17 and 18). The only feature disclosing
the true function of this modest one-and-one-half-story building is the small, octagonal lantern
house that stood atop a low tower only slightly more stout than a typical bell tower.

As noted earlier in this report, the La Pointe light station once stood virtually at the
water’s edge, whereas it now lies a considerable distance from the active beach strand. With that
knowledge, it should not be surprising to encounter a former boat house, now collapsed and
choked with sand, as one approaches the lighthouse site from the shore (Figures 19 and 20).
Alert observers also will note the presence of narrow-gauge tracks elsewhere in the vicinity, now
nearly buried by dune migration. Doubtless the aggrading process necessitated their installation
in later years, as the shoreline migrated farther from the lighthouse.

Tt is known from the 1876, 1890, and 1895 maps prepared for the Lighthouse Board
(Figures 14-16), and from other sources, that a boat house also stood on the more protected south
beach, where lacustrine dynamics were less pronounced. Attempts to locate the site of the boat
house in 1992, however, met with no success. Rathbun’s (1988:115) unapproved study makes
the unconfirmed claim that removal of the structure occurred prior to 1900. It seems improbable,
however, that all evidence of the south shore boathouse would have been eradicated by such a
removal. It is much more likely that shifting sands and increased ground cover have sufficiently
obscured the boathouse location so that standard archeological survey methods failed to detect
it.

Several more dependencies are known to have been associated with the first lighthouse
on Long Island, and some of them still survive. A sketch map of the complex in Rathbun’s
(1988: Fig. 5.3) unapproved draft study shows the approximate locations of two sheds and a privy
that once stood behind the lighthouse. He also records the position of a brick oil house (Figure
21), built in 1897, that stands in near-pristine condition. The 1992 field crew also noted the ruins
of other minor structures, such as a later privy (Figure 22) and a semi-subterranean storage
facility (Figure 23), and two substantial refuse dumps within the immediate compass of the
lighthouse. Among the surface debris near the lighthouse ruins was a wood stove bearing the
mark of "The Michigan Stove Co." of Detroit and Chicago (Figure 24).

The site of the old La Pointe light station, of course, is dominated by the 1858 lighthouse

ruins (Figures 25 and 28). For the most part, however, what is now visible relates to a
substantial renovation of the structure some 40 years later. In 1897, while the new La Pointe

16



Figure 20. Boathouse ruins with beach beyond treelinc.

46



Figure 33. New La Pointe light station, ca. 1940s.

Figure 34. New La Pointe light station, 1992.

55





Figure 5, Aerial view of Long Island toward point, 1992.

35



Bayfield ee
Park Headquarters eS

Washburn

Long Island a>

Madeline Island
(Non—Federal)

Village of
LaPointe

Grant's
Point

a ke
s uperior

“The Breaks a

— open)

BAD RIVER”
RESERVATION.

km
° Lighthouse

~ 6 Long ‘sland oe ‘
Apostle "island. Nall Lokeshors

Figure 3. Long Island.

33



Figure 37. Undated historic image of 1938 La Pointe triplex quarters.

Figure 38. Steel pier with boathouse at La Pointe, ca. 1950s.

58



BACKGROUND

Many of the islands in the Apostles group have been subject to archeological scrutiny,
both before and since establishment of the National Lakeshore, as attested by published overviews
(Richner 1987; Salzer and Overstreet 1976). Furthermore, more recent investigations have
focused on sites of the historic period, such as selected lighthouse complexes (Noble 1993). Prior
to 1992, however, no archeological attention had been paid to Long Island.

Long Island is one of the smaller insular units that make up Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore (Figure 3). The island, which is now held entirely in federal ownership, measures
about 250 ac, or less than 3.75 mi on its longitudinal axis and approximately 0.25 mi across at
its widest point. Acreage is much smaller than the linear distances would suggest, however,
owing to the great amount of fluctuation in Long Island’s shoreline configuration.

The island is entirely composed of sand and is virtually level, showing little relief from
shore to shore. Only the low ridges formed by decades of dune building provide any substantial
elevation above the lake surface. Further, the waters immediately about the island are quite
shallow, as the floor gently slopes away from the beach. Thus, in a manner of speaking, Long
Island is hardly more than a large sand dune risen from the shallow waters of Lake Superior’s
Chequamegon Bay.

It is important to note that Long Island is, in fact, no longer an island, but the tip of a
long, narrow peninsula (Figures 4 and 5). As depicted on the 1986 nautical chart of the Apostle
Islands (Figure 6), Long Island is now connected to the mainland east of Ashland, Wisconsin,
by a narrow sand spit sometimes referred to as "The Breaks" (Figure 7). Thus, the "island" is
now part of the landform known as Chequamegon Point, which partly blocks access to
Chequamegon Bay.

That the closing was relatively recent is shown clearly by comparison with the USGS
Long Island 7.5-minute Quadrangle of 1964, which depicts a half-mile gap of open, shallow
water between Long Island and Chequamegon Point (Figure 8). According to Robert Brander,
former Park Ecologist at Apostle Islands, the now-fabled storm of November 1975, the one that
sank the ore freighter Edmund Fitzgerald, also built the isthmus that has since blocked the former
passage from Lake Superior into Chequamegon Bay. The drop of average lake levels in recent
years also has contributed to the further transfiguration of this and other landforms in the region.
Doubtless the sands have shifted often over time, turning island into peninsula and back again,
and doubtless some future major storm will once again separate Long Island from the Wisconsin
mainland.

Even one of the first chroniclers of Great Lakes native history, William Whipple Warren,
wrote as early as 1852 of this dynamic landform’s ephemeral nature. His oft-reprinted book,
History of the Ojibway Nation [also titled History of the Ojibways or History of the Ojibway



aa]

r ) Figure 18. Undated historic image of old La Pointe lighthouse, view from northwest.

45



2.
Le

Figure 28. Survey crew recording the La Pointe ruins.

51



much of the ground surface across the central part of Long Island or cut off access to other areas
of high ground. Accordingly, it was always difficult, and often impossible, to investigate some
of the areas that would be among the most promising locales for archeological resources to be
present.

It should be noted, in summary, that Long Island potentially represents part of the
landform French cartographers simply identified as "La Pointe" on eighteenth-century maps of
the region. The imprecision of maps of that period, however, makes it difficult to determine the
exact location of any village or outpost at historic La Pointe. Further, any attempt to make
correlations is complicated by the fluidity of landforms in this dynamic corner of Lake Superior.

Be that as it may, it is established that places called La Pointe or Chequamegon Point at
various times in the past were scenes of considerable human activity, especially during the fur
trade period. Even before Europeans entered the area, however, native peoples vied for control
over the lush resources available in the Apostle Islands. Warren (1974:86-88) relates what even
he refers to as a "highly allegorical" tradition concerning the initial Ojibwa (Chippewa)
occupation of Chequamegon Point. It must be acknowledged, however, that many accounts
published in his classic book, which is argued to be the first Native American history written
from a native point of view, are also considered to be highly inaccurate by some modern scholars.

It is worth digressing at this point to cast a more critical eye on William Warren and his
writings, which were completed in 1852 when he was but 27 years old. Interestingly, this writer
of great promise died the following year, at a tragically young age, and his book did not come
to press until 1885. Warren was the product of an impressive French-Indian lineage, being
descended on his mother’s side from the early French trader Michel Cadotte, whose wife gave
her name to Madeline Island, and White Crane, a hereditary chief of the Ojibwa village at
La Pointe. Warren’s impeccable local connections and genealogy, therefore, lend a certain
authority to his writings. Further, his command of the Ojibwa language gave him unusual access
for interviews with tribal members. Warren’s paternal lineage was equally striking, harking back
to Richard Warren, who landed at Plymouth in 1620 with the Mayflower colonists. Largely
through the efforts of his father, the Madeline Island trader Lyman Marcus Warren, young
William was fortunate to have had both the education and the opportunity to accomplish his
ambitious work (Holzhueter 1986:29; Warren 1974).

W. Roger Buffalohead (1984), in his introduction to the most recent reprint of Warren’s
book, quotes William Warren at length on the methods he employed in researching accounts and
evaluating sources. Warren’s foreshadowing series of articles on his Ojibwa research, published
in the Minnesota Democrat (St. Paul), is an important complement to the History. A telling
excerpt from the February 11, 1851, article shows that his manner of gathering historical
information would be highly questionable by today’s standards of historiography:

In order to arrive at the truth of a fact obtained of an Indian, respecting their past history, a person must
go from one old man to another of different villages or sections of the tribe, and obtain the version of
each; if they all agree in the main fact, even if they disagree in the details, you can then be certain that
the circumstances had happened and the tale has a substantial origin. However vague and unnatural the

5



IN REPLY REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Midwest Archeological Center
Federal Building, Room 474
100 Centennial Mall North

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-3873
October 29, 1996

K3841(MWAC)

Memorandum

To: Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnerships, Washington
Office; Attn: Cultural Resources Bibliography, Room 422

From: Manager, Midwest Archeological Center

Subject: Report entitled The 1992 Archeological Survey of Long Island, Lake Superior,
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Technical Report No. 47, by Vergil E. Noble.

Enclosed for your information and the Cultural Resources Bibliography are two copies of the
above report, which details the results of an archeological study by the Midwest Archeological
Center relating to Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

/s/ Mark J Lynott

Mark J. Lynott

Enclosures

ce:
Superintendent, APIS [5]

Superintendent, PIRO [1]

Superintendent, GRPO [1]

Field Director, MWFA [1]

Superintendent, GLSO [1]

Technical Information Center, DSC [1]

Dr. Francis P. McManamon, Manager, Archeology and Ethnology Program, WASO [1]
Martin Sterkel, GLSO

Dr. Don Steven, Historian, GLSO.

Functional Chief, Resource Planning Group, DSC

Steven L. De Vore, Archeologist, RMSO, Denver [1]

NPS History Collection [1]

USDI Natural Resources Library [3]

Library of Congress, Gifts and Exchange [1]

Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Gifts and Exchange [1]

MWAC Library, [2]

MWAC files



Coast Guard moved the original tower further from the lakeshore and replaced it with a modern

light. The concrete footings from which they lifted the tower still can be seen near the water's e
edge, as can pilings and tracks that must represent the location of a former boat landing and
possible boathouse. Such survivals of that earlier aid to navigation are cultural resources that

merit some measure of effort to protect them from natural and visitor impacts. Effort also should

be expended, of course, in exploring the means to preserve the original tower.

There are few recognizable remains of the LeBel fishery, unfortunately, and the
repositioned Chequamegon Point light tower intrudes glaringly onto the historic scene, The
collapsed main structure now presents a potential hazard, of course, and the debris might well be
removed in the interest of visitor safety. Such action should only be taken with the greatest care,
however, so little harm is threatened to any buried cultural resources that might be present.
Further, it is possible that historic objects relevant to the Lakeshore’s Scope of Collections might
be found among the ruins. If so, they should be retrieved and curated for study or display.

It would be prudent to examine historical documents in order to determine whether more
information can be gleaned concerning the apparent fishing camp located between the Sivertsen
cabins and the new La Pointe light station. At present nothing is known about the site, other than
what little can be inferred from the materials that lie about the dilapidated structure. It is rather
unlikely, however, that even the most exhaustive documents search will clearly confirm its
presumed use in small-scale commercial fishing or ascertain critical information on the builder
and date of construction.

Finally, it is recommended that the Lakeshore explore the possibility of investigating the e
partly buried vessel that is tentatively identified as a lost mackinaw boat. Contact should be
made with the Nature Conservancy, which owns the beach in which the boat now lies, and the
State of Wisconsin Underwater Archaeologist in Madison. If the small craft proves to be a
significant find, steps should be taken to retrieve and conserve the boat, as there seems little
prospect that it can be protected in place.

Although the 1992 archeological project is considered a comprehensive survey of Long
Island, managers should be reminded that it was not feasible to examine every bit of the island,
Of course, archeological surveys of wooded environments must employ sampling techniques, but
physical impediments, such as swamps and impassable thickets, prevented total access to some
areas of the island. Moreover, it is conceivable that some cultural resources might be deeply
buried beneath shifting dune sands, which would likely preclude detection using standard
archeological survey methods. Therefore, the chance still remains that cultural resources not
inventoried in this process might yet turn up on Long Island, and any contemplated undertakings
there should continue to be subject to routine review for compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act prior to initiation.

It should not be necessary to point out that financial resources are increasingly rare in the

federal government, unfortunately, but cultural resources are perhaps even more rare, and they
are dwindling with time. Each of the major sites identified in the 1992 survey, and described in

26



Figure 55. Section of buried boat.

68



from the 1876 map. Accordingly, it should be no wonder that few notable differences can be
discerned among those three maps. The only obvious difference is that the 1890 map depicts a
proposed fog signal for the coast site east of the lighthouse, whereas it is shown as "present" on
the 1895 version (cf. Figures 15 and 16). It is quite possible, though, that undocumented changes
to the original complex of buildings occurred during that 19-year span of time, since the focus
of the 1890 and 1895 maps is away from that location.

The lighthouse complex, as noted previously and shown in a turn-of-the-century
photograph, once would have had a clear view of Grant’s Point on Madeline Island from where
it stood virtually on the north beach of Long Island (Figure 9). Nearly 100 years later, however,
at the time of our 1992 survey it was obvious that the littoral currents and the natural process of
beach building had long since distanced the complex some 140 m (460 ft) from the water’s edge
(Figure 10). Today, even a knowledgeable island visitor would locate the site only with
difficulty, and casual passers-by would have no inkling of the lighthouse ruins while walking the
beach.

In order to appreciate fully the importance of the old La Pointe light, it is necessary to
be well grounded in the history of navigation on the Great Lakes. It is sufficient for our
immediate purposes, however, to consider the fact that in 1852, at the close of the period in
which responsibility for all American aids to navigation lay with the Fifth Auditor of the U.S.
Treasury Department (1820-1852), 76 of the 331 lights they operated nationally protected the five
Great Lakes. Of those 76, only six lights beamed across the waters of Lake Superior in that year
(Hyde 1986:16). Thus, the lights operating on Lake Superior during 1852 represented
approximately 8 percent of those on the Great Lakes and less than 2 percent of those in service
nationwide.

An Act of Congress created a nine-member Lighthouse Board (1852-1910) late in 1852,
opening a new era of greatly increased lighthouse construction and expansion. Moreover,
completion of the St. Mary’s Falls Ship Canal ("Soo Locks") at Sault Ste. Marie in 1855 opened
wide a floodgate of commercial shipping, and maritime traffic began pouring onto Lake Superior.
Thus, the construction of the La Pointe light on Long Island in 1856 contributed an important
new aid to navigation in the early days of Lake Superior’s integration into Great Lakes
commerce.

The rather convoluted events leading to construction of the La Pointe light on Long Island
make an interesting story that is worth repeating. Authorized in 1852, it is clear that the
government first intended to establish a light near the community of La Pointe on Madeline
Island and set aside land for that purpose the following year. By 1854, however, authorities
appear to have reconsidered the matter and turned their eyes instead toward the more strategic
location of Long Island, rescinding the lighthouse reservation on Madeline Island (Snyder 1992:9-
10). The name "La Pointe," however, also has been attached historically to the places we now
know as Long Island and Chequamegon Point. Accordingly, that designation for the proposed
lighthouse would be retained.





Figure 8. Detail of 1964 Long Island 7.5 minute quadrangle.

38



La Pointe keeper notes that Joe LeBel had threatened to have all ship captains petition for

removal of the light because local fishermen could not set their nets in government waters. In e@

view of that protest, it is most curious to find LeBel selling the government 1.8 ac of his land
for the Chequamegon Point light, as well as a 10-ft right-of-way for connecting the two new light
towers with the old lighthouse building, only two years later in 1895. The family continued to
occupy the remainder of Section 13, Tier 49N, Range 4W, however, and employ the site as home
base for its small fishing venture.

At present, one structure is but a fallen mass of lumber and must be considered a total loss
structurally (Figures 46 and 47). Nevertheless, it is quite probable that there are in-ground
cultural resources associated with the site, despite the fact that random shovel testing about the
collapsed building revealed no archeological deposits of real consequence. That assumption is
underscored by the observed presence of numerous late nineteenth-century ceramic sherds in the
immediate area. Furthermore, photographic evidence leaves no doubt that the LeBel site once
included several large structures and various docks and dependencies within its sphere (cf. Figures
44 and 45).

It should be noted again that the U.S. Coast Guard moved the original Chequamegon Point
tower from its moorings in 1987, putting it down on what had been the LeBel compound (Figure
42). That recent relocation does not appear to have impacted directly on any cultural resources
associated with the LeBel fish camp, but it does alter the historic scene considerably. Of course,
repositioning the old light tower also adversely affected its own integrity of place.

Finally, a small pond or lagoon near the collapsed structure is worth mentioning as a key
element of the compound (Figure 48). Separated from the waters of Lake Superior by a narrow
finger of land, the pond is said to have been open to the big lake in former times — a claim
supported by several late nineteenth-century maps (cf. Figures 14-16). Local informants further
assert that the LeBel family closed off the outlet, creating an artificial pool that they would later
use as a fish holding pond whenever their Lake Superior catch would not bring a good price
(Figure 49).

Stocking fish in this manner enabled the LeBels to avoid the losses of a poor market in
hopes that the return of high demand would return better earnings. However, price fluctuations
could probably be quite slow, doubtless requiring the provision of food and other maintenance
for the stock at intervals. It is unlikely in the extreme, however, that commercial species caught
in Lake Superior would spawn in the pond waters. There is no known documentation on
expedient domestication of fish caught in the wild and held captive for market in this region, but
it probably would represent an unusual innovation. Accordingly, this novel approach to fish
farming might impart a measure of significance to the pond as an element of the historic cultural
landscape.



CANADA

oS Croh KS.R.
WISCONSIN

Minneapolis
St

i

9 209 mi
——— TT
o

200 ken.

Figure 1. Location of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

31



light tower that still stands arose some 3,500 fi to the east, workers nearly doubled the size of
the old lighthouse. They accomplished that feat by raising the frame structure from its
foundations to second-story height and laying up the walls of a brick first floor (according to the
Keeper’s Log, work began on July 16, 1896, and was still not complete on October 31 of that
year). The fact that a small room at the rear is attached with a butt joint, rather than toothed into
the main foundation, would indicate that it is an even later addition to the structure. Used only
as a dwelling for the keeper and assistants, the resultant structure was markedly different in
appearance from its predecessor. Indeed, removal of the light tower from its gable roof
eliminated any obvious indication that the building had been a lighthouse (Figures 9, 29, and 30).

Rathbun (1988:64), in his unapproved draft "Special History" of the Apostle Islands lights,
states that keepers after the remodeling arranged the house with "a kitchen and parlor on the first
floor and three bedrooms upstairs." Direct examination of the ruins, however, reveals a floor
plan and incidental features consistent with the design of a duplex. In the first place, there is a
medial foundation that divides the space of the lower floor into equal rectangles (Figure 26).
Furthermore, both the east and west sides of the building have doorways at the front and rear
(Figures 26 and 27). Separate entrances would not be expected in a dwelling supposed to possess
common areas on the first floor.

Even more telling, but perhaps less obvious, is the arrangement of lathe and stair framing
along the interior north wall of the structure. Ample evidence survives to reveal the former
presence of two stairways symmetrically arranged between the two front doors and the dividing
wall (Figures 31 and 32). Two access routes to the upper floor, essentially next to each other,
leave little doubt that there was no interior communication between the two adjacent units.

Today, nothing remains of the frame portion of the structure except siding and framing
studs scattered about the brick ruins. The bricks that formed the east wall are almost entirely
down, but the three other walls are in better shape. Only the brick foundation of an apparent
addition is still present, leaving no indication of its above-ground appearance (Figure 26);
surviving photographic evidence, however, does provide visual information about that small room
(Figures 18, 29, and 30). Although the room may have been built at about the same time as the
rest of the lighthouse, it is here considered an "addition" because it attaches to the main building
with a butt joint, rather than interlaced masonry. A doorway provides ready access into the room
from the west side of the duplex. Further, there is a barrel-vaulted passageway through the
foundation, and directly beneath the door portal, which is of unknown purpose. Its presence, of
course, casts doubt on the first impression that the small room is a later addition, since the
opening does not appear to be intrusive upon the foundation.

By far the most interesting site visited during the 1992 survey, the old La Pointe
lighthouse is given short shrift among the 50 lighthouses named to the National Register of
Historic Places under the "United State Coast Guard Lighthouses and Light Stations of the Great
Lakes" thematic nomination of 1983. That nomination focuses on a much later incarnation of the
La Pointe light station on Long Island (see next section, New La Pointe Light Station), which
employed the original 1858 lighthouse only as quarters for keepers of two new lights. Site

17



INTRODUCTION

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (Figures 1 and 2) is located in the northernmost part
of Wisconsin at the western end of Lake Superior. Although creation of the National Lakeshore
occurred in 1970, only in recent years has legislation enabled the addition of Long Island to the
20 other offshore units managed by the National Park Service. As a result, since 1986 Madeline
Island has been the only island among the entire Apostles group that is not managed under federal
stewardship.

Attaching Long Island to the National Lakeshore, of course. involved assumption of
additional management responsibilities by federal administrators. One aspect of that obligation
is the judicious management of cultural resources, protecting those that can be preserved and
documenting thoroughly those that cannot. For that reason, there was general support for a
comprehensive cultural resources survey of Long Island shortly after its acquisition. Such an
undertaking clearly would assist the Lakeshore in its effort to inventory and evaluate the
resources under its purview.

This report describes the objectives, methods, and results of a two-week archeological site
survey carried out in August of 1992. The four-person Midwest Archeological Center team
formally recorded several historic sites, primarily related to one inactive and two active aids to
navigation on the island. Formal Wisconsin archeological site numbers have been obtained for
the four primary historic areas recorded on Long Island, and they are noted in the report of
findings. They found no prehistoric or previously unknown historic sites in the course of their
search.

The few archeological materials collected during the investigations are now curated at the
Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) facility located in Lincoln, Nebraska, under MWAC
Accession Number 482. In keeping with National Park Service policy, all materials collected in
1992 from the Apostle Islands are also listed in the Automated National Catalog System (ANCS)
under park Accession Number 324.



interior north elevation.

La Pointe quarters.

Figure 31.

53





Figure 9, Proximity of old La Pointe complex to shore, ca. 1900.

Figure 10. Aerial view showing beach aggradation, 1992.

39



“deur uoNeoo] ais purys] Suoq “cy ondry

Auppunog
SdN

sowsdns ayD7

“MDE 8

Sa ee mae

ws : ()
ciIHFSNMOL NYORNVS
QNV IS! ONO]

dueg sia 19427

xajdivod 1yBI) eiuiogey 910 7
: Selsvey

3 - yelSvle
4UBN 4yulod vobawuonbeys

4)



People in some editions], contains the following passage describing Shag-a-waum-ik-ong
[Chequamegon Point], which includes what is now called Long Island: e@

Shag-a-waum-ik-ong is a narrow neck or point of land about four miles long, and lying nearly parallel to
the island of La Pointe [Madeline Island], toward the western end of which it converges, till the distance
from point to point is not more than two miles. Jn former times the distance is said to have been much
less, the action of the waves having since gradually washed away the sand of which it is composed.
[Warren 1974:102, emphasis added]

The shortest distance between Madeline Island and Long Island today is about 1.5 mi,
slightly closer than the span approximated in Warren’s 1852 account. Grant’s Point at the
extreme southern tip of Madeline Island, furthermore, would extend much farther into the South
Channel if the current lake level were to drop only a few feet, as indicated clearly by nautical
charts of the area.

It should be remarked that the French operated the first trading post on Madeline Island
at Grant’s Point during the years 1693-1698 (Ross 1960:43), then moving it about a mile north
to a spot near the present marina (Birmingham and Salzer 1986). Many have speculated that the
early historic component of the Winston-Cadotte site is possibly related to that early Madeline
Island enterprise. Winston-Cadotte is a major archeological site on Grant’s Point first
investigated in 1961 by the late Professor Leland Cooper of Hamline University (Birmingham
and Salzer 1986; Holzhueter 1986:14-15; Salzer and Overstreet 1976:29; Quimby 1966:115-116).

Some of the early Historic period artifacts in the Madeline Island Historical Museum, e
collected by island resident Al Galazen, are reportedly from the surface of the submerged sand

bar off Grant’s Point. Those materials, if their provenience is accurate, would suggest human
occupation of an elongated Grant’s Point sometime during the late seventeenth or early eighteenth
centuries. That fact also suggests that Long Island lay in closer proximity to Madeline during

the fur trade era than today.

The continuing metamorphosis of Long Island points to the dynamic natural forces that
are constantly at work in the Lake Superior basin, especially in near-shore environs. Wind and
water can combine as wave action to remove sand deposits from one part of the Long Island,
while building beaches only a short distance away. Indeed, comparisons of period photographs
with current conditions show that the old La Pointe lighthouse, now in ruins, once stood virtually
at the water’s edge, whereas less than 100 years later the ruins now lie a considerable distance
(some 140 m or 460 ft) from the lakeshore, owing to the accretion of beach sand over that time
(cf. Figures 9-10).

A recent geomorphological study of long-term trends in dune activity on Long Island
showed that the oldest sand formations appear to lie toward the interior of the island (Bona
1990). Thus, that area presumably would possess the greatest probability of yielding evidence
of early archeological sites on the island. As it happens, however, the interior is also the part of
the island that is least accessible for archeological investigation. Though most dunes form
prominent ridges, swamps with standing water and quaking bogs covered with vegetation conceal

4