Kasihta Tribe

The honorary name of this tribe in the Creek Confederacy was Kasihta lako, “Big Kasihta.” According to the earliest form of the Creek migration legend that is available – that related to Governor Oglethorpe by Chikilli in 1735 – the Kasihta and Coweta came from the west “as one people,” but in time those dwelling toward the east came to be called Kasihta and those to the west Coweta. 1 This ancient unity of origin appears to have been generally admitted down to the present time. According to John Goat, an aged Tulsa Indian, they were at first one town, and when they separated the pot of medicine which had been buried under their brisk fire was dug up and its contents divided between them. He also maintained that anciently Kasihta was the larger and more important of the two, and others state the same, while on the point of numbers, they are confirmed by the census of 1832. 2 Oftener the Coweta were given precedence.

The first appearance of the Kasihta in documentary history is, I believe, in the De Soto chronicles as the famous province of Cofitachequi, 3 Cutifachiqui 4 Cofitachyque 5 Cofitachique, 6 or Cofaciqui. 7 Formerly it was generally held that this was Yuchi. The name has, however, a Muskhogean appearance, and Dr. F. G. Speck, our leading Yuchi authority, is unable to find any Yuchi term resembling it. In fact, with one doubtful exception, he is unable to discover any name by the De Soto narratives which resembles a Yuchi word even remotely. 8

The specific identification of this place with Kasihta rests mainly upon the early documents of the colony of South Carolina. In a letter from Henry Woodward, interpreter for the colonists, to Sir John Yeamans, dated September 10, 1670, the writer states that he had visited “Chufytachyqj yt fruitfull Provence where ye Emperour resides.” “It lys,” he says, “West & by Northe nearest from us 14 days trauell after ye Indian manner of marchinge.” 9 He is writing from near where Charleston, South Carolina, was afterwards built. In a letter to the Lords Proprietors from the same place, dated September 11, 1670, the Council of the new colony mentions this expedition again, and calls the country “Chufytachyque.” 10 It is also referred to in a letter written to Lord Ashley by Stephen Bull, only that the distance is given as ten days’ journey. 11 In a letter from William Owen to Lord Ashley, written September 15, 1670, we read:

The Emperour of Tatchequiha, a verie fruitfull countrey som 8 days ioumey to ye Northwest of vs, we expect here within 4 days, som of his people being alreadie com with whom he would haue bein had not he heard in his way yt ye Spaniard had defeated vs. His friend with us is very considerable against ye Westoes if euer they intend to Molest us. He hath often defeated them and is euer their Master. The Indian Doctor tells us yt where he liues is exceedinge rich and fertill generally of a red mould and hillie with most pleasant vallies and springes haueing plentie of white and black Marble and abundantly stored with Mulberries of wch fruite they make cakes wch I have tasted. 12

From the context it is evident that Tatchequiha and Chufytachyqj were the same. Mr. Thomas Colleton adds the information that this potentate had a thousand bowmen in his town. 13 In the memoranda in John Locke’s handwriting we find other spellings, “Caphatachaques,” 14 and Chufytuchyque. 15 In still another place he speaks of “the Emperor Cotachico at Charles town with 100 Indians.” 16 In his instructions to Henry Woodward, dated May 23, 1674, Lord Shaftesbury says:

You are to consider whether it be best to make a peace with the Westoes or Cussitaws, which are a more powerful nation said to have pearle and silver and by whose Assistance the Westoes may be rooted out, but no peace is to be made with either of them without Including our Neighbour Indians who are at amity with us. 17

Rivers has the following:

Order for trade with the Westoes & Cussatoes Indians, 10 April 1677.
Whereas ye discovery of ye Country of ye Westoes & ye Cussatoes two powerful and warlike nations, hath bine made at ye charge of ye Earle of Shaftsbury, &c., and by the Industry & hazard of Dr. Henry Woodward, and a strict peace & amity made Betweene those said nations and our people in or province of Corolina, &c. 18

We could wish there were more information, but this is sufficient to show that the early English colonists called the Kasihta by a name corresponding very closely with that used by De Soto‘s companions. They give the tribe so called the prominent position which it had in his day and which it afterwards occupied, and distinguish it clearly from the Westo, who I believe to have been Yuchi. 19 We have, therefore, a valid reason for concluding that the Cofitachequi and Kasihta were one and the same people.

That this was not the only body of Kasihta Indians in the Creek country seems to be shown by the name of a town, Casiste, which the Spaniards in De Soto‘s time passed through somewhere near the Tallapoosa. 20

On Saturday, May 1, 1540, after having lost his way and spent some days floundering about among the wastes of southeastern Georgia, De Soto with the advance guard of his army came to the river on the other side of which was Cofitachequi, was met by the chieftainess of that place – or by her niece, for authorities differ – and was received into her town in peace. May 3 the rest of the army came up and they were given half of the town. On the 12th or 13th they left. They found here a temple or ossuary which the Spaniards call a “mosque and oratory,” and which they opened, finding there bodies covered with pearls and a number of objects of European manufacture, from which they inferred that they were near the place in which Ayllon and his companions had come to grief. 21 Elvas says of the people of that province:

The inhabitants are brown of skin, well formed and proportioned. They are more civilized than any people seen in all the territories of Florida, wearing clothes and shoes. This country, according to what the Indians stated, had been very populous, but it had been decimated shortly before by a pestilence. 22

The location of Cofitachequi has been discussed by many writers. Most of the older maps place it upon the upper Santee or the Saluda, in what is now South Carolina, but this is evidently too far to the east and north. Later opinion has inclined to the view that it was on the Savannah, and the point of tenest fixed upon is what is now known as Silver Bluff. The present writer in a paper published among the Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association 23 expressed the opinion that it was on or near the Savannah but lower down than Silver Bluff, on the ground that the Yuchi, who have usually been regarded as earlier occupants of this territory than the Creeks, extended down the river as far as Ebenezer Creek.

Later researches have tended to show, however, that in De Soto‘s time the Yuchi were not on the Savannah River at all, while the Pardo narratives indicate that the position of Cofitachequi was at least as far inland as Barnwell or Hampton Counties, S. C. Elvas says that the sea ”was stated to be two days’ travel” from Cofitachequi, 24 and Biedma has this: “From the information given by the Indians, the sea should be about 30 leagues distant.” 25

In Vandera’s account of the Pardo expedition of 1566-67 Cofitachequi is said to be 50 leagues from Santa Elena and 20 from the mouth of the river on which it was located. 26 It is probable that the first of these figures is too high and the second too low. All things considered. Silver Bluff would seem to be too far inland; a point is indicated between Mount Pleasant and Sweet Water Creek, in Barnwell or Hampton Counties, S. C.

From the prominent position assigned to Cofitachequi by the De Soto chroniclers, by Pardo and Vandera, and by the later English settlers, it is altogether probable that this was the town which Laudonni?re and the Frenchmen left at Charlesfort believed was being described to them as lying inland and ruled by a great chief called Chiquola. Laudonnière says:

Those who survived from the first voyage have assured me that the Indians have made them understand by intelligible signs that farther inland in the same northerly direction was a great inclosure, and within it many beautiful houses, in the midst of which lived Chiquola. 27

Laudonnière evidently stumbled upon the name Chiquola from having asked about the Chicora of the Ayllon expedition, with the story of which he was familiar. The Indians, who probably had no r in their language, changed the sound to I and at the same time perhaps gave him a distorted form of one name for the Kasihta, a name which we seem to find again in the form “Tatchequiha” in Owen’s letter to Lord Ashley. 28 The location indicated also agrees very well with that in which Pardo found Cofitachequi a few years later. Vandera gives the following account of the country occupied by these people in his time:

From Guiomaez he started directly for Canos, which the Indians call Canosi, and by another name Cofetazque; there are three or four rather large rivers within this province, one of them even carrying much water or rather two are that way; there are few swamps, but anybody, even a child, can pass them afoot. There are deep valleys surrounded by rocks and stones, and cliffs. The soil is reddish and fertile, very much better than all those before mentioned.

Canos is a country through which flows one of the two powerful rivers; it contains that and many small rivulets; it has great meadows and very good ones, and here and from here on, the maize is abundant; the grapes are plentiful, big, and very good; there are also bad ones, thick skinned and small, in fact, there are very many varieties. It is a country in which a big town can be settled. To Santa Elena there are 50 leagues and to the sea about twenty, and it is possible to reach it by way of the big river crossing the country and [to go] much further inland by the same river; and equally could one go by the other river which passes near Guiomaez. 29

The first of these rivers can have been only the Savannah; the second probably the Coosawhatchie, the Salkehatchie, or Briar Creek. The name Canosi is perhaps perpetuated in Cannouchee River, a branch of the Ogeechee, upon which the Kasihta may once have dwelt.

In 1628 Pedro de Torres was sent inland by the governor of Florida, Luis de Rojas y Borjas. He went as far as “Cafatachiqui” (or “Cosatachiqui”), “more than two hundred leagues inland” and the governor states in his letter to the king describing this expedition that the men in his party were the first Spaniards to visit it since De Soto‘s time. This last statement is, of course, an error. The governor says little more except that all the chiefs in the country were under the chief of Cofitachequi, and the rivers there abounded in pearls, which the natives appear to have gathered in a manner described by Garcilasso. 30

By the time the English came to South Carolina it is evident that the Kasihta had changed their location. This is apparent both from Henry Woodward’s Westo narrative and from what we learn of his visit to them. The Westo were then on Savannah River; the Kasihta, or ”Chufytachyqj” as he calls them, were 14 days’ travel west by north ”after ye lndian manner of marchinge.” 31 The location is uncertain, but must have been near the upper Savannah. It was certainly farther away than that of the Westo and more to the north. In Elbert County, Georgia, on Broad River, a few miles south of Oglesby, is an old village site which would answer very well to the probable location of the tribe at this period. At any rate, from 1670 until some time before 1686 the Kasihta were in northern Georgia, near Broad River, perhaps ranging across to the Tennessee. Maps of the period locate the Kasihta and Coweta in this area, about the heads of the Chattahoochee and Coosa. South Carolina documents place this tribe on Ocheese Creek in 1702, Ocheese Creek being an old name for the upper part of the Ocmulgee, 32 and it seems probable from an examination of the Spanish documents that they were settled there as early as 1680-1685. From the context of a letter written May 19, 1686, by Antonio Matheos, lieutenant of Apalachee, to Cabrera, the governor of Florida, it appears that, shortly before, the Spaniards had undertaken an expedition against the Creek Indians and had burned several of their villages. The letter states that two of four Apalachee Indians sent among the Apalachicolas [i. e.. Lower Creeks] as spies had returned the day before. He continues as follows:

They report that they have visited, as I ordered them to do, all the places of said province, where they were well received, except at Casista and Caveta. The people of these two places had sent them two messengers before they reached the said villages, telling them that they did not want them to come there, because they were from Apalache and consequently their enemies. Thus they should not try to go there, for they would not have peace. Notwithstanding; the spies resolved to go there, risking whatever might happen to them, sending word with the last messenger [sent them] that they were not Apalachinos, but Thamas, and that they did not come for any other reason than to see their relatives and buy several things, and that therefore they should permit them to come. And the two spies arriving near these two places at the time when they [the inhabitants of both villages] were playing ball, they remained there until the game was ended without anybody in the meantime coming to them, although one of them had relatives there. And when they approached Casista, the cacique of that village came to meet them before they could enter it, and he asked them where they were going. Had he not told them not to come into his village? That besides there not being anything to eat in the village, nobody would speak to them; that he knew that they were sent for a certain purpose; that consequently they were his enemies and should not come to his village. Being given a canoe to cross the river, they went to Tasquique, where, as well as in Colome, they were very well received and entertained. These people told them that although the Christians had burnt their villages they were patient [forbearing], because they knew it was their own fault, although it had been mainly the fault of the caciques of Casista and Caveta, who had deceived and involved the rest of them, bringing the English in and forcing them to receive them and go into the forests, for which cause their village had been burnt down. That if another occasion should arise [that the Spaniards should come] they would not flee for they knew now how the Spaniards acted. At Caveta they received them the same way as in Casista, giving them to understand that although they were sowing, they had no intention of remaining there. The said spies say that in those two places there is not a thing done or begun, whereas at the other two, i.e. Colome and Tasquique, there are a great many [things] as well accomplished as started. 33

From the text it is impossible to say where the four towns mentioned were located, but the reference to a river combined with our later knowledge regarding these Indians indicates the Ocmulgee.

In 1695 an expedition, composed of 7 Spaniards and 400 Indians, marched against the Lower Creeks to seek revenge for injuries inflicted upon them in numerous attacks. They reached the town sites of the “Cauetta, Oconi, Casista, and Tiquipache.” In one they captured about 50 Indians; the others were found burned and abandoned. 34 After the Yamasee war the Kasihta settled on the Chattahoochee. Maps representing the location of tribes at that time give the Kasihta under the name Gitasee. This is made evident when we come to compare early and late maps, which are found to agree in nearly all particulars except that some variant of the name Kasihta is substituted for Gitasee. The reason for the use of Gitasee is entirely unknown. As laid down on these maps the Kasihta were between the Okmulgee on the south and a body of Tuskegee on the north. In the census list of 1761 they were assigned to John Rae as trader. 35 In January , 1778, Bartram passed this town, which he calls ”Usseta” and he says that it joined Chiaha, but that the two spoke radically different languages. 36 The traders located there in 1797 were Thomas Carr and John Anthony Sandoval, the latter a Spaniard. 37 Hawkins gives the following description of Kasihta as it was in 1799, which shows incidentally that the town had been moved once after it was located on the river:

Cus-se-tuh; this town is two and a half miles below Cow-e-tuh Tal-lau-has-see, on the left bank of the river. They claim the land above the falls on their side. In descending the river path from the falls in three miles you cross a creek running to the right, twenty feet wide; this creek joins the river a quarter of a mile above the Cowetuh town house; the land to this creek is good and level and extends back from the river from half to three-quarters of a mile to the pine forest; the growth on the level is oak, hickory, and pine; there are some ponds and slashes back next to the pine forest, bordering on a branch which runs parallel with the river; in the pine forest there is some reedy branches.

The creek has its source nearly twenty miles from the river, and runs nearly parallel with it till within one mile of its junction ; there it makes a short bend round north, thence west to the river; at the second bend, about two hundred yards from the river, a fine little spring creek joins on its right bank….

The flat of good land on the river continues two and a half miles below this creek, through the Cussetuh fields to Hat-che-thluc-co. At the entrance of the fields on the right there is an oblong mound of earth; one-quarter of a mile lower there is a conic mound forty-five yards in diameter at the base, twenty-five feet high, and flat on the top, with mulberry trees on the north side and evergreens on the south. From the top of this mound they have a fine view of the river above the flat land on both sides of the river, and all the field of one thousand acres; 38 the river makes a short bend round to the right opposite this mound, and there is a good ford just below the point. It is not easy to mistake the ford, as there is a flat on the left, of gravel and sand; the waters roll rapidly over the gravel, and the eye, at the first view, fixes on the most fordable part; there are two other fords below this, which communicate between the fields on both sides of the river; the river from this point comes round to the west, then to the east; the island ford is below this turn, at the lower end of a small island; from the left side, enter the river forty yards below the island, and go up to the point of it, then turn down as the ripple directs, and land sixty yards below; this is the best ford; the third is still lower, from four to six hundred yards.

The land back from the fields to the east rises twenty feet and continues flat for one mile to the pine forest; back of the fields, adjoining the rise of twenty feet, is a beaver pond of forty acres, capable of being drained at a small expense of labor; the large creek bounds the fields and the flat land to the south.

Continuing on down the river from the creek, the land rises to a high flat, formerly the Cussetuh town, and afterwards a Chickasaw town. This flat is intersected with one branch. From the southern border of this flat, the Cussetuh town is seen below, on a flat, just above flood mark, surrounded with this high flat to the north and east, and the river to the west; the land about the town is poor, and much exhausted; they cultivate but little here of early corn; the principal dependence is on the rich fields above the creek; to call them rich must be understood in a limited sense; they have been so, but being cultivated beyond the memory of the oldest man in Cussetuh, they are almost exhausted; the produce is brought from the fields to the town in canoes or on horses; they make barely a sufficiency of corn for their support; they have no fences around their fields, and only a fence of three poles, tied to upright stakes, for their potatoes; the land up the river, above the fields, is fine for culture, with oak, hickory, blackjack and pine.

The people of Cussetuh associate, more than any other Indians, with their white neighbors, and without obtaining any advantage from it; they know not the season for planting, or, if they do, they never avail themselves of what they know, as they always plant a month too late.

This town with its villages is the largest in the Lower Creeks; the people are and have been friendly to white people and are fond of visiting them; the old chiefs are very orderly men and much occupied in governing their young men, who are rude and disorderly, in proportion to the intercourse they have had with white people; they frequently complain of the intercourse of their young people with the white people on the frontiers, as being very prejudicial to their morals; that they are more rude, more inclined to be tricky, and more difficult to govern, than those who do not associate with them.

The settlements belonging to the town are spread out on the right side of the river; here they appear to be industrious, have forked fences, and more land enclosed than they can cultivate. One of them desires particularly to be named Mic E-maut-lau. This old chief has, with his own labor, made a good worm fence, and built himself a comfortable house; they have but a few peach trees, in and about the town; the main trading path, from the upper towns, passes through here; they estimate their number of gun men at three hundred; but they cannot exceed one hundred and eighty.

Au-put-tau-e [Apatana, bull frog village?]; 39 a village of Cussetuh, twenty miles from the river, on Hat-che thluc-co; they have good fences, and the settlers under [enjoy?] the best characters of any among the Lower Creeks; they estimate their gun men at forty-three. On a visit here the agent for Indian affairs was met by all the men, at the house of Tus-se-kiah Micco. That chief addressed him in these words: Here, I am glad to see you; this is my wife, and these are my children; they are glad to see you; these are the men of the village; we have forty of them in all; they are glad to see you; you are now among those on whom you may rely. I have been six years at this village, and we have not a man here, or belonging to our village, who ever stole a horse from, or did any injury to a white man.

The village is in the forks of Hatche thlucco, and the situation is well chosen; the land is rich, on the margins of the creeks and the cane flats; the timber is large, of poplar, white oak, and hickory; the uplands to the south are the long-leaf pine; and to the north waving oak, pine, and hickory; cane is on the creeks and reed in all the branches.

At this village, and at the house of Tus-se-ki-ah Micco, the agent for Indian affairs has introduced the plough ; and a farmer was hired in 1797 to tend a crop of corn, and with so good success, as to induce several of the villagers to prepare their fields for the plough. Some of them have cattle, hogs and horses, and are attentive to them. The range is a good one, but cattle and horses require salt; they have some thriving peach trees, at several of the settlements.

On Auhe-gee creek, called at its junction with the river, Hitchetee, there is one settlement which deserves a place here. It belongs to Mic-co thluc-co, called by the white people, the ”Bird tail King [Fus hadji]. ” The plantation is on the right side of the creek, on good land, in the neighborhood of pine forest; the creek is a fine flowing one, margined with reed; the plantation is well fenced, and cultivated with the plough; this chief had been on a visit to New York, and seen much of the ways of white people, and the advantages of the plough over the slow and laborious hand hoe. Yet he had not firmness enough, till this year, to break through the old habits of the Indians. The agent paid him a visit this spring, 1799, with a plough completely fixed, and spent a day with him and showed him how to use it. He had previously, while the old man was in the woods, prevailed on the family to clear the fields for the plough. It has been used with effect, and much to the approbation of a numerous family, who have more than doubled their crop of corn and potatoes; and who begin to know how to turn their corn to account, by giving it to their hogs, cattle, and horses, and begin to be very attentive to them; he has some apple and peach trees, and grape vines, a present from the agent.

The Cussetuhs have some cattle, horses, and hogs; but they prefer roving idly through the woods, and down on the frontiers, to attending to farming or stock raising. 40

In notes taken two years earlier Hawkins thus speaks of another Kasihta village, located on Flint River:

Salenojuh, 8 miles [below Aupiogee Creek]. Here was a compact town of Cusseta people, of 70 gunmen in 1787, and they removed the spring after Colonel Alexander killed 7 of their people near Shoulderbone. Their fields extended three miles above the town; they had a hothouse and square, water, fields well fenced; their situation fine for hogs and cattle. Just above the old fields there are two curves on each side of the river of 150 acres, rich, which have been cultivated. Just below the town the Sulenojuhnene ford, the lands level on the right bank. There is a small island to the right of the ford ; on the left a ridge of rocks. The lands on the left bank high and broken. Above the town there is a good ford, level, shallow, and not rocky; the land flat on both sides. 41

Another description of Kasihta is given by Hodgson, an English missionary who passed through the Creek country in 1820. He says:

It [Kasihta] 42 appeared to consist of about 100 houses, many of them elevated on poles from two to six feet high, and built of unhewn logs, with roofs of bark, and little patches of Indian corn before the doors. The women were hard at work, digging the ground, pounding Indian corn, or carrying heavy loads of water from the river; the men were either setting out to the woods with their guns or lying idle before the doors; and the children were amusing themselves in little groups. The whole scene reminded me strongly of some of the African towns described by Mungo Park. In the centre of the town we passed a large building, with a conical roof, supported by a circular wall about three feet high; close to it was a quadrangular space, enclosed by four open buildings, with rows of benches rising above one another; the whole was appropriated, we were informed, to the Great Council of the town, who meet under shelter or in the open air, according to the weather. Near the spot was a high pole, like our may-poles, with a bird at the top, round which the Indians celebrate their Green-Corn Dance. The town or township of Cosito is said to be able to muster 700 warriors, while the number belonging to the whole nation is not estimated at more than 3,500. 43

Seven separate Kasihta settlements are enumerated in the census of 1832, as follows:

On little Euchee Creek, 211, besides 105 slaves; on Tolamulkar Hatchee, 486, and 4 slaves; on Opillikee Hatchee, Tallassee town, 171; on Chowwokolohatchee, 118; at Secharlitcha [“under black-jack trees”], 214; on Osenubba Hatchee, or Tuckabatchee Harjo’s town, 269, and 8 slaves; near West Point, or Tuskehenehaw Chooley’s town, 399; total, 1,868 Indians and 117 slaves. 44

The principal chiefs and their households are omitted from the enumeration. Gatschet mentions another branch called “Tusilgis tco’ko or clapboard house.” 45 After their removal they settled in the northern part of the Creek Nation in the west with the other Lower Creeks, where their descendants for the most part still are.

Citations:

1. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, pp. 244-251.[↩]
2. See p. 430.[↩]
3. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, II, p. 93.[↩]
4. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, p. 69.[↩]
5. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, p. 69.[↩]
6. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, II, p. 11.[↩]
7. Garcilasso in Shipp, De Soto and Fla., p. 352.[↩]
8. The exception is the name Yubaha which I have discovered to be from Timucua; see p. 81.[↩]
9. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 186.[↩]
10. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 191.[↩]
11. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 194.[↩]
12. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 201.[↩]
13. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 249.[↩]
14. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 258.[↩]
15. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 262.[↩]
16. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 388.[↩]
17. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 446.[↩]
18. Rivers, Hist, of S. C, p. 389.[↩]
19. See pp. 288-291.[↩]
20. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, p. 87; II, p. 116. Elvas calls it “a large town”; Ranjel, “a small village.” In later Spanish documents the name of Kasihta is spelled Casista.[↩]
21. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, p. 60; II, pp. 13-15, 98-102.[↩]
22. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, pp. 66-67.[↩]
23. Proc. Miss. Val. Hist. Asso., v, pp. 147-157.[↩]
24. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, I, p. 66.[↩]
25. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, II, p. 14.[↩]
26. Ruidiaz, La Florida, II, p. 482.[↩]
27. Laudonniѐre, Hist. Not. de la Florlde, p. 31.[↩]
28. See p. 217. Letter from William Owen[↩]
29. Ruidiaz, La Florida, II, p. 482.[↩]
30. Garcillasso in Shipp, De Soto and Fla., pp. 371-373[↩]
31. S. C. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 186.[↩]
32. Jour. of the Commons House of Assembly, MS.[↩]
33. Serrano y Sanz, Doc. Hist., pp. 193-195; also Lowery MSS. The first writer dates this letter 1606 instead of 1686.
    [↩]
34. Serrano y Sans, Doc. Hist., p. 225.[↩]
35. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
36. Bartram, Travels, p. 456.[↩]
37. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., IX, p. 171.[↩]
38. The Lib. Cong. MS. has “100 acres.”[↩]
39. Gatschet derives this name from apatayas, I cover, and says it means “a sheet-like covering.” A native informant suggested to the writer apatana, bullfrog. This is probably the village which Hawkins elsewhere calls Thlonotlscauhatche, after Flint River.- Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., IX, p. 172.[↩]
40. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, pp. 52-61. For some recent information regarding the site of Kasihta, see P. A. Brannon in Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. xi, p. 195.[↩]
41. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., IX, p. 172.[↩]
42. Hodgson spells the name Cosito.[↩]
43. Hodgson, Remarks during Jour, through N. Am., pp. 265-266.[↩]
44. Senate Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess.; Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, IV, p. 578. In the sheets as published one figure is too large by 2 and one too small by 1. I have corrected these mistakes.[↩]
45. Marginal note in Creek Mig. Leg., I, MS.[↩]