“Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South” is available

8 03 2010

Students: You can now pick up your copy of “Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South” at the UNC Bookstore!! It’s finally here! Also, see my website, http://malindamaynorlowery.wordpress.com for more info and updates on the book!




Jenna Price – Reflection #1

26 01 2010

Stanley Knick, in Because it is Right, makes the case that the Lumbee tribe should be granted full acknowledgment by the federal government.  She pulls both from archaeological and historical evidence to support what she believes is the right of the Lumbee people.  Using archaeological evidence that extends as far back as the state of North Carolina itself, and much farther, she shows that the Lumbee people have always been in North Carolina.  Knick also shows that archaeological evidence indicates that Native Americans have populated Robeson County since prehistoric times, and by rather large populations.  Knick also refutes the ‘Indians-moved-in-and-settled theory’ with archaeological evidence from at least thirty-one sites by the Lumbee River with late Woodland artifacts, suggesting that there was Indian occupation if Robeson County between 1200-1750 AD.

Knick discredits the argument that Lumbee is a made up name by referring to a couple of historic mentions of the name Lumbee (in regard to the River).  She also refers to the survival of traditional elements of Lumbee culture, and identity as another reason why the Lumbee should be nationally recognized.

Although Knick shows that there has been consistent Native American occupation of what is now Robeson County for hundreds of years, I do not feel like the archaeological evidence always clearly indicates that the Lumbee are the specific tribe that continually inhabited this land.  I would question this notion and conduct further research on it by reviewing Knick’s sources, as well as researching other archaeological evidence of Indian occupation of this land.

The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians 1540-1760

In Aboriginal Population Movements in the Postcontact Southeast, Marvin Smith presents a chronological series of maps attempting to show movements and migration patterns of Native Americans over time.  He also identifies many of the “push and pull” factors that dictated where the movements led including disease, political factionalism, European settlement, trade, favorable land/territories, and wars.

In The Great Southeastern Smallpox Epidemic, 1696-1700: The Region’s First Major Epidemic?, Paul Kelton argues that the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Native American tribes can be dated and traced in a four-year time span from 1696-1700.  He argues that this four year-period was almost solely responsible for the vast decline in Indian populations from disease.  He details the characteristics of the smallpox virus that made it so deadly, as well as provides evidence to show that this had to be the disease that almost wiped out the Indian population.  Kelton also describes the events  leading up to this time that specifically fostered the epidemic – events that had to happen in order for the disease to have the necessary outlets to spread so far.

In Trouble Coming Southward: Emanations through and from Virginia. 1607-1675, Helen Rountree shows that by the mid-seventeenth century, Native Americans were in fact, making long-distance journeys, and there was much more movement among the Native Americans and Europeans than originally suspected.

In The Mother of Necessity, Hahn details the effects European trade had on the life and economy of Native Americans.

In The Cultural Landscape of the North Carolina Piedmont at Contact, Davis maps the cultural changes that occurred in Native American peoples as a result of European settlement, war, and disease.

All of these articles seem to heavily rely on historical and archaeological evidence to support their ideas.  I wonder if there is any other outlet in which to support or dismiss the presented arguments.  I have no idea if these other outlets even exist, but I would start with a very broad search for any evidence that is not strictly historical or strictly archaeological – maybe there could be significant evidence in art, or folklore, etc.




Chris Burris #1

26 01 2010

This week’s reading from The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians 1540-1760 addresses multiple topics in post-European contact history of the numerous Native American tribes of the Southeast, primarily regarding the area comprised of modern-day Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, but with some extensions south as far as Florida and west into Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia.  Broadly speaking, all of the assigned papers from the collection discuss the specific effects and causes of European influence on native populations from the 16th century onward, focusing on the impact of disease, slaving, European trade goods, and political tension between peoples.  All of them attempt to reconcile the modern known archaeological record of the region with the sparse and sometimes contradictory primary source accounts of European explorers, traders, and colonists of the time period.

Marvin T. Smith’s essay Aboriginal Population Movements in the Postcontact Southeast attempts to catalog some of the major population movements between 1500 and 1735, including a series of maps.  He furthermore is concerned with discussing the factors that caused these movements, and argues that not only were early population movements over greater distances than some scholars have previously imagined, but also were due to a complex confluence of “push” and “pull” factors that affected the populations.  Push factors such as disease and political factionalism cause a population to leave a previously settled area, while pull factors such as trade, missions, favorable environmental conditions, and coalescence between similar linguistic or cultural groups influence a population to come to a new area.  He concludes that the large number of factors involved, combined with scant historical and archaeological evidence, make it difficult to divine exactly the reasons for these movements, and proposes a few potential avenues for further research.  The next essay, by Paul Kelton, addresses the one specific push factor of disease, specifically smallpox, and argues that the first major regional epidemic occurred at the very end of the 17th century.  He cites smallpox’s long incubation period, ease of communicability, and extremely high mortality rate as evidence that smallpox is primarily responsible for the massive depopulation around this time period, and also that this was the first major epidemic because only then was the Indian slave trade network extensive and far-reaching enough for the epidemic to be able to spread so widely and devastatingly.

Helen C. Rountree’s essay is concerned with both native and European movements from and through Virginia in the early to middle 17th century and argues that long-distance European exploration occurred earlier than is commonly believed by as many as several decades, due to the prospect of trade and colonial expansion.  Rather than this southward movement on the part of the Europeans starting around the 1670s, she asserts it began “piecemeal” long before that, due to exploratory forays south in search of potential trading partners, Indian workers, and agricultural space.  Steven Hahn’s essay in Chapter 5 addresses the Yamasee War and the Creek dependency on European goods as the primary motivating factor for political and socioeconomic conflict between native populations and Europeans.  The advent of British mercantilism with the Navigation Acts spurred colonial leaders to seek highly profitable trade agreements with Indians, primarily receiving captured Indian slaves as payment for their goods, and this in turn caused the native populations to become indebted to the Europeans, which eventually led to massive conflict between a large confederacy of Creeks and other local tribes and Europeans in the form of the Yamasee War.

The final reading from the Transformations text is by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and discusses the cultural landscape of North Carolina native populations and their change over time, providing maps to illustrate, and is focused primarily on reconciling archaeological data with the available historical accounts of European exploration in the region.  He argues that due to the rapid cultural changes brought about by European contact, Iroquois raiding, disease, and other related factors, the apparently contradictory accounts of early explorers through the Piedmont with regards to village locations, etc are not in fact contradictory at all, but can be explained by the fact that many of the tribes in question were annihilated by disease, relocated frequently, or coalesced with one another.

Stanley Knick’s essay Because It Is Right is also concerned with the reconciliation of archaeological evidence and historical accounts, but is focused primarily on the origins and validity of the name Lumbee in furtherance of arguing for federal aid beyond mere recognition for the modern Lumbee.  He asserts the name has been in use for hundreds of years to describe the original local population around the Lumber River, and makes a case for continuous population in the area since prehistory, long before European contact, by drawing upon archaeological evidence.  He is concerned with eliminating the misconception that the current Indian-descended population of Robeson County is the result of post-colonial coalescence of refugee native populations from elsewhere, asserting that although there was migration to the area during this time, it added to an already significant and ever-present population from the area.

In reading these selections, I became curious about the greater extent of the Indian slave trade in particular and its impact on the native populations.  The reading suggests that captured slaves, rather than crops or other natural resources, were far and away the most desired commodity for European traders, and as Southeastern tribes became increasingly dependent on European goods to survive, the demand for slaves increased.  I am interested in whether this exaggerated the already-present paradigm of conflict between native populations, in particular with regards to the Iroquois who seem to have been by far the most aggressive group.  Obviously, other factors contributed to the massive and rapid cultural and geographic evolution of the native populations post-contact, in particular the horrendously devastating depopulation by disease, but it seems to me that the European influence on natives to capture each other as slaves to trade for guns, powder, tools, cloth and other manufactured goods initiated a self-destructive downward spiral of sorts that contributed greatly to the eventual decline and disappearance of the vast majority of the native population.  With specific regards to the Lumbee, this investigation would inquire as to the reasons for the movement to Robeson County of Cheraws, Tuscaroras, and Algonkians who coalesced with the already-present native population, in order to perhaps further define the nature of the modern-day Lumbee population and their origins.

Sources I would consult for this (found on the Lumbee Bibliography website and in the bibliography of the Southeastern text) include:

Knick, Stanley. Robeson Trails Archaeological Survey: Reconnaissance in Robeson County. Pembroke: Native American Resource Center, Pembroke State U, 1988. NC Docs. Depository: microfiche G85 2: R65

Smith, Marvin T.  Archaeology of Aboriginal Cultural Change in the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early Historic Period.  Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1987.

Montgomerie, Deborah. “Coming to terms: Ngai Tahu, Robeson County Indians and the Garden Band of Ojibwa, 1840-1940. Three studies of colonialism in action.” Dissertation. Duke U, 1993.

Further avenues of research would be to consult archaeological evidence, such as can be found through the archaeology page on the website, and searches for more detailed and comprehensive maps of population movements around Robeson County throughout post-contact history, as well as for more general information from both primary and secondary sources related to the colonial Indian slave trade and trade routes in general, both European and Native American.





Kristen Gnau #1

26 01 2010

Before I dive into a more specific area of Lumbee culture for the semester, I am finding it helpful to get a bit of an overview of Lumbee political and cultural history.  For someone just starting research on the Lumbee people, like myself, Stanley Knick’s article, “Because It Is Right,” is a great place to begin.

The question Knick raises is, “Why should the Lumbee be fully recognized by the federal government?” (80).  When I first read the article and really considered his question, I realized I could not get past the titular answer, “Because it is right.”  Obviously Knick agrees with this simplified answer, but he also provides several concrete reasons for full federal recognition.  His reasoning ultimately boils down to this: there have always been native people in the land of the Lumbee and through centuries of struggle, these people have survived.

In response to the argument that the Lumbee are simply a post-Colonial amalgamation of other peoples or tribes, Knick points to the diversity of influences that existed before colonialism.  By doing so, he draws attention away from archeological evidence of post-colonial tribal migration.  Knick argues that archeological evidence consistent with typical artifacts of the area was found alongside artifacts from other areas, simply indicating an exchange (but not indicating the “Indians-moved-in-and-settled theory”).  In other words, Knick does not want the evidence of non-Lumbee influence to overshadow evidence supporting pre-colonial Lumbee existence.  Knick then goes on to explain that other evidence from present-day Robeson County shows signs of Native Americans pre-Columbus and perhaps even dating back to AD 1200!  Knick approaches the archeological evidence from a view angled at pre-Columbian time.

Knick himself says, “We seldom arrive at the truth by looking at only a part of the evidence” (85).  This is where The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians comes in.  It presents its evidence in a manner completely opposite of the way Knick presents “Because It Is Right.”

The essayists in The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians approach the archeological evidence and evidence of tribal migration from a post-Columbian angle.  In his article, Knick does not deny the existence of post-Columbian tribal movement, but he goes into little detail on specific migration patterns and reasons for migration.  In The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, Marvin T. Smith explains in detail why native people migrated to or away from certain areas.  The European arrival, disease, and the slave trade are three of the most extensively discussed, all obviously occurring post-Columbus.

Smith partially explains a disappearance of Lumbee language by pointing to a coalescence of similar tribal languages during migration (as a result of European influences).  Knick also points to European colonization for the disappearance of the native Lumbee language.  However, Knick argues that the persistence of the word “Lumbee” itself is evidence enough of an ancestral language—and a reason for full federal recognition.

Before reading the sources my answer to, “Why should the Lumbee be fully recognized by the federal government?,” was “Why not?”  After reading the essays, the main question on my mind was: Why is the research so inconsistent?

First, I would like to research more background information on the tribe’s relationship with the federal government and why they are not federally recognized.  http://www.lumbee.org/history.html provides a chronological list of Lumbee history and legislation, which seems like a good starting place.  Also by searching newspaper databases or government websites I could use keywords like “Lumbee federal recognition” or “Lumbee recognition bill” to learn more background about the argument for and the reasons against recognition.  Secondly, is there enough concrete archeological evidence pointing to native people in the Robeson County area pre-Columbus, to overshadow migration patters post-Columbus?  Both sources (Knick and Smith) indicate that the area around what is today’s Robeson County is poorly known.  Because of this, archeological evidence is overshadowed by historical evidence in today’s case for federal recognition.  More research linking historical evidence and archeological evidence must be performed in order to build a strong case for Lumbee existence pre-Columbus in order to debunk arguments against full federal recognition.

To research this topic further, I would begin by using our website’s archeology link.  Sources from UNC’s Research Labs of Archeology are linked from this page.  The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians has many maps routing tribal migration and these could be studied alongside archeological research in the area. The Robeson County newspaper also contains articles relevant to our study, such as “Study Reveals Indians Inhabited Robeson County 14,000 Years Ago.” Robesonian 7 Nov. 1988: B1.

Another point of interest for me in the articles was the discussion of the Lumbee language, its disappearance, and the persistence of the name “Lumbee.”  Glenn Ellen Starr Stilling’s annotated bibliography seems like a great place to start looking for literature on the origins of the name “Lumbee” (this website also has an archeology link).




Walker Elliott-Weekly Reflection#1

26 01 2010

This week’s assigned readings—five essays from The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians and Knick’s “Because it is Right”—mainly address the early post-contact history of Southeastern Indian groups. All six sources rely heavily on archeological information, but the five essays from Transformation and Knick’s piece differ in the historical lenses through which they view this evidence. While the five essayists use archaeology to interpret contemporary European written records, Knick instead frames archaeological evidence in terms of modern debates over Lumbee ancestry and recognition.

That is not to imply, of course, that one approach is more valuable or “correct” than the other. The authors simply have different emphases and agendas. Davis, for example, is interested in explaining the apparent contradictions in the accounts of early white explorers in present North Carolina. Why, he asks, do these accounts differ so greatly in their descriptions of the area’s towns, ethnic groups, and other political/cultural features? (154). His solution, which he supports with current archaeological research, is that explorers’ accounts in fact accurately portray the rapid changes among the Indian groups during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Due to warfare, depopulation, and other factors, North Carolina’s Indian groups frequently migrated and/or merged to form new political units (143). The other essayists roughly agree on major issues, but each tells a different side of the story. Smith tries to explain the general migration patterns of post-contact Indian groups. He weighs several feasible “push” and “pull” factors. Broadly stated, he argues that European colonization brought sudden depopulation and upset intertribal balances of power. As a result, Indian groups relocated over long distances, sometimes to attractive, newly-emptied areas (3-7). Kelton picks up one of Smith’s factors—disease—and treats it in greater depth. Specifically, he focuses on the great regional smallpox outbreak that occurred between about 1690 and 1700. After weighing several epidemiological issues, he concludes that the 1690s outbreak was the first major smallpox epidemic in the area. He then links the timing of the outbreak with the growing size of the Euro and African American population and its increased contact with Native peoples (35-36). While Kelton approaches the subject from a scientific perspective, the other two authors use military-political and economic theories to explain tribal migration and coalescence patterns. Rountree posits that Jamestown’s increasing aggression and intertribal unrest in the Mid-Atlantic pushed many indigenous groups through Virginia and into present North Carolina (72-75). Hahn, for his part, argues chiefly that trade relationships between Creeks and English colonists altered the regional balance of power and led to conflicts such as the Yemasee war (80-82).

To say that Knick’s piece contradicts the five essays in Transformation would be an exaggeration. But his purpose—to use documentary and archaeological evidence to promote Lumbee recognition—does lead him to make a different argument. Whereas the essayists heavily emphasize indigenous migration patterns, Knick downplays its importance. He acknowledges that some migration into the Robeson County took place, but he takes great care to discount what he terms “the ‘Indians-moved-in-and-settled’ theory” (82). To further his point, he uses archaeological evidence to argue that Indians have continuously inhabited the area since the 13th century (83). For Knick, this evidence is important in contradicting claims that Lumbees are not “real” Indians or that they are a product of the 20th century. Knick also differs in the documentary evidence he cites. Unlike the essayists, who are interested in explaining 17th and 18th century written records, Knick uses more recent documents to legitimize Lumbees’ tribal identity. To prove that the name “Lumbee” has a long history, for example, he cites two late 19th century letters and a 1941 Pembroke State yearbook (84-85).  Despite these differences in source material and emphasis, Knick broadly agrees with the other authors on the matter of coalescence. Yet for Knick, coalescence is not simply an interesting demographic/political trend. It is instead an important part of his explanation of why Lumbees speak English and lack many stereotypically Indian cultural traits (86-87).

Knick’s argument about the age of the Lumbee name intrigued me, and it made me realize how little I know about the ’56 recognition process. In particular, I am curious as to whether contemporary Lumbees argued for the “authenticity” of the Lumbee name before Congress. Moreover, I am interested in what place names can tell us about Indian groups—from the Transformation texts, I got a clear sense that the Southeastern landscape is littered with tribal place names. But I would like to know more about those river names that resemble “ee”—the Santee, Wateree, Congaree, etc. I know that these rivers are supposedly named after Siouan-speaking tribes, but I wonder if anyone knows more about when Europeans adopted those names, the naming process, etc.  Also, what about the Tuscaroras? I am vaguely aware that many Robeson County Indians self-identify as Tuscarora, yet one of the essays mentioned that the group left to join the northern Iroquois after the Tuscarora War. How well documented is this migration? Were remnants left behind in North Carolina? And most importantly, what is the significance of the Tuscarora label, and what tensions exist between the Lumbee and Tuscarora communities?

To find out more about the role of the Lumbee name in the recognition process, I would most likely go straight to primary documents. In his bibliography, Knick lists the original petition. This document is not listed in UNC’s online catalog, but I would bet that the circulation desk could pull it out of government documents for me. The other questions I raised deal with the less recent past, and I suspect primary documentation is poor or nonexistent. In order to get the lay of the land, I would turn to secondary sources. If I were researching Siouan river names, I would probably start with James H. Merrell’s history of early post-contact Catawbas and “their neighbors.” I found this book through the online catalog. Catawba Indians are ethnolinguistically similar to the Wateree, Santee, et al, but they are better documented. Also, the title of Merrell’s book suggests that it could cover other Siouan-speaking tribes.  Finally, to address the Tuscarora issue, Sider’s Living Indian Histories seems like a decent place to start.

Citations:

Pierce et al., “Lumbee Federal Recognition Petition.”

Merrell, James H.. The Indians’ New World : Catawbas and their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

Sider, Gerald M.  Living Indian Histories: Lumbee and Tuscarora people in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.




Kasey Oxendine #1

26 01 2010

Because It Is Right by Stanley Knick

As the largest tribe east of the Mississippi River the Lumbee’s are still struggling for federal recognition. The have been recognized by the state since 1885. Congress recognized them in 1956 and terminated them with the same act. In an attempt to explain why the Lumbee’s should be recognized, Stanley Knick uses anthropology and history to support his argument. Archaeological evidence such as Clovis points dates the presence of Native Americans in Robeson county back as far as Paleo-Indian times. Woodland artifacts date Indian occupation to between AD 1200 and 1750. Archaeology also shows that there have been a variety of cultural influences for more than 100 years disputing the argument against Lumbee recognition due to the assertion mixture of Siouan, Algonkian, and Iroquoian people. The historical-genealogical record and archaeological record overlaps.

Other Native populations moved into the area between the time of the Lost Colony (1580’s) and the Civil war (1860’s). The Lumbee word’s origins are ambiguous; the name was accepted in 1956 by the government.  The first written document of the word was in 1888 by Hamilton Macmillian referencing the Lumbee River. In the 1880’s Lumbee elders sited the word. Angus McLean sited the word in reference to it the Indians along the Lumbee River speaking broken English. Many people died at the site referenced to as the Lost Colony. Language changed as tribes came together and their culture did also. Medicine practices were passed down to children such as the use of sassafras. Kinship importance is evident from the frequency of questions in the tribe like “who are your people?” Knick credits the existence of the Lumbee people with the coalescence of the Lumbee with other tribes.

The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians

Chapter 1

Marvin T. Smith outlines the population movements influenced by push and pull factors. The push of disease forced people to migrate. Smith is uncertain of the frequency of the epidemics.   Political factionalism sometimes pushed tribes to separate and/or relocate to newly unoccupied areas. Conflict in the disputes between kinship groups was hard to resolve in instances such as clan or lineage vengeance.  European settlement and trade pulled tribes to trading areas. The Creeks relocated closer toward European trade but this may be due to the Spaniards burning their homes. Favorable environmental zones for fishing, planting and natural fords attracted Indians while the deserted lands were filled by other tribes. The Iroquois conquered tribes to the west of them leading to the movement of people into the western Great Lakes Region and the movement of those people into the plains. Delgado documented movements due to warfare. Indian elites moved their people closer to Spaniards to increase their power. Interior native’s attraction to coastal missions resulted in their voluntary movement.  Cultural similarities also pulled people together. Native groups often meshed with those speaking a similar language. In early Jamestown slavery was not important due to the economic instability and lack of a slave market. Slavery depopulated areas and made them attractive for settlement. Smith uses a series of maps to support the push pull factors referenced in the beginning of the Chapter.

Chapter 2

Paul Kelton describes the Smallpox Epidemic in his essay The Great Southeastern Smallpox Epidemic, 1696-1700: The Region’s First Major Epidemic. Smallpox often struck entire villages and spread beyond the point of contact with Europeans. It spread through the Southeast between 1696 and 1700 meriting the title the Great Southeastern Smallpox Epidemic. The slave trade and other trade accelerated the spread of smallpox. The long incubation period and the ability to live without a host also contributed greatly to the spread of Smallpox in contract to acute infectious disease such as typhus and measles etc. There is a small possibility that smallpox arrived by direct contact with Europeans due to their party being men when the disease struck European children.  It is likely that the disease was spread via cloth such as blankets. The buffer zones of the social landscape of the Southeast may have made it hard for smallpox viruses to spread. Smallpox was spread from Virginia to North Carolina.

Chapter 4

Helen C. Rountree accounts for some of the Virginian exploration of North Carolina. Jamestown colony sent people in search of the “Lost Colony.” Trade and war with tribes made for a way for Powhatan to become powerful. Tobacco cultivation and fur trade were ways get wealthy. The absence of the thereat of the middle man and small-scale private trading would eliminate Indian unrest and therefore it would not be recorded by the English.  Virginia stopped trade with northern Indians because they felt threatened. After 1650 there was a hiring of Indians in which Englishmen were required to have a license to handle. Francis Hamond received a license to go and take up lands. The English pressured Indian parents to allow their children to be raised on English farms the “proper way.” Trouble between Virginia English and Tuscarora’s broke out in 1663 and the grand assembly required Indians to have an identifiable badge with them into the English settlements. Trade in Indian child labors peaked in the 1680’s.

Chapter 5

The Mother of Necessity: Carolina, the Creek Indians, and the Making of a New Order in the American Southeast By Steven C. Hahn

In debt with the English and the threat of their kinsmen being enslaved the Creek Indians renewed their alliance with the Spaniards in 1715.  The dependency of the Creek on European trade led to the classification of European trade goods as necessities and furthered their debt to the English. The causes of the Yamasee war of 1715 are still ambiguous; however, it should be noted that each tribe had different motives in the war. It is later referred to as a trade revolt by Hahn. Navigation Acts required that the colonies do business with the British Empire or its dependencies. A 7 year monopoly over the Westo and Cussetoe trade in 1677. The creeks hid traders and pretended to not know where they were warranting torture and great loss at the hand of Matheos. Gun trade strengthened the alliance between certain tribes and the Carolina traders. An entire generation of creek children we raised without knowing life without European trade goods. The progression of Queen Anne’s war leads to the English using Indians for their imperialist purposes. Creeks participated in the Tuscarora war to relieve slave debts. Southern Indians had participated in slavery where prisoners of war were laborers or adopted into the tribe. English speaking Indian slaves escaped Carolina plantations and rumored that the English were going to enslave the Creeks. The 1763 Treaty of Paris ended the Seven Years’ War.

Chapter 7

R.P Stephen Davis, Jr describes the cultural landscape in Cultural Landscape of the North Carolina Piedmont. All tribes encountered by Lawson were eastern Siouan with the exception of the Tuscarora. However, this cannot be sustained. There were diverse groups of Indians located in the southern division. The lack of political importance of the Carolina and Virginia Native Tribes resulted in their near extermination before any information was found out about them. The exchange of furs and deerskins moved to the Indian Villages along the Trading Path. Depopulation, Iroquois raiding, fur trade changes, and the Tuscarora, Yamasee and Cheraw wars affected the culture. Davis provides maps in attempt to support and add to his arguments in the essay but notes that they are “vague and sketchy.”

Questions

  1. The ambiguity of the name of the Lumbee river and the references to the river as the Lumbee while some insist that it has always been the Lumber river raises the question of what the river was first recorded as on maps?
    1. Sources: Maps of Robeson and North Carolina

                                i.      Map of Robeson County: made from actual surveys by

                                        John McDuffie

                                         Published: Lumberton, N.C. : W.W. McDiarmid, 1884]  

                                          (N[ew] Y[ork] : Photo-lith. by Robert A. Welck[s]

** Note not sure how to cite maps correctly.**

  1. Herbal remedies are cited to have been passed down for generations in the Lumbee tribe. Are these practices still passed down? Have any of the remedies been documented or purely passed along by word of mouth? What are some of the herbal remedies that exist to day in the Lumbee community?
    1. Sources: Rosalind Sampson of Fairmont. Spoke to students at Lumberton Senior High School about Native herbal remedies.