Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros26Contre-cartographies, (Contre-)ca...Revealing Indigenous Voices on Eu...

Contre-cartographies, (Contre-)cartographies amérindiennes

Revealing Indigenous Voices on European Maps as Primary Source Material for Understanding Cherokee Coalescence

Révéler les voix autochtones sur les cartes européennes comme source primaire pour comprendre la coalescence des Cherokees
Revelar las voces indígenas en los mapas europeos como fuente primaria para entender la coalescencia de los cheroquis
Casey Price

Résumés

Les Cherokees et d’autres peuples autochtones ont fourni aux colonisateurs européens des connaissances géographiques sur le Sud des États-Unis à la fin du XVIe et au début du XVIIe siècle. Ces informations provenant des groupes autochtones se sont retrouvées sur des cartes françaises et britanniques. Aux côtés de la tradition orale et des sources archéologiques, la nomenclature figurant sur les cartes européennes offre un éclairage sur les processus de consolidation des communautés autochtones dans le Sud-Est. Les chercheurs utilisent le terme « coalescence » pour décrire le processus encore mal compris par lequel des communautés autochtones culturellement distinctes, sous pression coloniale, ont formé des communautés mixtes devenues culturellement distinctives. Cette étude s’appuie sur l’étymologie des toponymes figurant sur les premières cartes du Sud-Est américain pour examiner les processus de coalescence dans les terres des Cherokees. L’étymologie des toponymes autochtones sur les cartes européennes révèle en effet que la coalescence cherokee s’est produite en quelques générations seulement et a été souvent favorisée par la supériorité démographique plutôt que par la violence. L’histoire orale des Cherokees et les preuves archéologiques corroborent les changements de toponymes sur les cartes à mesure que la culture cherokee devenait dominante dans des zones occupées par groupes autochtones divers.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

Figure 1. L. Jolliet and J. Marquette, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”

Figure 1. L. Jolliet and J. Marquette, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”

Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2021668635.

1In June 1673, a polyglot group of Cherokees discovered the French. Jacques Marquette, a Jesuit missionary accompanying a French expedition attempting to acquire knowledge of the Mississippi River’s course and environs, noted the encounter in his journal (Thévenot M., 1681: 34-35). The chance interaction provided French officials with details regarding the expanse of Cherokee commerce and geographical knowledge of the Native South’s interior. Marquette noted that the Cherokees had European-made goods, such as glass bottles, knives, gunpowder, and liquor, which they purchased from Europeans along the east coast. The Cherokees consisted of what Marquette deemed ethnically distinct men and women who brought bear oil and peaches along with hoes, suggesting that Cherokees made frequent and protracted trips to the western reaches of the Tanisi River (Tennessee River).

  • 1 The “ȣabȣquigȣ” River (Tanisi River) on Marquette’s Manuscript 1673 map is now called the Tennessee (...)
  • 2 As B. Rushforth explains, ȣ is a typographical ligature of the Greek ou. The toponyms on the maps r (...)

2The Cherokees provided the young leader of the French party, Louis Jolliet, with a description of the location of their homelands, which Marquette and others attempted to map. The Cherokees informed the French that their homelands lied several days travel up the “ȣabȣquigȣ” River (Tanisi River) at their mother town of Kituwah.1 Through a hand-drawn sketch or some other locational medium, the polyglot Cherokee group detailed their homelands and described the “Kaskinȣba” (Kaskinampo) territory further downriver, the nearby “ȣabanghiharea” communities and the “Matahale” who lived on the other side of the mountains adjacent to their homes.2

  • 3 For a comprehensive online database of early Southeastern maps, see: https://rla.unc.edu/emas/index (...)
  • 4 See especially L. De Vorsey’s essay in the 3rd edition, titled “American Indians and the Early Mapp (...)
  • 5 See especially G. Malcolm Lewis’s chapter, “Maps, Mapmaking, and Map Use by Native North Americans” (...)
  • 6 See especially G. Waselkov’s chapter “Indian Maps of the Colonial Southeast” (p. 435-502).
  • 7 See especially G. Hollis’s chapter “The Wrong Side of the Map” (p. 146).

3Cherokees and other Indigenous groups in the Southeast shared geographic information from which European colonizers came to know and understand the region’s waterways and terrain.3 Although Jolliet lost his notes regarding the voyage in a canoe accident near Montreal, the Cherokee geographic relations from this seemingly innocuous interaction found their way onto printed maps throughout Europe. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the most renowned European cartographers produced maps representing the apogee of early modern European cartography based on similar interpretations of Indigenous spatial epistemologies. For European imperial administrators interested in colonial endeavors in North America, the interior of the Southeast came into relief through appropriated Indigenous understandings of the land and its peoples’ territorial sovereignties (Cumming W. P., 19984; Woodward D. and G. M. Lewis, 19985; Waselkov G. A. et al., 20066; Brückner M., 20117). However, the maps provide much more information than European colonial imaginations. They contain Indigenous geopolitical realities.

  • 8 For studies of coalescence, see: P. K. Galloway (1995); R. F. Ethridge and S. M. Shuck-Hall (2009); (...)

4This article explores incorporating Indigenous elements of European cartography into existing methodologies for understanding better the processes of Indigenous coalescence in the Native South.8 Coalescence refers to the process by which two or more Indigenous societies or splinter groups come together to form a new social formation that does not necessarily resemble the preexisting societies. While there exists a large body of scholarship regarding coalescence in the Native South, leading scholar Robbie Ethridge recently admitted that “we still have a poor understanding of exactly how coalescences took place” (Ethridge R., 2023). Given the scarcity of written sources, ethnohistorians have turned to archeological studies, where established date ranges for transitions in material culture are interpreted as indicators of societal change (Trigger B., 1982). While dating shifts in material culture can help connect local changes to broader regional patterns—such as the rise of slave raiding—they nevertheless lack the human voices necessary to fully grasp how these cultural transformations unfolded.

  • 9 See also: M. Beck Pritchard and H. G. Taliaferro (2002); B. Saler (2015); S.J. Hornsby and H. Stege (...)
  • 10 For some examples of Indigenous cartography studies see: Basso K.H. (1996); Lucchesi A. H (2018: 11 (...)
  • 11 See Harley J. B. (2001); De Vorsey L. (1998) and Lewis, G.M. (1986, 1998).

5Indigenous voices—here, specifically Cherokee voices—embedded in European maps open up new avenues for examining on-the-ground processes of coalescence. Untangling the Indigenous sources and information displayed on European maps from the well-studied colonial contexts that shaped their production requires adopting a non-Eurocentric perspective. Scholars have persuasively demonstrated how European empires cartographically encompassed Indigenous lands as part of broader efforts to justify and represent colonial expansion (Carter P., 1987; Edney M. H, 1997; Cohen P. E. and D. Rumsey, 2002; Schulten S., 2007; Brückner M., 2011).9 Historians of cartography have often drawn a sharp distinction between European colonial maps and Indigenous mapping traditions.10 Yet, scholars such as J. B. Harley, L. De Vorsey, and G. M. Lewis have explored Indigenous elements in European colonial maps to some extent. For them, identifying Indigenous contributions has often meant locating what they classified as cartographic errors—for instance, non-linear scales or geographic anomalies such as distorted river systems, which arose from Europeans attempting to fit Indigenous spatial descriptions into European mapping conventions.11

  • 12 See also: M. B. Pritchard and H.G. Taliaferro (2002); B. Saler (2015); S. J. Hornsby and H. Stege ( (...)

6Historians have also incorporated maps into studying Indigenous coalescence. Patricia Galloway wrote a chapter in her book, Choctaw Genesis, regarding employing maps for examining the process of Choctaw coalescence (1995: 205-263). Galloway viewed the maps as helpful because they presented the location of various Indigenous groups in the 16th-18th centuries. These lines of inquiry, centered on European knowledge, have largely overlooked the Indigenous geopolitical and cultural information embedded in European-authored maps—a gap this study seeks to address (Carter P., 1987; Edney M. H, 1997; Cohen P. E. and D. Rumsey, 2002; Schulten S., 2007; Brückner M., 2011).12 The richness of Cherokee oral tradition contributed to a scarcity of written sources during the colonial era. Nonetheless, French journals recorded Cherokee voices, which mapmakers then incorporated into their maps. These recorded voices became written sources, embedded within locational imagery. In this sense, the maps function as written documents with a geographic imprint, providing unique insights that complement Cherokee oral history and archaeological evidence of Cherokee coalescence.

7Examining the source bases of contemporary European maps and the etymology of their Indigenous toponyms sheds light on how the Cherokees interacted with other Indigenous groups. These maps reveal that, during the seventeenth century, the Cherokees moved closer to neighboring communities beyond their previously occupied lands. The maps’ sources further indicate that the Cherokees traveled in culturally and linguistically mixed groups, sharing the labor required to sustain long-distance trade. Changes in toponyms not only corroborate but also enrich the shifts in material culture identified by archeological studies, showing how the Cherokees began to integrate new areas of settlement into their existing gadohi nusdidanv (landscape). The maps suggest that Cherokee coalescence occurred within just a few generations and was driven more by demographic ascendency—through the incorporation of other Indigenous communities into Cherokee society—than by violence. Both Cherokee oral history and archeological evidence confirm that the toponymic changes on the maps represent more than European cartographic interpretations; they reveal how Cherokee culture became dominant in areas occupied by diverse Indigenous groups.

Cherokee Oral Tradition

  • 13 The narrative is located in the John Howard Payne Papers: “Letter #2 Charles R. Hicks to John Ross” (...)

8In 1826 ᏣᎳᎩ (Cherokee) Charles Hicks recounted a story in a letter to the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, John Ross, outlining historical movements of the ᏣᎳᎩ.13 He noted that, in the relatively recent past, the Cherokees had settled near the mouth of the Hiwassee River. According to the oral tradition recorded in Hicks’s letter, they had established themselves in close proximity to two other Native American communities. Hicks wrote that the “Uchees (Yuchi) became their nearest neighbors who settled on the south side of the [Hiwassee River]” and the “Creeks made their settlement at Sawtee” above the mouth of ᎤᎴᏖᏩoo-le-te-wauh” (Ooltewah Creek) alongside Cherokees and “Uchees”. The narrative states there was “no account of any hostile nature,” noting the three communities lived peacefully together for over a century. Archeological evidence complements this Cherokee oral tradition.

Archeological Sources

9A study published in 1946 evaluated materials on Hiwassee Island in the East Tennessee region. The study found burial practices and pottery styles that the researchers deemed inconsistent with eighteenth-century Cherokee practices. The authors argued that the burials represented “vestiges of local Muskogean speaking Mississippian community.” Established Dallas Phase pottery assemblages began to be replaced with “typical Cherokee-stamped pottery” in the 17th century, leading the researchers to conclude that the Cherokees “invaded” the Appalachian Highlands in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, displacing Mississippian groups throughout the region (Lewis T. and M. D. Kneberg, 1946; Lewis T. et al., 1995). However, Cherokee oral history, French cartographic sources, and more recent archeological interpretations show that the Cherokees did not “invade” the region. Cherokees lived alongside and coalesced with Yuchi and Koasati peoples throughout several generations in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It was not until 1714 that the colonial pressures of the slave trade caused Cherokee expulsionists to “cut off” some Yuchi communities, expelling many to the south (McDowell W. L., 1955).

  • 14 For definitions of coalescing societies in the Native South, see: Smith M. T. et al., 2002; Kowalew (...)

10Cherokee archeologists have demonstrated that other regions of the Cherokee homelands show similar patterns of generational coalescence. They argue that valleys along the Middle Nolichucky River had a “core (non-Cherokee) population that likely persisted in one area from the time of the early Spanish explorations (1540s-1560s) to the late seventeenth century” (Shreve N. K. et al., 2020). Late Dallas (Muskogean) ceramic wares “alter significantly toward the Overhill (Cherokee) tradition” in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries at “Cane Notch, Runion, and Plum Grove” sites in the region. Along with diverse and transitioning material culture, archeologists also found a rise in population that “meets the criteria for emergent coalescing societies,” such as emergent large towns and villages with diverse material culture and large-scale participation in wider trade networks.14 According to these scholars, “Native towns on the Upper Holston and/or Lower Nolichucky River may have folded into the Middle Nolichucky settlements during the mid-to-late sixteenth century” and similarly the Hiwassee Island towns had taken on “an emergent regional Overhill identity by the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries”.

11Jon Marcoux’s examination of the Tuckaleechee town sites in the Tuckaleechee Cove of East Tennessee led him to agree with other scholars that aspects of “Cherokee ethnogenesis took place largely in response to European colonial pressure during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries” (Marcoux J. B., 2010: 106). Marcoux found adjacent households containing three distinct pottery traditions with disparate antecedents, concluding that late seventeenth and early eighteenth Cherokee societies became increasingly diverse due to coalescent groups, displaying evidence of sustained local cultural traditions and incorporation of exogenous practices.

Cartographic Sources

12Comparing two particular sixteenth-century French maps drawn from the same encounter between Cherokees and French along the Mississippi River provide clues to the on-the-ground processes of Cherokee coalescence. Matching Cherokee oral tradition, the two maps indicate three diverse Indigenous groups residing together in the Cherokee homelands near the mouth of a river in the 1670s. Contemporary French mapmakers customarily used ethnonyms to indicate the location of linguistic groups, suggesting that the toponyms on the maps placed three culturally distinct groups in immediate proximity (Swanton J. R., 1930; J. A. Erbig, 2021). Marquette’s Carte da la nouvelle découverte locates three communities at the terminus of a river in the Appalachian Mountains (Figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 2. Detail from L. Jolliet and J. Marquette’s, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”

Figure 2. Detail from L. Jolliet and J. Marquette’s, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”

Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2021668635.

13Anthropologist John R. Swanton suggested the toponym “Taharea” represents a Yuchi community. He identified “Kaskinȣba” as a Koasati community and ȣabanghiharea as the Algonquian term for “easterners.” Koasati speak a Muskogean dialect similar to Creek as identified in the later Cherokee narrative (Kimball G. D., 1994). ȣabanghiharea may have been the term Marquette recorded on the advice of one of his Algonquian speaking guides. “Easterners” indicated the relatively recent arrival of a group from the east, the Cherokees.

Figure 3. Jean-Baptiste-Louis Franquelin, Carte de la Louisiane ou des voyages du Sr. De La Salle, 1684

Figure 3. Jean-Baptiste-Louis Franquelin, Carte de la Louisiane ou des voyages du Sr. De La Salle, 1684

From the original, 1684, Harvard University Library: https://www.loc.gov/​resource/​g3300.ct000656/​?r=0.063,0.138,0.929,0.428,0.

14Jean Baptiste Franquelin’s Carte de la Louisiane also notes three toponyms in the same location. “Cattougui,” represents the “people from Kĭtu′hwagĭ, (Kituwah),” the Cherokee’s mother town. “Taligui,” which Swanton identifies as Tǎlikwǎ (Great Tellico), a well-documented Cherokee town located just north of the Hiwassee River in modern East Tennessee. Although Tǎlikwǎ became a historically recorded Cherokee town by the eighteenth century, it had long been occupied. Archeological evidence shows over 10,000 years of mixed occupation at Tǎlikwǎ (Chapman J., 1985). The third toponym in the area on Franquelin’s map, “Tchalaka,” Swanton suggests is a Gallicized form of the word “Cherokee” (1930). Linguistic clues suggest Franquelin’s nomenclature came from Cherokee members of the group (Swanton J. R., 1930: 405-18).

15Both sets of toponyms stemmed from the chance meeting in 1673 on the Mississippi River between the French wanderers and a group of Native people from the area around the confluence of the Hiwassee and Tennessee Rivers described in Cherokee oral history. Curiously, the Cherokee language contains no bilabial stop prohibiting a monoglot Cherokee speaker from providing the names “Kaskinȣba” and ȣabanghiharea on Marquette’s map derived from his personal notes. His recording of “ȣabanghiharea” (easterners) suggests non-Cherokees provided information regarding their neighbors to Algonquian-speaking members of Marquette’s party, which he, in turn, recorded and mapped.

16Cherokee speakers provided nomenclature that represented locations of towns rather than linguistic groups’ ethnonyms on Marquette’s map. Cherokees would have described themselves as originating from “cattougui” (Kĭtu′hwagĭ). The addition of the suffix “ui,” or spelled (yi) in Cherokee, signifies a Cherokee speaker identifying a placename (Duncan B. R. and B. H. Riggs, 2003: 80). Cherokees identified Tǎlikwǎ (Great Tellico) as a settlement, but the term does not distinguish a particular group. Swanton’s assumption that “Tchalaka” is an ethnonym representing Cherokee is likely incorrect. No dialect of the Cherokee language has a hard “ch” sound, and the French pronunciation of “Tcha” sounds more like the Cherokee “Ꮳ” (tsah), making the toponym inconsistent with the Cherokee language and with Cherokees identifying town locations rather than ethnonyms. “Tchalaka” could represent an early example of the Cherokee practice of renaming Muskogean-speaking people’s towns (Booker K. M. et al., 1992). The Native group that provided the geographic information for the maps must have consisted of multilingual speakers living and traveling together.

17More poignantly, the Native group contained men and women that the French described as appearing ethnically distinct. The French accorded the men in the group as bearing “the same markings (tattoos) as Iroquois”. Marquette recorded that the “women dressed and style(d) their hair like the Hurons”. Although these are colonial generalizations that do not reveal any specifics, it is clear that the French noticed cultural differences in the men’s and women’s appearances (Thévenot M., 1681).

18Eastern Indigenous peoples routinely brought women, particularly captive or non-member women, as burdeners and laborers to support a group traveling for food, trade, or raids (Lee W. E., 2023). If men and women from different communities traveled together as a regular practice among the Cherokees, Yuchis, and Koasati groups, then the practice would have driven coalescence. The children of the more recently arrived Cherokee women would all receive Cherokee clan membership, and female children would eventually become heads of Cherokee households, swelling the Cherokee population and establishing Cherokee-style matrilineal land rights among the communities. If Cherokee women began to integrate into the Yuchi and Koasati communities, as the example of the information on the French maps indicates, a modified but culturally consistent Cherokee society would have become hegemonic in the area within a few generations. The archeological and written records demonstrate the result of these interactions.

19Turn of the eighteenth French cartography shows the coalescence of distinguishable Native communities within an expanding Cherokee homeland. Prominent French mapmaker Claude Delisle compared information given to Marquette and Jolliet in 1673 with information from a group of rouge French traders who traveled from the Mississippi River to Charles Town via the Tennessee River and across the Cherokee homelands in 1700 (Crane V. W., 1916: 3-18). Delisle synthesized this nomenclature with other sources from Indigenous peoples through French voyagers in the following years (Gallaway P. K., 1995: 233-258).

Figure 4. G. de L’Isle, Carte des environs du Missisipi, 1701

Figure 4. G. de L’Isle, Carte des environs du Missisipi, 1701

Carte des environs du Missisipi par G. de L’Isle Geogr. Donné par Mr. D’Iberville en 1701.

20Delisle’s depiction of the Cherokee homelands underwent rapid changes in the early eighteenth century. His 1701 map (Fig. 4) borrows information directly from Marquette and Franquelin’s maps.

21Delisle’s sources for his 1703 printed map list Marquette and Franquelin’s maps, but they also include information given him from more recent relations of both French and English travelers into the Cherokee homelands (Delanglez J., 1943: 275-298). On his 1703 printed map, Carte du Mexique et de la Floride des Terres Angloises et des Isles Antilles, Delisle lists Taogaria (Tsisduyi) Tali (Cherokee), Caskinampo (Koasati), and Les Caskighi (Tuskegee) in the Cherokee homelands, suggesting the voyagers passing through the region informed Delisle that they still found the communities labeled on Marquette and Franquelin’s 1670s maps had remained somewhat culturally distinct. A 1702 manuscript map also adds the “Nation des Tarachis,” indicating that Delisle’s sources told him that communities along the Nolichucky River had become recognizably Cherokee, in line with Rodning’s archeological conclusions (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. G. de L’Isle, Carte du Canada et du Mississipi, 1702

Figure 5. G. de L’Isle, Carte du Canada et du Mississipi, 1702

L’Isle, Guillaume de, 1702.

22While Delisle’s exact placement provides nothing more than his best estimation, the names demonstrate that the informants found an ethnically and linguistically diverse population living in close approximation within the Appalachian Highlands. As the omission of the “Nation des Tarachis” on the 1703 printed map demonstrates, Delisle’s assessment of the available sources left him wrestling with the region’s communities’ broader cultural affiliations. Regardless of his sources not fully detailing Delisle’s mapmaking decisions, his indecision indicates an era of cultural fluidity in the region.

Figure 6. G. de L’Isle, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718

Figure 6. G. de L’Isle, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718

Chez l’auteur le Sr. Delisle sur le quay de l’horloge avec privilege du roy, 1718, https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2001624908/​.

23The 1718 version, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi (Fig. 6), gained rapid notoriety outside France. Scholarship regarding Delisle’s 1718 creation has emphasized the map as France’s initial cartographic salvo against Spanish and British imperial aspirations in North America (Pedley M., 1998: 96-104, Edelson S. M., 2017: 20). As geographer to the King of France, Delisle’s maps reflected the official policies of the French Empire. However, the emphasis on France’s expanded territorial claims on the map has resulted in little recognition of the map’s most salient feature, Indigenous geopolitical shifts throughout the Southeast. Significant changes in Indigenous nomenclature occurred on the 1718 map as Delisle received information regarding the area from both internal and external sources. Delisle labeled the area around the Hiawassee River mouth with the externally sourced ethnonym “Les Cheraqui” and unwittingly with internally sourced Cherokee words.

24The Indigenous nomenclature of the Mississippi Valley and areas west of the Savanna River reflect the information given to Claude Delisle regarding M. de Sauvole’s interactions in the Mobile Bay area with an Alabaman Muklasa man living among the Mobilians in 1700. The journal prepared by Charles Lavasseur and edited by Claude contains the names of thirty-six distinct Indigenous groups throughout the Southeast as far away as the Cherokee. Recorded through a Choctaw interpreter, the Alabaman Muklasa man laid out the geography of the Native South for Sauvole according to his spatial understandings. The man informed Levasseur of the positions of thirty-six distinct Indigenous groups located along rivers throughout the Southeast.

25Delisle initially adopted the nomenclature from Franquelin, referencing the Cherokee and neighboring groups, but he made a significant typographical and fundamental change on his maps after obtaining the Alabaman Muklasaman’s information. The nomenclature stemming from Franquelin’s maps represented the Cherokees referring to themselves and describing their neighbors’ locations in the 1673 encounter with the Jolliet and Marquette. Delisle changed the toponyms to “Les Cheriqui” on his 1718 map. Cherokee is not a word in the Tsalagi language of the Cherokee, suggesting this change signified the Alabaman Muklasa man’s understanding of linguistics as a significant cultural identifier that could be placed in a specific location (Knight V. J. and S. L. Adams, 1981: 179-94).

Figure 7. Detail from G. de L’Isle’s, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718

Figure 7. Detail from G. de L’Isle’s, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718

Chez l’auteur le Sr. Delisle sur le quay de l’horloge avec privilege du roy, 1718: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2001624908/​.

26Delisle’s updated 1718 Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi introduces a variation of his understanding of the region’s complex cultural ties. Delisle labels several areas, one east and south of the Appalachian Mountains and one further upstream along a prospective river, as “Cheraqui.” These semi-regional labels for multiple towns demonstrate that Delisle understood these areas, through his Native informants, to be exclusively occupied by separate groups of Cherokees. The regional label “les Cheraqui” indicates Delisle recognized the regional groups as belonging under a broader ethnonym. However, in the region northeast of the mountains, Delisle used what he may have thought were ethnonyms but are actually Cherokee terms describing the relationship between some of Cherokee communities and the land. In line with archeological indications for material cultural shifts, the Cherokee words on Delisle’s 1718 map reflect a deepening relationship between Cherokees and the landscape around the mouth of the Hiawassee River.

27As the Cherokee culture became hegemonic in these areas, they described their emplacement in terms of the landscape. Cherokees must have told a French informant that they lived at “Aiouache” (Hiwassee), “Amohi” (amuyeli), and “Talicouet” (Tǎlikwǎ or Tellico). However, the Cherokees’ description that resulted in Delisle’s toponyms belies a simple town-location relationship. “Aiouache” (Hiwassee) in Cherokee, Ayphwa’si translates to the French, prairie, or in English, meadow, “Amohi” (amuyeli), to the French, île or îlot, or in English, “land surrounded by water.” Tongoria remains, perhaps as a cartographic relic or indicative of a remaining group of Yuchi.

28The toponyms suggest Cherokee culture had become dominant in the region. In Cherokees’ active grammar structure, the toponyms likely described a community’s relationship with the landscape rather than a specific physical location. These placenames on the maps represent direct information from local Cherokees describing their landscape to foreigners. Placenames associated with towns, such as Talicouet (Tǎlikwǎ or Tellico) and Dugilu’yi (Tugaloo), appeared in several locations because of the descriptive manner of the Cherokee language. For example, Dugilu’yi (Tugaloo) translates to English as “a place at the forks of a stream” and Tikwali’tsi as “a peaceful valley.” In these cases, the placenames on the maps represented a community associated with a particular type of landscape.

29The maps represented Cherokee geopolitical realities as much as colonial imaginations. Delisle’s colonial monikers for the region represented external Indigenous recognition of Cherokee cultural hegemony developing in the region. Delisle incorporated the Indigenous information into France’s imperial vision of territorial claims that simplified the Indigenous groups according to colonial contexts (White R., 1991). By the early eighteenth century, potential profits through trade had replaced mineral wealth as France’s primary colonial focus. Delisle’s cartography organized coalescing Indigenous groups that the Cherokee and Alabaman Muklasaman’s descriptions viewed as culturally distinct into legible polities and placed them within France’s ambit of territorial sovereignty. British officials took notice of French imperial claims that relegated the British presence to the Atlantic coast, isolated from Indigenous trade networks. The British decried the map as cartographically “making encroachments on the King’s territories” (Cumming W. P., 1998: 21). The competing visions of incorporating Indigenous coalescence throughout the Southeast into disparate imperial schema produced distinct cartographic nomenclatures between British and French maps.

Figure 8. Detail from W. Hammerton’s, Map of the southeastern part of North America, 1721

Figure 8. Detail from W. Hammerton’s, Map of the southeastern part of North America, 1721

The Barnwell-Hammerton Map, 1721. Yale Center for British Art, Gift of the Acorn Foundation, Inc., Alexander O. Vietor, Yale BA 1936, President, in honor of Paul Mellon: https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/​catalog/​orbis:9600894.

  • 15 Cartographic historians refer to mother maps as maps that significantly influence subsequent maps.

30Cherokee-sourced information on a British “mother map” demonstrates the state of Cherokee coalescence in the early eighteenth century (Cumming W. P., 1998).15 The 1721 British Barnwell-Hammerton Map displays the development of Cherokee coalescence in the region as the onset of colonial pressures disrupted the region’s Native communities after many generations had integrated mostly amicably (Fig. 8). The “Hogohegee River” references the recent presence of Yuchi communities, as does the “Euphasee River” moniker. These rivers would soon adopt anglicized Cherokee placenames, the Tennessee and the Hiwassee Rivers. The Cherokee term, Amohi (amuyeli), remains near the forks of the rivers, but the adjacent “Tongoria” now appears as “Chestou,” an anglicized version of the Cherokee placename Tsistu’yǐ, “Frog Town” (Swanton J. R., 1930: 408-09). The toponym reflects the linguistic diversity of Cherokee toponyms on later British maps and the amalgamated material cultures found in adjacent towns in the archeological record that had become recognizably Cherokee by the early eighteenth century (Marcoux J. B., 2010: 106; Rodning C. B. et al., 2020: 155). The map labels the settlements further upstream indicated on Delisle’s map as “deserted,” which matches the archeologists’ findings (Shreve N. K. et al., 2020). The nomenclature on Barnwell’s map cartographically displayed the diversity and spatiality of the Cherokee’s interconnected community-centered social structure embedded in a larger cultural sphere that British officials traveling inside Cherokee territory would later confront.

Conclusion

  • 16 C.R. Cobb describes this accretion as “The larger cultural landscape is thus a network of places de (...)

31Cherokee coalescence occurred as a generational cultural accretion tied to the landscape (Cobb C., 2019).16 Unlike many Southeastern Indigenous groups, whom colonial pressures deracinated by the early eighteenth century, Cherokee culture expanded into adjacent regions occupied by other Indigenous communities by emplacing the Cherokee landscape that tied their matrilineal social structure to the land. The Muskogean etymology for eighteenth-century Cherokee towns in the East Tennessee region of the maps supports a form of acculturation during the previous generations in these localities (Booker K. M., 1992: 426). However, by the time Barnwell drew his map in 1721, the culturally distinct communities that described their geography to the French in 1673 had become part of the ᎦᏙᎯ ᏄᏍᏗᏓᏅ “gadohi nusdidanv” (Cherokee term for landscape).

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Akerman, James R., and Robert W., Karrow, Maps: Finding Our Place in the World, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Basso, Keith H., Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996.

Beck, Robin, and Charles M., Hudson, Chiefdoms, Collapse, and Coalescence in the Early American South, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Booker, Karen M., Hudson, Charles M., and Robert L., Rankin, “Place Name Identification and Multilingualism in the Sixteenth-Century Southeast”, Ethnohistory, vol. 39, n° 4, 1992, p. 399-451.

Boudreaux, Edmond A., Johnson, Jay K., and Maureen, Meyers, Contact, Colonialism, and Native Communities in the Southeastern United States, University Press of Florida, 2020.

Brooks, Lisa, “Awikhiganwôgan ta pildowi ôjmowôgan: Mapping a New History”, Joint Forum on Materials and Methods in Native American and Indigenous Studies, William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 75, n° 2, April 2018.

Brückner, Martin (ed.), Early American Cartographies, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Carter, Paul, The Road to Botany Bay an Exploration of Landscape and History, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Chapman, Jefferson, Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years of Native American History, Norris, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1985.

Cobb, Charles R., The Archaeology of Southeastern Native American Landscapes of the Colonial Era, Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 2019.

Cohen, Paul E., and David, Rumsey, Mapping the West: America’s Westward Movement 1524-1890, New York, Rizzoli, 2002.

Crane, Verner W., “The Tennessee River as the Road to Carolina: The Beginnings of Exploration and Trade”, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 3, n° 1, 1916, p. 3-18.

Cumming, William Patterson, The Southeast in Early Maps, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 3rd ed. Louis De Vorsey, 1998.

Delanglez, Jean, “Documents: The Sources of the Delisle Map of America, 1703”, Mid-America, vol. 25, 1943, p. 275-298.

Duncan, Barbara R., and Brett H., Riggs, Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook, Chapel Hill, Published in Association with the Museum of the Cherokee Indian by the University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Edelson, S. Max, The New Map of Empire: How Britain Imagined America Before Independence. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2017.

Edney, Matthew H., Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India, 1765-1843, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Erbig, Jeffrey A., “Between Ethnonyms and Toponyms: Cartography and Native Pasts in the Eastern Rio de La Plata” in Fabrício Prado, Viviana L. Grieco and Alex Borucki (eds.), The Rio de La Plata from Colony to Nations Commerce, Society, and Politics, United Kingdom, Springer Nature, 1st ed., 2021.

Ethridge, Robbie Franklyn, and Sheri Marie Shuck-Hall, Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional Instability in the American South, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2009.

Ethridge, Robbie, “The Origins and Coalescence of the Creek (Muscogee) Confederacy: A New Synthesis”, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, vol. 52, 2023, p. 113-131.

Galloway, Patricia Kay, Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1995.

Harley, J.B, “The New Nature of Maps : Essays in the Hisory of Cartography”, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Hornsby, Stephen J. and Hope Stege, Surveyors of Empire: Samuel Holland, J.W.F. Des Barres, and the Making of the Atlantic Neptune, Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011.

Kimball, Geoffrey D., Koasati Dictionary, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., “Coalescent Communities”, in Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of the Southeastern Indians, Charles M. Hudson, Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Robbie Ethridge (eds.), University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2006, p. 94-122.

Knight, Vernon J., and Sheree L., Adams, “A Voyage to the Mobile and Tomeh in 1700, with Notes on the Interior of Alabama”, Ethnohistory, vol. 28, n° 2, 1981, p. 179-94.

Lee, Wayne E., The Cutting-Off Way: Indigenous Warfare in Eastern North America 1500-1800, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press, 2023, p. 69-70.

Lewis, G. Malcolm, “Indicators of Unacknowledged Assimilations from Amerindian ‘Maps’ on Euro-American Maps of North America: Some General Principles Arising from a Study of La Vérendrye’s Composite Map, 1728-29”, Imago Mundi, vol. 38, 1986, p. 9-34.

Lewis, G. Malcolm, “Maps, Mapmaking, and Map use by Native North Americans,” in David Woodward and G. Malcolm Lewis (eds.), Cartography in the Traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific Societies, vol. 2, book 3, University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 54-182.

Lewis, Thomas M.N., and Madeline D., Kneberg, Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples, Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, 1946, p. 15.

Lewis, Thomas M.N., Kneberg, Madeline D. and Lynne P., Sullivan, The Prehistory of the Chickamauga Basin, Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, 1995.

Loftin, John D., and Benjamin E., Frey, People of Kituwah: The Old Ways of the Eastern Cherokees, University of California Press, 2024.

Lucchesi, Annita Hetoevėhotohke’e, “‘Indians Don’t Make Maps’: Indigenous Cartographic Traditions and Innovations”, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 42, n° 3, 2018, p. 11-26.

Marcoux, Jon Bernard, Pox, Empire, Shackles, and Hides: The Townsend Site, 1670-1715, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, 2010.

McCafferty, Michael, Native American Place Names of Indiana, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 2008.

McDowell, William L., Journals of the Commissioners of the Indian Trade: September 20, 1710-August 29, 1718, Columbia, South Carolina Archives Dept., 1955.

Pedley, Mary, “Map Wars: The Role of Maps in the Nova Scotia/Acadia Boundary Disputes of 1750”, Imago Mundi 50, n° 1, 1998, p. 96-104.

Prado, Fabrício, Viviana L. Grieco, and Alex Borucki (eds.), The Rio de La Plata from Colony to Nations Commerce, Society, and Politics, 1st ed., Cham, Springer International Publishing, Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.

Pritchard, Margaret Beck and Henry G. Taliaferro, Degrees of Latitude: Mapping Colonial America. Williamsburg, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2002.

Rodning, Christopher B., Johnson, Jay K., Meyers, Maureen and Edmond A. Boudreaux, “From the Coast to the Mountains: Marine Shell Artifacts at Cherokee Towns in the Southern Appalachians” in Contact, Colonialism, and Native Communities in the Southeastern United States, University of Florida Press, 1st ed., 2020.

Rushforth, Brett, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France, Chapel Hill, Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture / University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Saler, Bethel, The Settlers’ Empire: Colonialism and State Formation in America’s Old Northwest, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Schulten, Susan, “Mapping American History” in James R. Akerman and Robert W. Karrow (eds.), Maps: Finding Our Place in the World, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Shreve Nathan K., Jay D. Franklin, Eileen G. Ernenwein, Maureen A. Hays, Ilaria Patania, Jay K Johnson, Maureen Meyers, and Edmond A. Boudreaux, “An Arc of Interaction, a Flow of People, and Emergent Identity: Early Contact Period Archaeology and Early European Interactions in the Middle Nolichucky Valley of Upper East Tennessee” in Contact, Colonialism, and Native Communities in the Southeastern United States, 1st ed., United States: University of Florida Press, 2020.

Smith, Marvin T., Robbie Franklyn Ethridge, and Charles M. Hudson, The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, 1540-1760, Jackson, University Press of Mississippi, 2002.

Swanton, John R., “The Kaskinampo Indians and Their Neighbors”, American Anthropologist 32, n° 3, 1930, p. 405-18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/660884.

Thévenot, Melchisédec, Marquette, Jacques, Tasman, Abel Janszoon, and Jan, Swammerdam, Recueil de voyages de Mr Thevenot, Paris, Estienne Michallet, 1681.

Trigger, Bruce G., “Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects”, Ethnohistory, vol. 29, n° 1, 1982, p.  1-19.

Waselkov, Gregory A., Peter H. Wood and M. Thomas Hatley, Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, Rev. and Expanded ed., Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Wickens Pearce, Margaret, “Framing the Days: Place and Narrative in Cartography”, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 35, n° 1, 2008, p. 17-32.

Wickens Pearce, Margaret, “The Last Piece Is You”, Cartographic Journal, vol. 51, n° 2, 2014, p. 107-22.

Witgen, Michael, “A Nation of Settlers: The Early American Republic and the Colonization of the Northwest Territory”, WMQ 76, n° 3, July 2019, p. 391-398.

Woodward, David and G. Malcolm Lewis (eds.), “Cartography in the Traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific Societies”, The History of Cartography, vol. 2., book 3, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Haut de page

Annexe

List of Cherokee Words

dikalvgvi amequohi (Atlantic Ocean);

oo-le-te-wauh (Ooltewah Creek), a creek in modern East Tennessee near Chattanooga, TN;

Tanisi River (Tennessee River);

Kĭtu′hwagĭ (Kituwah), the Cherokee’s mother town located in modern Western North Carolina near Cherokee, NC;

Tǎlikwǎ (Great Tellico), a major Overhill town located in modern East Tennessee;

Tsisduyi (“The Rabbit Place”), an Overhill Town in the Lower Hiwassee River Valley in modern East Tennessee, also found in other locations in modern Georgia and South Carolina;

Tsiksi'tsi (Tuskegee), A Cherokee name for a River and several towns;

Amohi (amuyeli), French: île or îlot; English: “land surrounded by water”;

Aiouache (Hiwassee in Cherokee);

Ayphwa’si, French: “prairie”; English: “meadow”;

Dugilu’yi (Tugaloo) “a place at the forks of a stream”, also the name of several Cherokee towns and communities;

Tikwali’tsi, “a peaceful valley”;

ᎦᏙᎯ ᏄᏍᏗᏓᏅ gadohi nusdidanv, Cherokee term for “landscape”.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The “ȣabȣquigȣ” River (Tanisi River) on Marquette’s Manuscript 1673 map is now called the Tennessee River in the Southeast United States. According to many Cherokees, Kituwah is the town where Cherokees first emerged near the beginning of time. For information on Kituwah and its significance to Cherokees see: Loftin J. D and B. E. Frey, 2024: 4.

2 As B. Rushforth explains, ȣ is a typographical ligature of the Greek ou. The toponyms on the maps represent French phonetic renderings of the Indigenous languages (2012). See also McCafferty M., 2008. For studies of Cherokee multilingualism, see Booker K. M. et al., 1992.

3 For a comprehensive online database of early Southeastern maps, see: https://rla.unc.edu/emas/index.html.

4 See especially L. De Vorsey’s essay in the 3rd edition, titled “American Indians and the Early Mapping of the Southeast” (p. 66-98).

5 See especially G. Malcolm Lewis’s chapter, “Maps, Mapmaking, and Map Use by Native North Americans” (p. 54-182).

6 See especially G. Waselkov’s chapter “Indian Maps of the Colonial Southeast” (p. 435-502).

7 See especially G. Hollis’s chapter “The Wrong Side of the Map” (p. 146).

8 For studies of coalescence, see: P. K. Galloway (1995); R. F. Ethridge and S. M. Shuck-Hall (2009); R. Beck and C. M. Hudson, 2013; E.A. Boudreaux et al., 2020.

9 See also: M. Beck Pritchard and H. G. Taliaferro (2002); B. Saler (2015); S.J. Hornsby and H. Stege (2011); M. Witgen (2019); S. M. Edelson (2017).

10 For some examples of Indigenous cartography studies see: Basso K.H. (1996); Lucchesi A. H (2018: 11-26); Wickens Pearce M. (2008, 2014); Brooks L. (2018).

11 See Harley J. B. (2001); De Vorsey L. (1998) and Lewis, G.M. (1986, 1998).

12 See also: M. B. Pritchard and H.G. Taliaferro (2002); B. Saler (2015); S. J. Hornsby and H. Stege (2011); M. Witgen (2019); S. M. Edelson (2017).

13 The narrative is located in the John Howard Payne Papers: “Letter #2 Charles R. Hicks to John Ross”, 1826, Ayers Collection Box 7 folder 1 Newberry Library, Chicago.

14 For definitions of coalescing societies in the Native South, see: Smith M. T. et al., 2002; Kowalewski S. A., 2006.

15 Cartographic historians refer to mother maps as maps that significantly influence subsequent maps.

16 C.R. Cobb describes this accretion as “The larger cultural landscape is thus a network of places defined relationally and contextually, as deterritorialized communities reproduce themselves by drawing on various scales and types of relationships” (2019: 35).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. L. Jolliet and J. Marquette, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”
Crédits Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2021668635.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 385k
Titre Figure 2. Detail from L. Jolliet and J. Marquette’s, Map of the New Discovery Made by the Jesuit Fathers in 1672 and Continued by Father Jacques Marquette, from the Same Group, Accompanied by a Few Frenchmen in the Year 1673, Named “Manitounie”
Crédits Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2021668635.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 92k
Titre Figure 3. Jean-Baptiste-Louis Franquelin, Carte de la Louisiane ou des voyages du Sr. De La Salle, 1684
Crédits From the original, 1684, Harvard University Library: https://www.loc.gov/​resource/​g3300.ct000656/​?r=0.063,0.138,0.929,0.428,0.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 74k
Titre Figure 4. G. de L’Isle, Carte des environs du Missisipi, 1701
Crédits Carte des environs du Missisipi par G. de L’Isle Geogr. Donné par Mr. D’Iberville en 1701.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 73k
Titre Figure 5. G. de L’Isle, Carte du Canada et du Mississipi, 1702
Crédits L’Isle, Guillaume de, 1702.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 153k
Titre Figure 6. G. de L’Isle, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718
Crédits Chez l’auteur le Sr. Delisle sur le quay de l’horloge avec privilege du roy, 1718, https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2001624908/​.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 342k
Titre Figure 7. Detail from G. de L’Isle’s, Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi i.e. Mississippi : dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire, 1718
Crédits Chez l’auteur le Sr. Delisle sur le quay de l’horloge avec privilege du roy, 1718: https://www.loc.gov/​item/​2001624908/​.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 208k
Titre Figure 8. Detail from W. Hammerton’s, Map of the southeastern part of North America, 1721
Crédits The Barnwell-Hammerton Map, 1721. Yale Center for British Art, Gift of the Acorn Foundation, Inc., Alexander O. Vietor, Yale BA 1936, President, in honor of Paul Mellon: https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/​catalog/​orbis:9600894.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/docannexe/image/21863/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 157k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Casey Price, « Revealing Indigenous Voices on European Maps as Primary Source Material for Understanding Cherokee Coalescence »IdeAs [En ligne], 26 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2025, consulté le 16 janvier 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/21863 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14v7c

Haut de page

Auteur

Casey Price

Dr. Casey Price recently obtained his PhD in Early American History from the University of Tennessee. Casey’s work focuses on the history of cartography and the Native South, specifically the Cherokee. Casey’s dissertation and wider book project, Given to This Land: Mapping Settler Colonialism in Kituwah: 1682-1810, examines the relationship between cartography and settler colonialism in the Cherokee homelands. His current research project has been supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Summer Institute at the Newberry Library; 2023-2024 fellowships from the Omohundro Institute, the John Carter Brown Library, the Clements Library, the Filson Historical Society, the Native American Rights Fellowship from the Library Company of Philadelphia and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and the Phillips Fund for Native American Research from the American Philosophical Society. Casey will serve as a teaching assistant professor at the University of Tennessee for the 2025-2026 academic year.
cprice51[at]vols.utk.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search