Talk:Trail trees

This entry presents folklore as fact (recent editing and additional material have achieved greater balance, but more balance will be achieved by addition of early accounts and quantitative sampling of existing trees).

There is no basis in fact and no resources cited (anywhere) by authors of books or by trail tree enthusiasts which reference an undisputed contemporary description of the existence, the making, or the utility of so called "Trail Trees", "Trail-maker Trees", "Thong-trees", and so on. A rich and detailed history of Culturally Modified Trees is well documented by contemporary sources and by modern examples of very old trees, modified trees, that can be found today. However, there is no reference presented anywhere, or herein, and authenticated, offering evidence or description of cultural practices that intentionally modified tree-shapes were used for navigation or that existing deformed trees were anthropogenically manipulated by use of thongs, bars, cuts, charcoal or any other means of deliberate deformation for the purpose of pointing to or signaling trails, objects, places, or directions. Alternatively, there are many references in early journals and contemporary remembrances of "painted trees" and stripped trees carved with symbols. Cultural practices and life-ways resulted in mutilation of numerous trees in the gathering of bark for shelter or manufacture of boats and to deaden trees to allow sunshine at ground level for agriculture. Frequently used camping areas reportedly sported painted symbols and indicators of individuals and groups--but not a single description (contemporary) of a "trail tree" has been presented. Please present early first-hand account sources for independent review.

Trail trees are diverting folklore founded in a lack of specific knowledge about tree response to injury and the detailed record of early travelers who witnessed the travel conditions in the eastern United States at the time. Beautiful examples of so called "trail trees" are posted on the interest, but none have proved to be old enough to predate significant overlap of Western exploration by literate journal-keepers. Why are there no references to these trail trees in any contemporary travel journal written by educated persons of the day using native American travel systems for travel? Why did not George Washington comment on these trees, or early botanist Andre Michaux? Both kept detailed journals that thoroughly documented routes, travel hardships and aids, notable trees such as large sycamores?

Every "trail tree" example is easily explained by natural agency involving windfall on saplings and pole stage trees followed by deformed growth guided by their apical response systems. Those trees that suffered deformation-injury in youth and survived sometimes present us with nicely symmetrical forms that 'point' in non-random directions due to gravity (the downhill influence of windfall) and wind shear zones (ridge tops and ridge flanks along deeply incised river valleys, for example), where they are most commonly found.

This topic should not be left unchallenged.

--Knowandtell (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you know of any sources that make this argument? Tdslk (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proving the negative is the greater challenge. I know of no academic researcher who has developed a peer-reviewed critical treatment of this topic. It may not be taken seriously by academics, I don't know. My academic experience in anthropology and archaeology is limited to three undergraduate courses. I base my conclusions on my own experience in forest science (thousands of days afield, off and on trails), my own discovery of hundreds of "trail tree" forms at all stages of development, and on my own avocational interest in anthropogenic impacts on forest ecosystems based on interpretation of early accounts. Unfortunately, I've perused most or all of the public information cited in this article and find them all wanting (in fairness, I've seen only excerpts from a couple of the books). None offer a critical review. All offer passionate belief. None offer a single credible journal entry describing this practice. All offer reference to second and third-hand accounts and story-telling. Early contact period accounts by Ziesberger, Charlevoix, Croghan, Washington, the Michauxs, and others offer insight on trail conditions and trail practices and many Native American practices and evidences they found afield, but never a mention of "Trail Trees" by name or by desctription. The earliest and later editions of The Navigator (A guide to traveling the Ohio River beginning in the first decade of the 1800's.) include no mention of "Trail Trees" which would have been central to navigation by indicating where settlers may disembark at a particular trail or resource. This lore seems to have taken root in popular story-telling within a decade or two of the turn of the last century. Interestingly, a Southeastern internet-centered organization holds up an early letter of objection written by a claimant contradicting the interpretation of a particular tree near Chicago as a manipulated tree and tells of a particular storm that damaged that particular tree during his youth, witnessed by himself. At the site, The claimant is labeled a "doubter". His letter, an example of strenuous efforts by a "doubter". I do not doubt the zeal of those advocating "trail trees" as anthropogenic. Lastly, as I've read early accounts, I have formed the conclusion that Native Americans would not have found utility from such local and small scale markers for navigation. None are described. All indications are that many of them were remarkably well traveled, possessing remarkable endurance, and used well worn pathways for most of their footfalls, but much larger scale indicators for navigation. These highly conditioned, highly skilled travelers navigated by landscape, not by trail signs, I suggest. Well known for their highly developed sense of humor, I'm sure many Native Americans slapped their knees, laughing at the needs of settlers, the necessity of trail markers and signposts for navigation. --Knowandtell (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

These are some good questions you're raising. I definitely agree that trees are capable of bending into funny shapes without human help. It would help to make your case for changing the article if you could find examples of others making the same arguments. Tdslk (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What's Up With the References?

There's a notable lack of references, especially to modern works. Excluding the citations I added, the median age of the sources is in the 1940's. The modern sources seem to be an art-photography book written by the author of this entry and a link to the main page of an art gallery that sells marker tree figurines. There may be a bit of a conflict of interest.

The article should probably merged into "culturally modified trees", but that article is highly Canada-centric. The two together might form the nucleus of something encyclopedic, but it's more work that I care to undertake.

WDWeak (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

More problems with citations: Documentation cited as supporting the anthropogenic origins of "trail trees" is loosely connected at best and misleadingly presented at worst. For example, the citation for the essential map indicating early trail tree locations and drawings is misleading, the following phrase is used at the library source location as title of the drawing (illuminated map) "Wilmette Life (Wilmette, Illinois), 18 Sep 1947, 75th anniversary supplement, Cover". This map cited is a supplement cover page incorporating the mid-20th Century lore of trail trees, the heyday of trail tree appreciation and dedication. Many old trees near populated areas were protected at the time and bronze plaques placed by local community organizations preserved the period lore of these trees. One such plaque is cited as well! Further, the title selected to start the page is not a frequently used moniker for "trail tree" forms, it is actually a registered trademark owned by the author of the picture book cited and released contemporaneous with the start of the page! The title should be changed to the most generic and frequently used label applied to 'trail tree' forms. "Trail Trees" should be used as title.Knowandtell (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Trail Marker Trees and Raymond E Janssen, PhD

The previous discussions ask for more citations and documentation. I am hoping to add to this site and bring more information and citations to the Trail (marker) tree article. Please be aware that some of the references to the study of this subject are from Raymond E Janssen, PhD. His work on Trail marker trees, as he called them, was work that he did in the 1930's to early 1940's. The trees he studied back some 70-80 years ago, were trees that were well over a hundred years old. He was a scientist with great credentials. As stated by Fay-Cooper Cole, Chairman Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, in the preface to an article at the University of Knowledge Inc. dated September 21, 1937, "Few men have the qualifications, by education and experience, to interpret the vast fields of science. Among those few the author of this volume - Raymond E. Janssen - has had unusual preparation. As a student of Northwestern University he had broad training in the fields of geology, zoology and anthropology. In his graduate work at the University of Chicago he specialized in geology and paleobotany." He goes on to talk about Dr. Janssen's later experiences working with the Field Museum of Natural History and the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. With his undergraduate work in anthropology and his PhD in paleobotany, Dr. Janssen studied and defined the Trail marker tree, and his work in the field was extensive. I don't think he ever referred to trail marker trees as folklore. I think that his work on these historic landmarks should not be disregarded or taken so lightly.

Another issue is defining or documenting such trees. Perhaps some of the confusion is because some of us, not all, may be more casual observers. As explained by Dr. Janssen in an article to The Scientific Monthly, July 1941 pg. 27, he writes "Among the many crooked trees encountered, only a few are Indian trail markers. The casual observer often experiences difficulty in distinguishing between accidentally deformed trees and those which were purposely bent by the Indians. Deformities may occur in many ways....However, such injuries leave scars which are apparent to the careful observer, and these may serve in distinguishing such trees from Indian trail markers."

Also, it would be helpful to have additional documentation or citations to the statement in the first paragraph that this is considered controversial. Is this controversial in the scientific community? In citation 2 and 3 I did not see references to the statements given in the articles.

Hope this helps to give additional background to this site and the previous work that has been done in this field. Trish3355 (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

response to Janssen contributions

I am looking forward to the addition of peer reviewed research and academic interpretation citations, and to contemporary descriptions of trail trees noted by educated travelers of the day. I am most interested in recent science, not fifty-year old material. I am familiar with Dr. Janssen's work, but wonder why his peers were presumably silent and why so little has been entered into the academic record since. I have included in the main entry, this afternoon, a 1911 letter, quoted in full, obtained by inter-library loan as an introduction to the controversy section in development. I have been aware of trail tree lore since youth when my mentor and grandfather used to chuckle about the claims made by enthusiasts (he to was a botanist and college instructor). But, I think the subject matter needs additional citations rather than additional credentials summaries. I hope soon to get to a summary of tree injury response systems and the abundance of trail tree forms at all stages of development I find as I spend thousands of hours engaged in forest and forest-related science and recreation. As for discerning the difference between casualty trees and "Trail Trees," I am certain that bark growth expansion wrinkles and inclusions in healed bark explain all the so called "thong marks," etc. I am a close observer by occupation, for example, I've completed hundreds of detailed vegetation and tree surveys on national forests. An illustrated scientific treatment originating from a peer reviewed journal and discussing the matter of discerning the difference between casualty trees and "Trail Trees" would be like gold to me, but it's likely that there is no difference! I welcome science applied to this matter, it's sorely missing. Honestly, most academicians and professionals working in related fields don't participate in discussions of trail tree lore for two reasons shared with me, first--some enthusiasts pursue the matter as an accepted belief system rather than a field of inquiry. Many do not acknowledge that trail tree lore is falsifiable, we must take their word for it or we are "doubters" unable to discern the truth (belief system terminology), I've been called a doubter because I insist on rigorous inquiry. The second reason is that few workers consider the subject a serious matter for investigation or comment. It's time to treat trail tree lore as a field in inquiry, not a belief. Let the citations fall where they may.Knowandtell (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this topic needs to be addressed in an objective inquiry. When one starts from the frame of reference that it is all folklore, that seems to undermine the oral history of known Native Americans historians and any research that was done on the topic by very reputable people.

Also, can you give more information on the Ohio trees and who verified that they are trail marker trees?

ThanksTrish3355 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Trish. Your addition is informative. Also, you have offered a new reference for me to look at dated 1905. If you know of others even older, I will greatly appreciate their inclusion in Talk if not in the article. At present I have five additional microfiche roles on loan to my local library and I'll find the material you quoted, but perhaps not the additional reference you provided? Thank you. As for verification, I verify these images are trail tree forms, further, I verify these forms are not trail trees because they are too young (and, I'm gaining confidence that there is no such thing as a legitimate Trail Tree, as much as I'd like to be wrong about that.). Trish, all trail tree information is part of a folklore, by definition. I'm certain that all rational inquirers agree that the collected contributions to the trail tree 'knowledge' base present a detailed, but internally inconsistent assembly of legends, lore and mysticism amounting to a belief system. The question at hand is: Does this collected lore hold elements of fact? Does the lore have origin in fact? Is there really a tree anywhere (at any time) that was cobbled by Native Americans for the purpose of eventually pointing the way for others? Trish, trail tree forms (please note that I call them trail tree forms, not trail trees) like the ones I have provided in the article are everywhere. I've found hundreds. I began taking pictures after I discovered the project supported by Woodland Stewards. Regrettably, that project is flawed at this time, but perhaps they will evolve to using a scientific protocol that I can participate in, but not until then (right now, their protocol only serves confirmation bias). Trish, there is no criteria that establish whether or not a tree is a trail tree, there are no first-hand knowledge persons, only those who claim secret knowledge, revealed knowledge, and who posses confused understanding of tree growth and tree ecology. Self-proclaimed experts do not share identical criteria in any case. When pressed, none offer original field journal observations predating the 20th century that are historically verifiable. None offer accurate description of injury response in trees. None recognize the simplicity of explanation based on tree biology and ecology alone. Trish and all interested. The only authority we can avail to determine any likelihood of credibility in this trail tree lore is SCIENCE. Professional history can be helpful, but there seems to be no credible reference dating to the contact period wherein journalers note the utility of trees that fit the description of trail trees. Trail tree proponents can best serve their cause of revealing facts within the lore is to find original material and make it available to all. I've been trying to do this and I need help. I appreciate continued assistance.Knowandtell (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you ignore Dr. Janssen who did field research on this subject for over 10 years and he had the academic credentials to make this scientific study and included field research work with many Native American elders old enough to have knowledge of the trail marker trees themselves and pass this knowledge on to him. Also you may want to know that other Native Americans in the academic world have stepped forward and verified their own knowledge of the trail marker trees such as Earl Otchingwanigan, Professor Emeritus of Ojibwe Language, at MN State University at Bemidji, MN and also consultant to the Smithsonian Institution regarding Ojibwe history and customs. He was taught of the trail marker trees by his forefathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trish3355 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Trish, I understand your passion for trail tree lore. I know you are not alone. I, like every educated progressive person, understand and greatly respect the beliefs of others such as Native Americans, Jewish persons, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, and so on. Respect for beliefs of others does not require acceptance of their cherished revealed truths or lore. All belief systems must be treated with respect and detachment for encyclopaedic treatment and to fuel users with critical interpretation. Your dramatic edit to this article is a radical departure from these principles. Additionally, you simply are not correct, both in detail and tenor. Clearly you do not understand tree injury recovery systems or you would realize that the model for forming trail trees that you share, and the common methods in the lore literature, cannot occur in nature. If you read carefully my future additions in this regard, you will come to understand this. You may start by reading Alex Shigo's Modern Arboriculture to gain insights on the basics. This book is commonly available and widely recognized as a leading reference for lay persons. Your changes belong under the lore section. Please develop full understanding before making more unfounded changes.Knowandtell (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Trish, trunks with wrinkles in my experience, are Coppice regrown from stump shoots. These examples could be 300 years old above ground, with 1500 year old surviving root system.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Utilization of White Ash species excluded

It has been well documented in the past with living examples, that Indians regularly utilized long lived young American Ash trees because of species locally evolved 600 year possible lifespan, a survival rate comparable only to White & Burr Oak. As Chicagoland's tree historian who is actively preserving our ecosystem's Keystone species of Fraxinus from extinction caused by EAB. I was aware of one 300 yr. old White Ash official Trail marker tree here in Illinois. But unfortunately that example died soon after its surrounding soil grade was raised.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

illustrations

Photos please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:C179:52EE:9EF1:FC16 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Caution needed?

I tried to go to this citation site ("Hanka, Ladislav R (2010). The Crooked Tree Prints. Michigan: Ladislav Hanka. p. 47.") several times, but each time, it made my Malwarebytes coverage mad, saying it blocked the site because of malware. I don't want to override the program in case it is correct.

This next citation leads me to a message that the page isn't found. I just now contacted the website owners to ask where I can find the document ("Allison, R. Bruce (2005). Every Root an Anchor: Wisconsin’s Famous and Historic Trees (PDF) (Second ed.). Madison.: Wisconsin Historical Society. p. 56. Retrieved Feb 18, 2012."

All the best, Wordreader (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

lack of quality

this article is an absolute disaster 31.18.250.44 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Various quality issues

Many issues by Knowandtell have not properly been fixed in the ~12 years this article has existed. For example, there is still an over-reliance on loosely-connected, low quality, or conflicting-interest sources - such as much of the article being based off somebody who was selling materials about trail trees, thus benefiting him. In addition, I fail to see any evidence cited on these from sources which are not explicitly either first-party or news aggregator sites; there are very few credible journal articles about this phenomena. Fundamentally, this article does not contain enough sources, and the lengthy quotes do not help.

Additionally, ignoring the issues with the concept of trail trees, and assuming this phenomena is anthropogenic- I fail to see how it deserves it's own article, rather than a section with the remainder of Native American cultural practices involving trees at Culturally modified tree. ConnieC420 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)