CHAPTER III –
INDIAN SLAVERY IN VIRGINIA
It is well
known that many American Indians were stolen and enslaved. But the slave dealers
didn’t keep very good records of these things. They knew their actions were
ungodly and they didn’t want their actions to be well known. We are forced to
gather clues wherever possible.
William Byrd and the Slave Trade
On
September 19th, 1671 the Batts/Fallam expedition was said to have seen William
Byrd's expedition with “a great company” in the Western regions of Virginia.
Was he returning from a slave raid into western regions of Virginia? They did
not write down a great deal about their slave raids. It appears that Batts and
Fallum (26) made it to southwestern Virginia and returned to Fort Henry. This
journey cleared the way for another expedition to go a little further west to
discover the Cherokee. But Byrd was returning eastward as Batts and Fallam were
taking off on their journey westward.
We have at
interesting account that dates to the times of Abraham Wood that talks about
William Byrd. An elderly Abraham Wood was asked to negotiate with the Indians
to sign a treaty. There was a rebellion and it was put down. The Indians
surrendered, and Wood was asked to negotiate with them. Then the author breaks
down, and tells a little side story.
Alvord
says;
“Wood's last public service, so far as known, was the
conduct of negotiations with a threatening Indian war-confederacy in the winter
of 1679- 1680. Nicholas Spencer wrote to the Lords of Trade and Plantations on
March 18, 1680, that "Colonel Wood, a person well skilled in all Indian
affairs," had been chosen by the governor and council to try to effect the
desired arrangement with the hostiles. He negotiated the same with great
prudence and at length arranged that the chief men of the Indian confederate
hostile towns should meet at Jamestown on the 10th of this month, to be heard
on behalf of their towns and to answer the charges against them. They received
every assurance of safe protection but appeared not, whether kept back by the
knowledge of their guilt, or misapprehensions of our sincerity (for which the
Christians have given but too good reasons), or perverted by the clandestine
designs of some Indian traders, who wished to upset this arrangement of Colonel
Wood for their own ends, I cannot guess. I incline to think the last is the
true reason. . .” (27)
He adds;
“When we consider that Captain Byrd killed seven
surrendered Indians and took away their wives and children prisoners, on the
mere suspicion that they were assassins of our people, we can hardly wonder at
the failure of the treaty."
“Because of the lack of Wood's letters and other
papers, it is impossible to give any satisfactory account of his activities as
a trader; but the documents.”
Consider
what was just said. We have the matter of fact story of Captain William Byrd
“killing” seven captured Indians, men who had surrendered. Byrd then “took
away” their wives and children – which is another way of saying he sold them
into slavery. It was also said that while Wood was trying to negotiate a peace,
several traders were working behind his back, trying to defeat his efforts. Alford
then adds considering Byrd killed some Indians so he could own and sell their
families to make a profit, he could see why the treaty failed, and why the
Indians didn’t trust him. This means not only Byrd, but several of the other
traders as well, wanted the treaty to fail so that they could still gather the
Indians as slaves! We have the "Treaty of the Second Plantation"
dated 1677. Was this the treaty they are talking about? Since these events
occurred 1679-1680, were they wanting to make some addendums to the treaty? He
is speaking of March 1680, 3 years after the treaty. Was a second treaty in the
works?
We shall
soon hear that it was common practice in South Carolina to kill the adult males
and bring in their wives and children to be sold at the slave market. We don't
know how common this practice was in Virginia, but this story illustrates that
the Virginians had done it first. We do know many Indians “just disappeared”. Because
of the comments about Byrd, we can say definitely that the South Carolinians
practice of killing the men and taking the women and children to be sold as
slaves started in Virginia. Let me read a part of the Alford’s commentary –
“. . .
perverted by the clandestine designs of some Indian traders, who wished to
upset this arrangement of Colonel Wood”, and says this just before mentioning Byrd killed
seven surrendered Indians and took away their families – we know he took their
families and sold them as slaves. But he also says this was the design “OF SOME OF THE TRADERS”, not just Byrd.
Wood was trying to get the Indians to sign a treaty, and “some of the traders”
upset his plans with their “clandestine designs”. One can easily assume those
“clandestine designs” included murder of the men and enslavement of their
families. Per Gallay, this is what the South Carolinians later did. Gallay says
the word “trader” was virtually synonymous with “slave trader” (28).
Some of Richard Thornton's Research
Richard
Thornton has written a great deal about his theories, and has placed it online.
Some of it is very interesting. Several points that he makes, I find
questionable. That’s all I will say on
this topic.
The English
colony of Virginia had been around for decades before the Colony of South
Carolina was founded, The Virginia colony was founded in 1607 as opposed to
about 1670 for South Carolina.
We have
proof that there were slave raids in Indian communities is South Carolina,
nearby territories, and in Spanish Florida. But had there also been similar slave
raids earlier in Virginia? We have found a singular incident where some were
enslaved. Alford mentions "some of the traders" as though there were
several traders involved in the slave trade in Virginia. Thornton leaves an
impression that there were more such incidents. I found some of his research
online (29).
I can’t
read his research without recalling that he said most Oklahoma Creek are
ignorant of their history and that he wouldn’t properly cite his sources. I am
not Creek, but I can’t help but think his attitude towards them was uncalled
for.
I've always
been a big fan of the concept of Occam's razor – http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
– it states basically that the simplest answers are the best. Don't introduce
elements which are not required to solve a problem. Now I was intrigued by some
of what Thornton wrote, especially about the slave trade in Virginia. THAT made
sense to me, and so I will use him as a source on this topic.
Thornton
said Virginians were taking Indian peoples as slaves.
I don't
want people to think I believe all of what he said. Having said all this and
warning about it, I'd like to share a little of what Thornton said on the
Virginia Indian slave trade. These are excerpts from “People From One Fire”, by
Richard Thornton, as I discovered it online late in 2016, Web, Georgia, digital
rights (c) 2010-2013, by Access Genealogy.com. (30)
Richard
Thornton, author/and researcher has come up with some very interesting ideas.
He states that . . .
“Beginning in 1610, Virginia planters began
increasingly relying on Native American war captives and later, African bond
servants to do the drudgery on tobacco plantations. Between 1661 and 1665,
Governor William Berkeley put through a series of bills in the House of
Burgesses, which changed the status of indigenous peoples and Africans in
bondage, from human servants to sub-human personal property with virtually no
civil rights. It was the first time in the history of the English-speaking
peoples that slavery had been institutionalized and based on race.
“Since the mid-1640s, Berkeley had been purchasing
indigenous slaves from tribes living to the west of Tidewater Virginia. He used
them on his James River plantations or sold them to other planters. Around
1662, Governor Berkeley signed a treaty with the fierce Rickohockens of
southwest Virginia in which the colonial government would furnish them firearms
and munitions in return for the delivery of an unlimited number of Native
American slaves. In 1663, Berkeley was named one of eight Lord Proprietors of
the new Province of Carolina. Within two decades, vast areas of the Southeast
would be virtually uninhabited.”
Thornton
makes all these claims online without providing a single source for his
material. I have often been asked about the sources of my material and I have
without question, provided it on every occasion. I will continue to be as
helpful as I can to anyone who asks. My purpose in writing is to teach others
forgotten history, not for a profit.
I had
thought that the North Carolinian and Virginian Siouan people had been
enslaved. NOW, if Thornton's is correct, we know what happened to the Monacan,
the Monahaok, the Saponi and others. If Virginia Governor Berkeley enslaved
these tribes, using the Rickohockans to capture them, that would explain their
disappearance. In just a few decades, these people were mostly gone, and the
Rickohockans moved south, per Thornton. However really all we can ACTUALLY say
is they just disappeared from the history books. We can say the Westo just
appeared several hundred miles to the south. I can say that might or might not
be more than a coincidence. To say more than that is wild speculation without a
citation to back it up. Thornton said Berkeley purchased slaves from "west of tidewater Virginia". This
is EXACTLY where these Siouan tribes, Monakin, Saponi and others were, and it
the exact time frame the Saponi, Manahaok and Monacan disappeared from their
known homelands. Perhaps far from being a friend to these Indians, Berkeley
used them as slaves.
Thornton
mentions that Berekley signed a treaty with the Rickohokans in 1622. Where is
it? That is something that can be looked up.
Berkeley
was one of the original eight Proprietors to the new colony of Carolina, and
low-and-behold, his Indian slavers came with him, the Rickohockans, according to
Thornton, who now would become known as the Westo. Is this true? I don't know.
No one really knows who the Rickohockans or the Westos were. But if they are
one and the same people, Thornton may have hit onto something. But there are
some who say “Westo” came from “Edisto” or “Orista” just inland from Santa
Elena on the Carolina coastline. We just don’t know.
Below is
the Moxon Map commissioned by order of the Lords Proprietor of [South] Carolina
in 1673. I don't know how well this will print out. It shows Monacan, and
Mahook (also called Manahoak) in the North. To their south is Sapon, Nahison,
Akenatzy (Occoneechi), Enock (Eno, also called Stuckenock), and Sabor
(?Shakori?). To the east of these cities and across a river are the Tuscarora.
To the west near the mountains are the Sauna (Shawnee). West of the mountains
are the Rickohockans, a mysterious people of unknown origin. So we have several nations wedged together in
a narrow space. In the south are Watery, Sara, Wisack (Waxhaw). We know from
the Monacan to the Shakori in the above paragraph, are different bands of the
same people. These are the same people as the Sara, Wateree and Waxhaw. It is
the Shawnee and the Rockohockans that don't belong. The Shawnee had to leave
the area eventually. All records of the Rickohockans vanishes from history with
no one knowing what became of them. Remember 1673 is but 4 years before the
1677 treaty was signed.
Map 6. The
Moxon Map 1673
The Westo
An
explanation of the origin of the Westo is given online. Even though it is
uncited, it is listed on the “access genealogy” website. This is the only
origin story of the Westo I have seen that might make sense. However the
author's explanation lacks rigor, so – it isn't trustworthy . . . It is my hope
the people at “access genealogy” will cite sources which can tell us how
trustworthy the material actually is. It states – “During the latter half of the 16th Century, the indigenous population
of the Lower Southeast declined by about 90-95% – primarily due to
Spanish-borne diseases, but in some cases, Spanish weapons. The survivors
ceased to build mounds, became more egalitarian societies, and generally moved
farther away from the Spanish garrisons and missions in Coastal Georgia, South
Carolina and Florida. By the mid-17th Century indigenous populations were
rebounding, primarily due to the greater per capita availability of animal
protein and fertile bottom land fields.” (31)
Thornton
continues, (paraphrasing), that catastrophe struck in 1660. Out of nowhere,
Algonquian-speaking raiders, armed with British harquebuses, attacked the
Muskogean farmers in Tennessee, Carolina and Georgia. The adult males and
infants were killed or tortured outright. Young women and children old enough
to walk, were shackled, and marched back to Virginia to be sold at slave
markets. According to Thornton, the native peoples along the coast of what is
now South Carolina called them, “Westo,” which means “people with scraggly
hair. After arriving in 1674, English colonists called the slave-raiders,
“Westos.” Per Thornton, the Westos were most likely a band of Rickohockens,
since the name of their main village near Augusta, GA was recorded as
“Hickohocken” by South Carolina mapmakers. Unfortunately, Thornton doesn’t
provide the sources of his information. I hope one day he will.
There were
no “Muscogean farmers” in most of the Carolinas – they were Siouan farmers,
relations of the Catawba’s. They would have been the Saura, the Monacan, Eno,
Mnahaok, Saponi, Tutelo and others. These are the bands that started
disappearing. These are the people that fled. From @ the 1650s onwards is the
time-frame the people from this region vanished.
He says – In 1634, 200 Rickohocken warriors left their
“capital” near the Peaks of the Otter in southwestern Virginia and participated
in the Powhatan War on the side of the Powhatans. Thornton says a principal
Rickohocken village was named “Ottari” which means “high place” in a Cherokee
dialect. He said; The Virginians knew
nothing about them, but were terrified by their military skills. In 1656 the
Rickohockens sent a much larger force that ravaged many of the farmsteads of
the James River Valley all the way to the coast. Thornton says they were
eventually defeated because of depleted food supplies and the superiority of the
English firearms over arrows. I suspect it was something else.
There is a
town on Spanish maps called “Ottari”. It
is a part the Catawban bands on the eastern side of the Southern Appalachians
in North Carolina. "Otari" is next to "Yssa" on Spanish maps
(see map 3). Juan Pardo passed through the town in his journeys. Yssa is
spelled many different ways -- Issa, Iwsa, Esaw, Yesah, et cetera. This was the
heart of the Catawban and Eastern Siouan speaking peoples, and they are not the
Algonquins Thorton talks about. There are holes in some of Thornton's writings.
Otari would have been a Siouan town judging from its location. I sincerely hope
he can explain these things. If he can, I will listen. Also note the similarity between the words "Otari", "Guatari" (in Spanish), and "Wateree" (in English).
Rickohockan
does “sound” Algonquin. But remember, this is what they were called by the
Powhattans, an Algonquin tribe. The author of this article tries to equate them
with the Cherokee, but the Cherokee language is NOT Algonquin. Thornton has a
lot of explaining to do. I wish him success with that.
I have
mentioned the 1677 treaty. Remember Gen. Wood was asked to help on a treaty
about 1680. Keep that in mind. Below is the text of that 1677 Treaty we’ve
heard so much about.
The Middle Plantation Treaty of
1677 (32)
Between
Virginia's Indian Head Chiefs and Charles II (The King of Great Britain, France
and Ireland)
About the
same northern bands of Siouan speakers of Virginia were disappearing, the
Saponi and the Monacan were treating with the English and Algonquin and
Iroquoian tribes of Virginia. While Allford was talking about an unsuccessful
treaty about 1679-1680, a successful treaty was signed in 1677. While William
Byrd was killing captured prisoners and selling their families as slaves, other
Indians had just negotiated a treaty that provided them some protection from
such slave raids at the hands of some of the more tyranical traders. There were
already very few Indians in Virginia by this time. English traders would have
to move further south to the Carolina's to obtain more slaves. That is just
what they did. They had just founded the colony of [South] Carolina . . . This
treaty might save the last few indigenous peoples of Virginia from becoming
enslaved as well, so it is an important treaty. One more thing. Although this
treaty is called the treaty of 1677, I have found a source that says the
individual Chiefs and kings of the tribes that signed it, didn’t sign it until
1680! That’s the year General Wood was asked to help with the treaty, the same
year Byrd was found returning from a long trek with a large troop, from the
inland country (33). Recall the comments saying Byrd and other traders were
making Wood’s job of getting the treaty signed harder. This must be the treaty
to which it was referring.
The text of
the 1677 treaty is below --
"With the several Indian Kings and Queens and
Assignors and Subscribers hereunto made and Concluded at the Camp of Middle
plantation, the 29th day May, 1677; being the day of the most happy birth and
Restoration of our said Sovereign Lord, and in the XXIX year of his said Majesties
Reign.
"By the Right Honorable Herbert Jeffreys Esquire
Governor and Capt. General of his Majesties Colony of Virginia; Present the
Honorable Sir John Berry, Knight and Francis Morrrison, Esquire his most Sacred
Majesties Commissioners appointed under the great Seale of England for the
Virginia affairs, And the Honorable Council of State of the said Colony.
"Whereas his most Sacred Mantle hath of his own
Royal grace and mere motion entrusted to my care and endeavors the Renewing
management and concluding a good peace with the Neighbor Indians in order
whereunto with the advice and Assistance of the honorable Sir John Berry,
Knight and Francis Morrison, Esquire I have here caused to be drawn up these
ensuing Articles and Overtures for the firm grounding and sure establishment of
a good and just Peace with the said Indians, and that it my be a Secure and
homing one founded upon the strong Pillars of Reciprocal Justice by confirming
to them their just Rights and by Redress of their wrongs and injuries that so
the great God who is God of peace and Lover of Justice may uphold and prosper
this out mutual League and Amity. It is hereby Concluded, consented to and
mutually agreed as follows:"
[The
following is an abbreviation of the 22 agreements between the Indians and the
English.]
"[I.] That the respective Indian kings and queens
acknowledge their immediate dependency on and their subjugation to the great
King of England, his heirs and successors when they pay tribute to the governor
for the time being.
"[II.] That the said kings and queens and their
subjects shall hold their land and property by patent under the seal of his
majesties colony, without any fee gratuity or reward for the same in the manner
of his majesty’s subjects, and paying yearly, three arrows for the same.
"[III.] That all in agreement with us (the
English) the Indians shall have sufficient land on which to plant and shall
never have this land taken from them or disturbed therein so long as they
maintain obedience and subjugation to his majesty, his governor and government
and remain in friendship to the English.
"[IV.] The mutual discontentment, complaints,
jealousies between the English and Indians caused by violent intrusions of
various English into their lands, forcing the Indians to seek revenge by
killing English cattle and hogs, whereby both sides offended and injured each
other and caused the peace to be broken. The late unhappy rebellion caused so
much ruin and misery, that there must be as much as possible the prevention of
injuries and evil consequences. We conclude and enact that no English shall
seat or plant within three miles of any Indian town. Anyone who encroaches on
Indian lands shall be removed, and proceedings shall be brought against them by
the Governor and the laws enacted by the Assembly.
"[V.] That the said Indians shall be protected,
their persons and goods defended from injuries by the English. The aggrieved
Indians should first address themselves to the governor without rashly taking
hostile action themselves.
"[VI.] That no Indian king or queen shall be
imprisoned without a special warrant from his majesty’s governor and two of the
Council. That no other Indian shall be imprisoned without a warrant from a
Justice of the Peace and without sufficient cause of commitment.
"[VII.] That the said Indians have and enjoy the
convenience of oystering, fishing and gathering Tuckahoe, wild oats, rushes,
pecans, or anything else for their natural support that is not useful to the
English or from which the English obtain revenues. For any lawful occasion, to
always obtain a certificate from a magistrate, to return the certificate when
they are through with their business, to then go directly home, not to wear or
carry any weapon during the conducting of business, or not to lodge in any
Englishman’s house at night.
"[VIII.] That no foreign Indian comes to an
Englishman’s plantation without a friendly neighborhood Indian in his company
and without the previously mentioned certificate. And that no Indian king
refuses to send a safe conduct with the foreigner upon the lawful
occasion. And that no Indian paint or
disguise themselves when they come in.
"[IX.] That all Indian Kings and Queens tributary
[NOTE: the tribes that signed this treaty become called “The Tributaty Tribes”]
to the English having notice of any march of strange Indians near the English
quarters or plantations do forthwith repair to some of the next officers of the
militia and acquaint him of their nation, number and design and which way they
bend their Course.
"[X.] That if necessary a convenient party be
presently sent out by the next Militia to aide and strengthen and join with
Friendly Indians against any foreign attempt, incursion, or depredation upon
the Indian town.
"[XI.] That every Indian fit to bear arms of the
neighboring Nations in peace with us, have such quantity of powder and shot
allotted him as Right Honorable the Governor shall think fit on any occasion,
and that such members of them be ready to go out with our forces upon any march
against the enemy and to Receive such pay for their good services, as shall be
thought fit.
"[XII.] That each Indian King and Queen have
equal power to govern their own people, except the Queen of Pamunkey to whom
several scattered Indians do now again own their ancient Subjection and are
agreed to come in and plant themselves under power and government who with her
are also hereby included in this present League and treaty of peace and are to
keep and observe the same towards the said Queen in all things as her subjects
as well as towards the English.
"[XIII.] That no person whatever shall entertain
or keep any Neighbor Indian as Servant or otherwise, but by license of ye
Governor and to be upon the obligation answerable for all injuries and damages
by him of them happen to be done on any English.
"[XIV.] That no English harbor or entertain any
vagrant or Runaway Indian, but convey him home by way of pass from Justice to
Justice to his own town under penalty of paying so much per day for harboring
him as by the Law for entertaining Runaways is Recoverable.
"[XV.] That no Indian of those in Amity with us
shall serve for any longer time than English of the like Ages should serve by
act of Assembly, and shall not be sold as Slaves.
"[XVI.] That every King and Queen in the month of
March every year with some of their great men tender their obedience to the
Right Honorable his Majesties Governor at the place of his residence, whenever
it shall be, and then and there pay the accustomed rent of twenty beaver skins,
to the Governor and also their quit rent aforesaid, in acknowledgement that
they hold the Crowns, and Lands of the great King of England.
"[XVII.] That due care be had and taken that
those Indian Kings and Queens their great men and attendants that come on any
public business to the Right Honorable Governor Council of Assembly may be
accommodated with provisions and houseroom at the public charge. And that no
English Subject shall abuse, revile, hurt or wrong them at any time in word or
deed.
"[XVIII.] That upon discord or breach of Peace
happening to arise between any of the Indians in amity with the English upon
the first appearance and beginning thereof, and before they open Acts of
hostility or war one against another they shall repair to his Majesties
Governor by whose justice and wisdom it is concluded such difference shall be
made upon and decided, and to whose final determination the said Indian shall
Submit and conform themselves.
"[XIX.] That for preventing the frequent
mischiefs and mistakes occasioned by unfaithful and corrupt interpreters, and
for more Safety satisfaction, and advantage both of the Indians and the
English, that there be one of each nation of our neighboring Indians, that that
already can or become capable of speaking English, admitted together with those
of ye English to their own interpreters.
"[XX.] That the several Indians concluded in this
peace forthwith restore to the Respective English parents and owners, all such
children servants, and horses, which at any time taken from them, and now
remaining with them ye said Indians, or which they can make discovery of.
"[XXI.] That the trade with the said Indians be
continued, limited, restrained, or laid open, as shall make best for ye peace
and quiet in the Country, upon which affair the Governor will consult with the
Council and Assembly, and conclude thereon at their next meeting.
"[XXII.] That it is further agreed that all
Indians and English in the Province of Maryland are included in these Articles
of peace, And that neither party shall offend the other without breach of his
Majesties peace.
"The Signe of the Queen of Pamunkey on behalf of
herself & the severall Indians under her Subjection.
The Signe of the King of the Nottoway’s.
The Signe of Capt. John West, sonnet of the Queen of
Pomunkey.
The Signe of Peracuta, King of Appomattux.
The Signe of the Queen of Wayanoake.
The Signe of the King of the Nanzomond Indians
The marke of Pattanochus, King of Nansaticoen.
The Signe of Shurenough, King of the Manakins.
The Signe of Mastegone, young King of the Sappones.
The Signe of Tachapoake, Chiefe man of the Sappones.
The signe 0f Chief Vnuntsquero of the Maherians*
The signe of Norehannah, next Chiefe man of the
Meherians." (27)
There are a
couple of things that are interesting about the treaty. First, see that the
Virginia tribes who sign the agreement are called “Tributary Tribes”. Also note
Article fifteen, which states no Indian of those whose nations signed this
treaty, shall be enslaved. This article implies that Indian slave trading HAD
taken place, else there was no need for it to be mentioned. The Manakins and
Saponi's that signed it must have hoped that the slave raids upon them would
come to an end. They, with the Wayanoakes (later called “Eno”), were the only
Siouan names. The others are both Algonquin’s and Iroquian tribes/bands. This
explains why Byrd and other traders wanted the failure of such treaties -- they
wanted to still raid Indian towns for slaves.
Although
this treaty is called the "Treaty of 1677", it was still in the
process of being signed in 1680, and therefore must be the treaty referred to
in the Wood/Byrd comments made in the Alford book. (34)
Why was a
treaty of 1677 needed? Back to wikipedia, which says "Berkeley enacted friendly policies toward the Native Americans
that led to the revolt by some of the planters in 1676 which became known as
Bacon's Rebellion. In the aftermath, King Charles II was angered by the
retribution exacted against the rebels by Berkeley, and recalled him to
England."
So we have
another disagreement with Thornton. Governor Berkeley had been appointed
governor in Virginia during the reign of King Charles the First. In England,
Oliver Cromwell led a rebellion against the King and in 1649 during which time the
king was executed. Berkeley lost the governorship of Virginia as he was a
supporter of the King. When the monarchy was restored and Charles II became
king, Berkeley was restored as governor of Virginia. It was during these stormy
this time, in 1677, the treaty with the Indian Tribes was signed. (35)
Image 2.
Governor of Colonial Virginia from 1660-1677, Sir William Berkeley
One thing
we can agree on is that by this time, the 1670s, the Northern branch of the
Eastern Siouan peoples numbers had been greatly reduced, and they signed a
treaty that that they hoped would end the days when they had to fear the slave
traders.
Below is a
map (map 7) dated about 1650. Between 1650 and 1700 some major catastrophe must
have befallen the northern Siouan bands. The Manahoak, Saponi, Monacan, Tutelo
and others will flee from the Western portions of Virginia to take refuge
granted by Governor Spotswood of Virginia at Fort Christanna by the early 18th
century. If you will look at map 7 below, you will see only a few block the way
to the settlement of the western half of Virginia. With most no longer in their
ancestral lands, the settlement of the interior of Virginia can commence.
Map 7.
Eastern United States, Selected Indian Groups
Here is a
map compiled from data dating to about 1650. It was taken from page 10, 'The
Catawba Nation”, by Charles Hudson. Notice the Wateree have moved further
south. A side point. Are the Wateree and the Otari the same people? Just a
thought. Notice to the South of the Wateree are the Congaree Indians. It was
said of the Wateree and the Congaree, that they couldn't understand each other.
I have thought about that. How could this be? Unfortunately, Hudson says of the
Congaree and others in 'The Southeastern Indians (36);
“For some of these cultures, such as [Hudson names several cultures in
the Southeast, including the Congaree of South Carolina] we know little more than their names. There is much we will never know.”
I like this map because it shows most of the Eastern Siouan’s, from the
Manahoac in the North to the Sewee in the South. This is one of the few maps I
have seen that also contains both the Northern and Southern Siouan Bands. We
have dealt with the slave trade in Virginia, now let us look at the Indian
slave trade in the Carolinas. There are a couple of faults in the map. There is
no mention of the Joara/Saura/Cheraw. Secondly, it shows the Pedee Indians in
1650. There was no mention of the “Pedee Indians” until much later. The Coosa
are of Muscogeean origin, and I assume the Cosabo are as well. Coosa is of Muscogeean
origin. It makes no sense for them to be living so close to Siouan people.
Perhaps that was by agreement with the English to the East or Spanish further
south.
References:
26. A Journal from Virginia Beyond
the Appalachian Mountains in Septr., 1671, Sent to the Royal Society by Mr.
Clayton, and Read Aug. 1, 1688, Before the Said Society; The William and Mary
Quarterly; Vol. 15, No. 4 (Apr., 1907), pp. 235-241; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1915561
27. https://archive.org/stream/firstexploratio02bidggoog/firstexploratio02bidggoog_djvu.txt
Harvard
University Library of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology
GIFT of Lombard C. Jones; Falmouth, Massachusetts; The First Explorations of
the Trans- Allegheny Region by the Virginians 1650-1674; By Clarence Walworth
Alvord and Lee Bidgood; The Arthur H. Clark Company; (c) 1912
30.
“People From One Fire”, by
Richard Thornton, as it was found online --
https://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/people-of-one-fire.htm; late in 2016,
Web, Georgia, digital rights (c) 2010-2013, by Access Genealogy.com.
31. Ditto
33. Helen
Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 100. According to Helen Rountree, these
signatories were added in an annexe between April and June 1680. This shows the
1677 Treaty was the one for which Wood has asked to get all the Chiefs of the
nations to cooperate in 1680.
34. https://archive.org/stream/firstexploratio02bidggoog/firstexploratio02bidggoog_djvu.txt
Harvard
University Library of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology
GIFT of Lombard C. Jones; Falmouth, Massachusetts; The First Explorations of
the Trans- Allegheny Region by the Virginians 1650-1674; By Clarence Walworth
Alvord and Lee Bidgood; The Arthur H. Clark Company; (c) 1912
35. http://wikivisually.com/wiki/William_Berkeley_(governor)
36. “The
Southeastern Indians”; Charles Hudson; printed in 1982, 1984, © 1976 University
of Tennessee Press
Maps:
Map 6. 1673
Ogilby - Moxon Map from Francis L. Hawks' History of North Carolina from 1663
to 1729, Vol. II. E. J. Hale & Son: 1858 http://www.ncgenweb.us/pasquotank/maps/ogilby-moxon1673.html
Map 7. Cultural Areas of the Eastern United States Showing Selected Indian Groups, cerca 1650; compiled from Crocher and Swanton
Images:
Image 2. Governor of
Colonial Virginia from 1660-1677, Sir William Berkeley. He later became of the
eight original Lord Proprietors of the South Carolina Colony. Obtained via Wikipedia image of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment