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.

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 -
 * Nikwasi Mound -
 * Kituwah Mound -
 * Cowee Mound -, Mainspring Conservation
 * Biltmore Mound (called Untokiasdiyi by the Cherokee) -
 * (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) -
 * Cherokee Mounds in Western North Carolina -
 * James Mooney on Cherokee mound building -

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)
 * , 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 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. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-feb-09-adna-biltmore9-story.html. Why not add content and this article as additional material on Biltmore Mound?Parkwells (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated this as being in the Biltmore 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." However, Bill Alexander did not say this in the article. It is not in the Biltmore article anywhere. And the Biltmore article does not say the mound was created by the Connestee people, specifically, but that it originated from the Connestee phase which is a scientific label for a time period from 150-1000CE. My statement above had nothing to do with ancestral ties or claims of ancestral and yes, they are all theories because neither you, nor me, nor any scientist or archaeologist or historian was alive then. They may never find that link but it doesn't make it untrue or true, regardless. I only quoted what was actually in the article. The source is the source itself as it is the one that I am directly referencing. I have no issue with sourced material being added as long as all the information is added and sourced and presented in a neutral way from all perspectives, not slanted towards one or the other, which is precisely what your additions did. Discussions should be had before anything is added when questions have been raised. That is a consensus. The article doesn't belong to you or me. It should reflect all points of view. And please stop saying I haven't provided sources and then turning around and saying you are quoting my sources. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Startover - please see my notes above near the start of this discussion. I finally found the other Citizen Times article which had the quotes I added, and apologize again for the confusion. Am going back to read the Steere article, which is much more thorough. Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After reading your added notes and provided source this is my conclusion: They present one man's opinion based on his limited knowledge as a historian. His credentials are not discussed nor are his sources for his information. It is his opinion should not supersede traditional beliefs. Again, I am not saying that traditional beliefs should supersede his opinion either. I tend to side with tribal traditional beliefs over Modern-American archaeological research because they can never get close to 100% accurate. They can't know everything. And any honest historian will tell you these are educated guesses that are more like predictions based on indicators and not at all to be considered factual without a shadow of a doubt. Also, if we are going to say that the Cherokee aren't mound builders, well, the Muscogee-Creek aren't either. They came after the Mississippian culture that was their direct ancestors too. Which means they just used the mounds that were already built. See how silly that sounds? That's like saying Americans didn't build towns like Philadelphia and Boston because they were a British Colony at the time of the building. They only improved, expanded and built on top of the existing town. And the towns exchanged hands only after a revolution so because they exchanged hands the Americans can't claim any building built before that time as being American. They are British buildings. That's asinine to even suggest. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Biltmore Mound articles
Let's start over. Thank you for clarifying this, but I am baffled. I certainly did not make up those quotes. Perhaps in reading your cited article, I moved to a related one by Citizen Times, or to one put out by the Mainspring Conservation Trust,and forgot. There were photos and pop-outs that do not appear in the Citizen Times article cited by you, when I look at it again. My apologies; will try to sort it out tomorrow.Parkwells (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of the other mounds, I was trying to use the sources to see what was said. For Nikwasi, I added that it was built by the Mississippian culture and was also a Cherokee town and mound. This seems to me to cover the extended history of the site, based on all the sources. The Lead is not supposed to have citations but is supposed to represent material in the body of the article. Will have to look again but believe that the mound was attributed to the Mississippian culture in the NRHP nomination. I am also doing more current reading.Parkwells (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Ideally, everything is supposed to be sourced. The Lede should be worded in such a way as to only summarize the most important facts that make the subject notable and should be sourced per WP:MOSLEAD. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why haven't you added sources to the Lede, including its definition of history?Parkwells (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead of this article
"Cherokee history is the written and oral lore, traditions, and historical record maintained by the living Cherokee people and their ancestors." This seems an unusual definition, implying only the Cherokee records constitute their history. Other peoples wrote about the Cherokee, and events concerning them appear in records written and maintained by other peoples. The article cites early English colonists recording observations about the Cherokee. If the intent is to imply that the Cherokee control the interpretation of their history, that is different from saying that Cherokee history is limited to what its people maintain. No one limits what historians write about. There may be historical consensus, as established among scholars and others who agree on interpretation at a particular time, but the above statement seems to be reaching in a different direction.Parkwells (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have to provide direct links to sources when adding anything and make sure that what you include from those sources presents a neutral POV. You can't remove, alter or discount Cherokee oral traditions to skew the reader towards only what historians say because you believe they are right and oral tradition is wrong. A consensus on Wikipedia does not necessarily have to follow a consensus made by historians when there are others who form a consensus too. Historians are not the supreme authority on what is truth but are simply one piece that can be included when properly sourced. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop lecturing me on process. I was asking a question, trying to understand the intent of the first sentence, which seemed unusual. In my previous efforts, I was not discounting Cherokee tradition, but trying to add to it. Why not identify and attribute mounds known to have been built (in terms of archeology) by the Hopewell or Mississippian cultures? They are all ancestral to the Cherokee, as you said.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At every turn you are misrepresenting what is said by myself and others. You have misquoted sources, even some I presented. You have lectured me on the existence of my ancestors. You went to these articles earlier this year and completely changed wording within said articles without gaining a consensus or adding in-line citations so your sources could be reviewed. Simply stating that historians and archaeologist believe something doesn't make it so and it also doesn't present a neutral POV when there is another side to the story that says something different. It can't be presented as irrefutable facts when it is obviously controversial. It is no different than the oral traditions being presented and not sourced. Those made it through, in some cases, without someone challenging them probably because it's hard to find those sources. However, we are supposed to be trying to improve the articles which means in-line references are a must when including/changing information. That's not lecturing, that's required, especially when you have someone like myself raising questions about the validity of what you are posting.
 * In regards to the mounds themselves, you probably wouldn't have even heard from me had you not went on an article specifically about the Cherokee people and Cherokee history and definitively stated the "Cherokee are not mound builders". I found evidence in two minutes that destroyed your assertions. Even if the mounds were already there in some cases, they were added to and rebuilt by the Cherokee and townhouses built on top. These mounds were the political and religious centers of Cherokee villages. To say they were not mound builders is refusing evidence that they were. This is an article on the history of the Cherokee people and their interactions with those they came in contact with.
 * You have also asserted in almost every case that the Cherokee came much later and that the Mississippian and Hopewell Culture excludes the Cherokee so please don't make out like you have been trying to add to Cherokee tradition. You keep trying to add Muscogee history in an article on Cherokee history and expect me to believe you are trying to be neutral. Then you lecture me when I challenge you and flat out lie to an admin saying that I keep making changes to your user talk page when I simply wrote two sentences on your talk page and that came well after the initial conversations. I tried to assume good faith from the beginning even attempting to get you involved in discussions but I see you are not concerned with discussing anything. You keep plowing forward adding your disruptive language to these article because you are trying to destroy not improve anything. No one, not even the Cherokee today, has ever said the Cherokee were the native population the Spanish met at Joara. So why does it even need to be included in an article on the Cherokee? Let me explain why. Because you are just itching to get any word in on every Cherokee article you can that discredits any assertion they built a mound. You even went to an article that had nothing about mounds just to see if it did because that's what you have done since May of this year. If I want to learn about Muscogee history I will go to an article on the Muscogee Creek. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Tsistunagiska, I have already acknowledged making some error on the Biltmore article and confusing where some of the discussion was taking place (not on my User page), and apologized for it. But that does not seem enough. You reverted all my work from 11/7 and 11/8, labeling all the reversions on 11/9 all as being for "non-sourced non-neutral POV". I finally looked at this work again. Most of the changes you reverted were copy editing word choices; they did not change the substance of the sentences, and I do not think other editors would consider them "non-sourced non-neutral POV". You also reverted my first attempt to provide credit to Sequoyah with creating the Cherokee syllabary. You also reverted my adding "Francis" to the Vardon census (I wanted to give readers more information who, like me, may not have been familiar with him); again you said it "non-sourced non-neutral POV", but the cited source was already at the end of that sentence. Adding his name does not seem to be POV. From that first sweep, you have accused me every day of bias, and insulted me more in three days than in my years of working on often heated articles with other editors on Wikipedia, as you do again above. Your assertion about what you think was my intention with Joara is mistaken, by the way.Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You know what, I was going to write another paragraph but I am not wasting my time on this anymore. I am completely justified in my responses and actions and any admin is welcome to review all of your diffs going back to May and every action I took to defend these articles. I welcome them to review everything, whether they draw the same conclusion as me or not. Arbitrarily making a decision on the addition of contentious content to an existing article without attempting to gain a consensus from the community has never been a practice celebrated by Wikipedia. The key to your statement above was "working" "with other editors", something you completely failed to do prior to making changes in this case. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Origins
This is a summary of the oral history and origins of the Cherokee people as passed down by the ancestors and it was recorded by the University of North Carolina: "The Cherokee, members of the Iroquoian language group, are descended from the native peoples who occupied the southern Appalachian Mountains beginning in approximately 8000 b.c.(bce) (or during the Archaic Period). By 1500 b.c.(bce) (Savannah River Phase), a distinct Cherokee language had developed, and by 1000 a.d.(ce) (Connestee Phase and Pisgah Phase) the Cherokee were living a Woodland lifestyle with unique cultural characteristics influenced by Mississippian religious traditions. The growing and harvesting of corn, or selu, beans, and squash—the Cherokee "three sisters"—were ascribed deep spiritual significance, as were other occupations, including hunting, the care and cleaning of homes, the gathering of other essential foods, games, dances, and religious ceremonies. The central philosophy of duyuktv, meaning "the right way," prescribed that the Cherokee attempt to obtain harmony and balance in every aspect of their lives, particularly with respect to the natural world. Communal responsibility and sacrifice were essential to the Cherokee vision of life, as symbolized by the central plaza—used for public ceremonies—and the council house, or town house, which held the "sacred fire," embodying the spiritual essence of the town. Besides food, the environment provided all that the people needed, including medicine, clothing, weapons, shelter, musical instruments, and personal adornments. The governing of Cherokee towns was through democratic consensus as well as the leadership of priests, war chiefs, and peace chiefs. Familial ties and clan affiliations came through Cherokee women, who owned the houses and fields and passed them on to their daughters." ~ University of North Carolina

Historians and archaeologist can theorize all they want about the history of a culture but, as was pointed out, they are limited because they can only look for technology, not language and culture, present at a location and they group that technology into phases they created (Archaic, Woodland, Connestee, Pisgah and Qualla). Any society that is influenced by those around them or even shared a common origin would also adapt and employ similar technological, religious, economic and social practices over thousands of years. According to oral tradition the Cherokee were present in the region long before the Pisgah Phase. Even historians agree that the language differences between the Iroquois and Cherokee are such that they have long been separated as a linguistic grouping. Historians and many others are doing the same thing as many colonial powers did, including the US, when shoving groups, cultures, clans and tribes together and just believing they are exactly the same. "Hey, they could be distinct individual tribes of people but lets just call them the Mississippian culture because they look similar." --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Contentious Statements
I do not see the point in having these statements in an article on the history of the Cherokee people when they do not claim to have built these specific structures.

"Several Mississippian culture sites in the Southeast were in the nineteenth century thought to have been built by the Cherokee. These included Moundville in present-day Alabama and Etowah Mounds in present-day Georgia, described as "the most intact Mississippian culture site in the Southeast." The Mississippian culture were ancestors of the historic Muskogean language-speaking Muscogee Creek people, who later emerged in this area. The Cherokee did not arrive in this area of Georgia until the late eighteenth century but occupied and named the towns and mounds, considering them sacred."

"Later Cherokee culture shows some association with Pisgah Phase sites, which were part of the Southern Appalachian Mississippian Culture. Artifacts from historic Cherokee villages featured [[iconography from the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, but this is believed likely to have been due to Cherokee assimilation of regional survivors during the expansion of this people."


 * In-line reference #6 takes you to a site that explains the Southeast Archeological Center and says nothing about these mounds.
 * In-line reference #7 discusses the origins of Moundville but doesn't even mention the Cherokee
 * In-line reference #8 gives a short synopsis on the Etowah mounds, again, never mentioning any claim the Cherokee built the mounds.
 * In-line reference #9 is a dead link but I found it doing a search here. It never says the Muscogee Creek are the sole surviving descendants of the large Mississippian Culture as claimed here.
 * In-line reference #10 is a book that I can't access from here. However I did find this from the New Georgia Encyclopedia which asserts that both the Creek and Cherokee descended from Mississippian Period chiefdoms who built mound complexes throughout the Southeast, including Georgia. And that the Cherokee settled in and around the lower Appalachian mountains long before the Spanish incursions of the 16th century.

The second part of that sentence is not sourced and neither is the entire next paragraph. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project
Hi, thanks for the UNC summary of oral tradition; do you have a date or source information to add to the Cherokee history article, or how do you want to handle it? It would be useful to have a url so that other readers could access it from the article, rather than the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You had noted Benjamin Steere's 2015 article about the Cherokee mounds project, initiated by the Eastern Band of Cherokee and the Coweeta program at University of Georgia. The way he described it, they are working to map and identify archeologically prehistoric Woodland and Mississippian period mounds in the homeland territory and Cherokee towns and townhouses, in collaboration with the EBCI community and oral traditions, to create a database and more study of these sites and the overall homeland. He suggests that the townhouses were a historic Cherokee development of a different style of public architecture, and that they built them on top of the mounds. Over time, the Cherokee also expanded the mounds and replaced the townhouses, as you have said. Is this framework of interest to you as a consensus basis for the Cherokee history article covering those periods? Thanks for recommending Steere; I still have much to study there.Parkwells (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In response: I don't think anything else can be added of substance to this article. In fact, it's my opinion that too much information has been included, a lot of which has nothing to do directly with Cherokee history. From a historical stand point, The Cherokee, if they were building mounds as a predecessor in the Mississippian culture, were not building mounds by the historic time of the Cherokee. But this is also true of the Muscogee/Creeks, Shawnee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Yuchi and other tribes. By the time of Anglo-American contact none of these were mound-building societies any more. The article should focus, briefly, on the time period before the historic phase of the Cherokee only because so little is known about who immediately came before the Cherokee, and even less on the Mississippian culture that may have predated it. It should pick up with the historic phase of Cherokee and proceed to recent history. Everything else not related directly with or tied to the Cherokee should be removed. This article should be about Cherokee history, the traditional beliefs, known scientific beliefs and theorized beliefs where it can be sourced. Everything else needs to be left in their respective associated articles. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Current editing

 * I worked today in editing to reorganize the Cherokee history article more chronologically (mostly based on content and sources already in the article, which were mostly not mine, as you can see from the History. Given the length of the discussions on this Talk page, it has been impossible so far to check all the sources in the article.) I incorporated and cited some of Steere's material from his 2015 article on the Mounds and Towns project to try to establish a better overall framework. I also corrected material in the Cherokee history article, distinguishing between the Mississippian culture period in their homeland, where the prehistoric peoples were their ancestors, and AL and GA. In the latter region, the Mississippian culture peoples were generally considered ancestral to the historic Muscogee. The reason that I included that was because there had been confusion. It was easier to try to begin to incorporate Steere's material on Cherokee history, in order to be able to show you, than to write it all on this Talk page. Would you be interested in looking at it and telling me what you think in terms of general approach? We appear to be the only two people currently working on this article.Parkwells (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that "Mississippian culture" people split into many tribes and nations depending on location. The Shawnee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee, Yamassee and Catawba and even the Iroquois themselves may have originated from the Mississippian culture of people. We may never know exactly but it has just as much merit as any other ideas out there. Steere gets a lot of things right and I don't really have any issues with the study. I have read it multiple times already. Any discussion about American Indians of the Southeast begins with the understanding that when they say "Mississipian", "Pisgah", "Woodland", "Qualla" and "Connestee" they are not speaking about one specific culture of people but a time and location. That makes it easier to group things together because we historically love to do that as humans. They could be talking about dozens or hundreds of cultures that have a linguistic and/or technological connection. I think we are getting caught up in those words too much. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been frustrating for both of us. I'm sorry we've had so much difficulty but am turning it over to you. You and others can rewrite it as you wish, and find new sources to replace out-of-date ones. You can see from the History that many people were involved on this article for years before me. My contribution was very small, but you have decided I'm responsible for all its wrongs. I can't fix everything at once, and we are at cross purposes.Parkwells (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not mine. It's meant to be shared and discussed together and changes agreed to by community consensus. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Joara

 * , I am seriously wanting to have a civil conversation concerning the portion of this article on Joara. Is there any connection between the Cherokee or the Mississippian culture that potentially became the Cherokee or were the Cherokee at the time of the Spanish expeditions into interior North Carolina? Is that the assertion you are trying to make? If so then scientific research or tribal tradition needs to be presented as evidence so that the reader is not confused. This is an article on Cherokee history, specifically, and is meant to be about the tribal nation and people and their origins. To date, I can not find nor have I ever been taught any tribal traditions that link Joara to the Cherokee. The town was too far east to be connected. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The section probably needs expansion. Cherokee-speaking peoples were recorded near Joara and other Mississippian culture settlements by both the Hernando de Soto (who noted them as "Chalaque" - Parkwells) and Juan Pardo expeditions. Pardo's people built five more forts west of Joara (but these have not been identified or excavated), and visited what Charles M. Hudson and others interpret as Cherokee towns, including Tocae near modern Asheville. Here is what Hudson has said (there is also other material). This is from Chiaha article:

The chroniclers of De Soto and Pardo show that Cherokee-speaking people coexisted with Mississippian Muskogean-speakers as early as the 16th century. Cherokee-speaking people lived in the mountains between Joara and Chiaha, most notably at Guasili, a village in the Nolichucky valley visited by De Soto. 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)

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)