532 



SHAWNEE 



[B. A. E. 



the former tribe. While this tradition 

 does not agree with the chronologic order 

 of Shawnee occupancy in the two regions, 

 as borne out by historical evidence, it 

 furnishes additional proof that the Shaw- 

 nee occupied territory upon both rivers, 

 and that this occupancy was by permis- 

 sion of the Cherokee. De I'lsle's map of 

 1700 places the "Ontouagannha," which 

 here means the Shawnee, on the head- 

 waters of the Santee and Pedee rs. in 

 South Carolina, while the "Chiouonons" 

 are located on the lower Tennessee r. 

 Senex's map of 1710 locates a part of the 

 "Chaouenons" on the headwaters of a 

 stream in South Carolina, but seems to 

 place the main body on the Tennessee. 

 Moll's map of 1720 has "Savannah Old 

 Settlement" at the mouth of the Cum- 

 berland (Royce in Abstr. Trans. Anthr. 

 Soc. Wash., 1881 ), showing that the term 

 Savannah was sometimes applied to the 

 western as well as to the eastern band. 



The Shawnee of South Carolina, who 

 included the Piqua and Hathawekela di- 

 visions of the tribe, were known to the 

 early settlers of that state as Savannahs, 

 that being nearly the form of the name 

 in use among the neighboring Muskho- 

 gean tribes. A good deal of confusion has 

 arisen from the fact that the Yuchi and 

 Yamasee, in the same neighborhood, 

 were sometimes also spoken of as Savan- 

 nah Indians. Bartram and Gallatin par- 

 ticularly are confused upon this point, al- 

 though, as is hardly necessary to state, the 

 tribes are entirely distinct. Their prin- 

 cipal village, known as Savannah Town, 

 was on Savannah r., nearly opposite the 

 present Augusta, Ga. According to a 

 writer of 1740 (Ga. Hist. Soc. Coll., ii, 72, 

 1842) it was at New Windsor, on the n. 

 bank of Savannah r., 7 m. below Augusta. 

 It was an important trading point, and Ft 

 Moore was afterward built upon the site. 

 The Savannah r. takes its name from this 

 tribe, as appears from the statement of 

 Adair, who mentions the "Savannah r., 

 so termed on account of the Shawano 

 Indians having formerly lived there," 

 plainly showing that the two names are 

 synonyms for the same tribe. Gallatin 

 says that the name of the river is of Span- 

 ish origin, by which he probably means 

 that it refers to "savanas," or prairies, 

 but as almost all the large rivers of the 

 Atlantic slope bore the Indian names of 

 the tribes upon their banks, it is not likely 

 that this river is an exception, or that a 

 Spanish name would have been retained in 

 an English colony. In 1670, when South 

 Carolina was first settled, the Savannah 

 were one of the principal tribes south- 

 ward from Ashley r. About 10 years 

 later they drove back the Westo, identi- 

 fied by Swanton as the Yuchi, who had 

 just previously nearly destroyed the in- 

 fant settlements in a short but bloody 



war. The Savannah seem to have re- 

 mained at peace with the whites, and in 

 1695, according to Gov. Archdale, were 

 "good friends and useful neighbors of 

 the English." By a comparison of Gal- 

 latin's paragraph (Trans. Am. Antiq. 

 Soc, II, 66, 1836) with Lawson's state- 

 ments (Hist. Car., 75, 279-280, ed. 1860) 

 from which he quotes, it will be seen that 

 he has misinterpreted' the earlier author, 

 as well as misquoted the tribal forms. 

 Lawson traveled through Carolina in 1701, 

 and in 1709 published his account, which 

 has passed through several reprints, the 

 last being in 1860. He mentions the 

 "Savannas" twice, and it is to be noted 

 that in each place he calls them by the 

 same name, which, however, is not the 

 same as any one of the three forms used 

 by Gallatin in referring to the same pas- 

 sages. Lawson first mentions them in 

 connection with the Congaree as the 

 "Savannas, a famous, warlike, friendly 

 nation of Indians, living to the south end 

 of Ashley r." In another place he speaks 

 of "the Savanna Indians, who formerly 

 lived on the banks of the Messiasippi, and 

 removed thence to the head of one of the 

 rivers of South Carolina, since which, for 

 some dislike, most of them are removed 

 to live in the quarters of the Iroquois or 

 Sinnagars [Seneca], which are on the 

 heads of the rivers that disgorge them- 

 selves into the bay of Chesapeak." This 

 is a definite statement, plainly referring to 

 one and the same tribe, and agrees with 

 what is known of the Shawnee. 



On De r Isle's map, also, we find the 

 Savannah r. called "R. des Chouanons," 

 with the "Chaouanons" located upon 

 both banks in its middle course. As to 

 Gallatin's statement that the name of the 

 Savannahs is dropped after Lawson's 

 mention in 1701, we learn from numerous 

 references, from old records, in Logan's 

 Upper South Carolina, published after 

 Gallatin's time, that all through the 

 period of the French and Indian war, 50 

 years after Lawson wrote, the "Savan- 

 nahs" were constantly makina: inroads 

 on the Carolina frontier, even to the vi- 

 cinity of Charleston. They are described 

 as "northern savages" and friends of the 

 Cherokee, and are undoubtedly the Shaw- 

 nee. In 1749 Adair, while crossing the 

 middle of Georgia, fell in with a strong 

 party of "the French Shawano," who 

 were on their way, under Cherokee guid- 

 ance, to attack the English traders near 

 Augusta. After committing some depre- 

 dations they escaped to the Cherokee. 

 In another place he speaks of a party of 

 "Shawano Indians," who, at the instiga- 

 tion of the French, had attacked a fron- 

 tier settlement of Carolina, but had been 

 taken and imprisoned. Through a refer- 

 ence by Logan it is found that these pris- 

 oners are called Savannahs in the records 



