Talk:Cherokee history

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cherokee history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020141831/http://www.arkansaspreservation.org/pdf/publications/Cherokee_Removal.pdf to http://www.arkansaspreservation.org/pdf/publications/Cherokee_Removal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cherokee Mounds

The article states that the Cherokee did not build mounds but that isn't necessarily true. James Mooney discussed mound building in his journals on the Cherokee people and actually interviewed Cherokee who remember and explained in detail how a mound was built. I am not saying that the Cherokee built mounds like others did but to say they didn't build mounds is incorrect. There are plenty of examples of Cherokee mounds.

• Watauga Mound - [1]
• Nikwasi Mound - [2]
• Kituwah Mound - [3]
• Cowee Mound - [4], Mainspring Conservation
• Biltmore Mound (called Untokiasdiyi by the Cherokee) - [5]
• (This is a great article if you want to see how these assertions were fabricated and pervaded the scientific/political sphere at the time and now) - [6]
• Cherokee Mounds in Western North Carolina - [7]
• James Mooney on Cherokee mound building - [8]

I can keep going but this should at least show that this notion that Cherokee did not build mounds or utilize them has been a historical fallacy that was initiated as a reason to justify American Indian removal from their territory. The same was employed against the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and others. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had anything substantive to add to this, but what I can add is encouragement that this should be corrected! It seems fairly cut and dry that any statement along the lines of "the Cherokee did not build mounds" is just false. James Hyett (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

James Hyett, to be honest, just from what I can tell, at some point they moved away from it, probably once their towns and villages started being destroyed by encroaching Europeans but may have stopped being used even before that. They had to be pretty mobile and so they built council houses where they could be taken apart and moved most likely. Definitely by the time of the Removal they ceased building council houses on mounds. Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't set out to prove this as fact but after reading several media articles on how the EBCI is actually buying these lands back, including the mound in Asheville (North Carolina), I started researching it deeper and connecting the dots. I agree that the results are nearly irrefutable. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If Parkwells is still with us on Wikipedia I would love to have their input as they were the one who added the statement to the article in May of this year. Perhaps they have sources to counter what I posted and we can compare them and come to a conclusion whether it should or shouldn't be included. Perhaps we can develop a more neutral POV within the article. There is no doubt that the Etowah mounds were Muskcogean. I addressed that on Talk:Etowah Indian Mounds. But the mounds located in the articles above belong to the Cherokee and were utilized by them. Archaeologist have found their fire pits in the center of these mounds and they are covered with Cherokee artifacts. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will have to call on other editors, as well, who are more knowledgeable than I. There are two issues: 1) who (which people or culture) originally built the mounds you list (and each has to be addressed separately), and 2) how many different cultures are known to have used them. I agree that the Cherokee occupied this territory and considered the mounds important to their cultures, and that the Cherokee of the ECBI are trying to regain control of lands including them. Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

But I read the article you cited for Biltmore Mound and tried to discuss how it differed from what you asserted.

[User:Tsistunagiska - again, my apologies. I finally located the article from which I took the quotes noted below. It was also in the Citizen Times, and about the Biltmore Mound. But it differed in emphasis and content, and I was just beginning to learn about the Biltmore estate's Native American materials. That is why I got confused, and of course why my discussion below did not make any sense.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand you say that the Cherokee have used the mound there. But the article in the Citizen Times, [again, that I misunderstood as the one cited by you], says that, according to research by Bill Alexander, landscape and forest historian at the Biltmore Estate (who was relying on research done by others), the mound was built by the Connestee, a culture that preceded the Cherokee (and was distinct enough to be classified and named independently). In addition, according to this article, "To date, no cultural material recognizable as historic Cherokee (or Qualla) has been found on Biltmore Estate, nor is it particularly common in Buncombe County," Alexander said." [This refers to early 1800s, when the Cherokee were forced to Qualla Boundary from their lands in what is now North Carolina. -Parkwells note] "However, Biltmore Estate and Buncombe County include numerous examples of Pisgah phase occupations, which are representative of that culture immediately preceding the Cherokee, and which they also include among their direct ancestors." This was a cite in the main Cherokee article, and I confused it with the one you used.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the Cherokee named the mound means that they had integrated its use into their culture, not that they built it. [What I was trying to express was what has been presented as a succession of cultures, from those prehistoric ones that have been archeologically identified, as Steere says, to the historic Cherokee.] This happened in other places as well, where they made mounds their own. The Citizen Times said that Alexander did a lot of research, but did not give his sources. It also noted that Biltmore is conducting its own archeological work now on a variety of Native American sites on the property.Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

On these questions, which have been the subject of academic and specialist studies, editors should rely on published secondary sources, generally academic work, rather than newspaper or website accounts, which may be more shallow. In addition, while James Mooney made many contributions, I believe that some of his conclusions about Cherokee moundbuilding and other elements of the Southeast tribes have been superseded and revised by much scholarly work since the mid to late 20th century, based on later accumulated archeological, linguistic, and anthropological research, including the use of new technologies. As a result of this work, for instance, the Muscogean/Creek are widely understood to be the descendants of the Mississippian culture period in northwestern GA and AL [- my correction] for such sites as Etowah, rather than the Cherokee, as was once thought. I will have to look again at these articles and the ones on the individual mounds. Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the Cherokee occupied territory including these ancient mounds and left artifacts attests to their appropriation and use, not the mounds' origin. The Cherokee could have taken over the mounds after migrating to these areas, or coalescing here as a people. Given the complexity of the issues, I recommend that we move this entire thread to Talk:Cherokee history, so that it is attached to the subject. Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not basing your statements on any sources. In looking at your edits you present a clearly biased and non-neutral POV based on the sources that are provided. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true and doesn't mean you need to include it. Provide clear and concise sources with your edits or don't edit what has been presented as a consensus to this point. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Further, scientist have theorized and labeled the mound as being from the Connestee phase. That does not mean it was built by the Connestee people or do you not understand what a theory is? By denying the voices of the Cherokee people who are also speaking in the article you are presenting a biased POV that is much older than you admit. This same tactic, you present, was used to remove the Cherokee people from their land back in the 1830's. "They are not originally from this land and so have no ties here. Removing them is no different than what they did to those here before them." You can not be certain that you are correct so only presenting your point of view while removing theirs is a violation of the code of conduct of this encyclopedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we tone this down a bit? I was quoting directly from the article you provided as a source on the Biltmore Mound, and referring only to that. You seem to disagree with the Citizen Times's statement about the Connestee, but provide no alternative source there. It was not my personal point of view. Looking to strengthen the article, I found a more detailed 2003 article in the LA Times on this topic and discussing the Connestee. They are also referred to as part of the Southern Appalachian Mississippian Culture known as the Pisgah Phase. According to the LA Times, the mound was excavated for more than two years, beginning about 2000, and archeologists attributed it to the prehistoric Connestee. They believe it was a major ceremonial center between AD200 and 500, and note that the Connestee may have been ancestors to the Cherokee. They were excited about this find, as there is limited remaining evidence of the Connestee in the area. Brian Burgess, a staff archeologist for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and archeologist Larry Kimball of Appalachian State University believe that Connestee were ancestral to the Cherokee. But you seem to suggest that ideas about the Connestee are just theories. According to this article, archeologists note that there has not yet been pottery evidence connecting the two cultures but hope to find more artifacts to compare and learn from. While Pardo was at Joara, he was visited by several Cherokee-speaking chiefs. At Chiaha, however, Pardo was not visited by any Cherokee-speaking chiefs. The fact that Chiaha and Tanasqui were the only two fortified villages noted by Pardo (other than the Chisca village destroyed by Moyano) may suggest that the people of Chiaha were at war with the Cherokee living in the mountains.

Several Mississippian town names recorded by Pardo were retained in some form by their later Cherokee inhabitants, namely Citico (Pardo's Satapo) and Chilhowee (Pardo's Chalahume) in the Little Tennessee Valley. The name of the Cherokee capital of Tanasi, also in the Little Tennessee Valley, may have been influenced by the earlier village of Tanasqui, which Pardo recorded as just east of Chiaha. The village of Jore, a Cherokee Middle Town visited by colonist Alexander Cuming in 1730, may have been named after the chiefdom of Joara. So, it could be useful to show that the Spanish expeditions went through country associated with the Cherokee, and identified place names associated with their history. It depends upon how much content people want to devote to this period.Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Tocae, said to have been near Asheville? I haven't checked the Steere article but have not found other references to it. In some of this mass of material, French Broad River is given as the boundary of historic Cherokee homelands in NC. Is this your understanding? Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me address each paragraph and town name individually: Chiaha is not a Cherokee word so it is quite possibly named by whatever Mississippian culture became the Creeks or Shawnee or most likely Yuchi. Could have very well been at war. The connection to the "Chalaque" people has been floated around for quite some time. The short answer is that there is no scientific study that has been done to try and link the two. It's a mystery that most likely will never be answered. A lot of those ancient towns are underwater and it's sad that we may never know the truth.

• Tocae - I cant find any record of a Tocae as a Cherokee town. Toqua is about the closest I can find that has a similar name but that was located in Tennessee. The Cherokee were as far east as Asheville on the French Broad. That is about the extent of their territory to the east.
• Jore - I doubt this had to do with Joara, in fact on many maps it is called Ayore (pronounced A [a in father] yo [o in wrote] re [a in late]). In the overhill dialect the "r" was replaced by "l" so it would be Ayole today.
• Tanasi - It's all possible there was a connection between Tanasi and Tanasqui but to get from possibilities to realities is sometimes a big leap.
• Citico, Chilhowee, Tanasi - I think most of the Overhill towns were probably captured from whatever culture controlled them. These towns were also abandoned and repopulated multiple times.

I wouldn't doubt that Pardo encountered Cherokee in the mountains between Joara, near modern day Morganton, NC, and Chiaha, just east of modern day Douglas Dam, on the French Broad. Just to the west of Joara and southeast of Chiaha is Kituwa, where Cherokee tradition states the Cherokee originated, and the modern day Qualla Boundary. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That map on the Chiaha article showing the path of the de Soto expedition isn't exactly geographically correct. According to the recorded sites, Joara is slightly south and 99 miles or 160 km east by southeast of Chiaha. You can view this by looking at Google Maps and finding Joara site north of Morganton, NC and Zimmerman Shoals in Douglas Lake near Sevierville, TN. You will also be able to see Cherokee, NC to the south. Kituwa is just west of Cherokee near Bryson City, NC. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions and comments.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

List of Mississippian sites

Tsistunagiska, it's an interesting idea as you suggest to have a project to add Mississippian sites from western NC, from those discussed in the Steere article, to this article/list. Steere notes that the NC sites have been less well studied than those in TN, for instance, so it would make a major addition to knowledge. Such a project would seem to have several parts, as User:Hieronymous Roe had added only those sites to his List that already had Wikipedia articles. (I think this is a good protocol, and typical of many list articles.) He did include Nikwasi. A summary for Kituwa could be added, in his format, as it already has its own WP article. Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

1)I think Watauga mound, Too-Cowee, and Biltmore Mound, which you noted as among Cherokee mounds, are good prospects to develop as Wikipedia articles, but need more development of the prehistoric/Cherokee mound/town content. What do you think?Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

2) To add new sites, project participants would have to read the Steere article and agree, based on his summary of evidence, which of the new sites discussed would be good to develop as Wikipedia articles. (I think he noted that about 15 represented both "Mound and Town" development, as he calls it. Then those articles would have to be fully developed and sourced (Steere draws from a wide variety of current work, so would be a good resource for such sources, plus others editors may find on their own). Then they would have to be summarized in such a table.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

3) It might be useful first to create a table/article "List of Mississippian sites in North Carolina", or "List of Mississippian sites in the Cherokee homeland", so that the summary information could be related to the other work going on about Cherokee history here. It would be a way to connect these also to the Nikwasi Initiative. Those are my thoughts for now.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As a start, I'd be glad to draft an article for Biltmore Mound, starting with Steer, the Citizen Times articles, and the LA Times. Steere likely will point to other sources, too. Would that be useful?.Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted references to Joara

As suggested by other editors, deleted references to Joara and the Pardo expedition. Emphasis is on Cherokee and ancestral history in their heartland. I am trying to provide more overview prior to colonial contact, based on findings from such work as Steere's 21st-century Towns and Mounds project, and the EBCI's archeological surveys in the late 20th and 21st centuries at Kituwa and Ravensford, North Carolina sites. Also moved material on Sequoyah's syllabary to appropriate place in chronology of history - late 18th/early 19th centuries. Parkwells (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)