A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post-Removal North Carolina
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post-Removal North Carolina Lance Greene A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology. Chapel Hill 2009 Approved by: Chair: Vin Steponaitis Advisor: Brett Riggs Reader: Silvia Tomaskova Reader: Valerie Lambert Reader: John Finger ©2009 Lance Greene ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT LANCE GREENE: A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post-Removal North Carolina (Under the direction of Vin Steponaitis and Brett Riggs) The Cherokee Removal of 1838 was intended to remove all members of the Cherokee Nation to west of the Mississippi River. However, a small number avoided forced emigration. After the soldiers had left the region, many of these Cherokees sustained traditional practices in spite of increasing social and codified racism. The undefined status of the Cherokees in North Carolina at this time left them socially and economically marginalized. However, they also found ways to use this liminal space to their benefit. My research uses a combination of archaeological, documentary, and landscape data to investigate how one Cherokee family negotiated this new social terrain. The Welch family embraced alternative concepts of race, ethnicity, and gender to help maintain a traditional Cherokee community called Welch's Town in southwestern North Carolina. They adopted certain aspects of western culture, while maintaining some traditional Cherokee practices. Through this hybridity, they managed to maintain their farm and also their connections to and support of the Cherokee community on their land. iii To A.V.G. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At the outset, I would like to thank Brett Riggs. I have worked with Brett for almost twenty years, in a multitude of field and lab settings. Brett introduced me to historic Cherokee archaeology during a lengthy field survey that sometimes tested our physical endurance. Nonetheless, I was fascinated by the archaeology. This was due in part to Brett impressing upon me the significance of the research for contemporary Cherokees, and his devotion to sharing it with them. Brett has continued to share with me his encyclopedic knowledge of Cherokee history and archaeology, his insights into Cherokee society (both past and present), and his views on the use and meaning of archaeological data. I consider it a privilege to have worked and studied in the Anthropology Department and the Research Laboratories of Archaeology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I found there a rich and supportive community of faculty and students, and I and my wonderful cohort thrived in the collegial environment. My scholarship benefited greatly from my time there. In particular, Silvia Tomaskova not only altered my views of material culture research but opened a new space in which I could ask more interesting questions using archaeology. Vin Steponaitis taught me the significance and appropriate uses of quantitative methods, in addition to being a supportive instructor and dissertation chair. I have also been lucky that one in my cohort, Mark Plane, was also focusing on historic American Indian research. Mark and I spent many hours discussing archaeology, material culture, Indian identity, as well as a variety of other academic and not-so-academic topics. My research has improved dramatically because of Mark’s input, and it would be difficult to find more interesting conversation. Fieldwork at the Welch site was performed by a group of well-trained archaeologists who, luckily for me, were also good friends. Scott Shumate, Bill Jurgelski, Mark Plane, Eric Hoover, Jon v Marcoux, and Greg Wilson all performed admirably and dealt patiently with bad weather, bad housing, and bad food. Bill Jurgelski and I met on a site in Hawaii more than 20 years ago. After many years of working in different regions, we reconnected and found that we were researching the same topics. I have known Scott Shumate for almost as long, and have had the pleasure of working with him many times across North Carolina. Few people have had such an impact on me regarding field archaeology and material culture of Southern Appalachia. Jim and Jeanette Wilson and Burke West have been extremely patient and cooperative during several years of fieldwork on their land. Burke has often shifted his farming schedule so that the site could be backfilled, or mowed, or cow- free. Their interest in the site and in the history of the area has made working with them very enjoyable. Numerous institutions provided generous grants to fund my fieldwork, which otherwise would have been impossible: the Wenner-Gren Foundation Fieldwork Grant, the North Carolina Archaeological Society Grant-in-Aid Program, the University of North Carolina Center for the Study of the American South Summer Research Grant, and the University of North Carolina Research Laboratories of Archaeology Timothy P. Mooney Fellowship. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Rodney Snedeker of the US Forest Service. Rodney organized research assistantships for me that funded a large part of my tenure at UNC, and allowed me to work on removal-era sites at the same time. The entire faunal assemblage was analyzed by Tom Whyte at Appalachian State University. Tom has studied numerous faunal collections from historic sites in the region, and provided me with much insight into how the animals represented by the faunal material might have been collected, processed, and consumed. Rob Cuthrell analyzed a sample of the floral remains for his Honor's thesis at the University of North Carolina, under the direction of Margie Scarry. His thorough analysis has been a vital component of my research. I owe a debt to many people who work in the cultural resource offices of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. I would particularly like to thank TJ Holland, director of the Junaluska Museum. vi For years, he has supported my work, provided funding, and brought me along on trips to the National Archives. More than that, he has shared his knowledge of local Cherokee history, and has been a great host on numerous occasions at his home in Robbinsville. Our conversations have educated me on Cherokee life, as well as on fine art and other subjects. Finally, I would like to thank Noeleen and Tess. Noeleen has been supportive during this entire process, and has always been willing to discuss archaeological method and theory and read through whatever I might be working on. Tess always entertains me, and keeps me from getting too obsessed. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 Study Area and Its Natural Environment ................................................................................... 6 Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 7 Documentary records ............................................................................................................... 16 Regional archaeological research............................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2: THEORY ...............................................................................................................21 Modernity................................................................................................................................. 22 Liminality................................................................................................................................. 24 Localism................................................................................................................................... 26 Clientelism ............................................................................................................................... 28 Material Culture ....................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 3: WELCH SITE ARCHAEOLOGY......................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 4: HISTORICAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 5: "THE DARKEST PART OF THE NATION": MODERNIZATION ON VALLEY RIVER (1835-1838) .............................................................................................. 48 Modernization .......................................................................................................................... 50 The Welch Family During Removal ........................................................................................ 63 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 68 viii CHAPTER 6: "CONFESSEDLY A CHEROKEE AND ALIEN