Population of the Southeastern Indians

The population of an Indian tribe at any early period in its history can not be determined with exactness. In the case of the Creeks we have to consider not only the Muskogee or Creeks proper, but a number of tribes afterwards permanently or temporarily incorporated with them, and the problem is proportionately complicated. Fortunately we are helped out by a considerable nmnber of censuses, some of which were taken with more than usual care.

The Cusabo tribes were always small, even at the time of their first intercourse with the Spaniards and French, but we have no data regarding their population until the year 1715, just before the outbreak of the Yamasee war, when a careful estimate approaching an actual enumeration as closely as was possible at that time was made under the auspices of Governor Johnson of South Carolina. There were then two bands left belonging to this group. The “Corsaboys” (i. e., the Cusabo proper) are credited with five villages, 95 men, and a total population of 295, while the Itwans of Charleston Entrance had but one village, with 80 men, and a total population of 240. 1 The entire population of this group was therefore 535, and they are already described as “mixed with the English settlement.” The Yamasee war depleted their numbers considerably. Most of them probably remained in the same place, where they progressively declined and disappeared, though a few retired among the inland Indians. The Coosa are not separately enumerated in this list, and it is uncertain whether they were omitted or are included among the Cusabo. According to Adair some of them later joined the Catawba, but probably not all. 2

The province of Guale, between Savannah River and St. Andrews Sound, was evidently very populous in early Spanish times; but Barcia represents the number of Indians there to have been considerably reduced as a result of the first uprising against the missionaries at the end of the sixteenth century. 3 In 1602 the missionaries claimed that there were “more than 1,200 Christians” in Guale. In 1670 Owen estimated that there were about 300 Indians under the priest at St. Catherines, and that the Indians under all of the priests upon that coast would total 700. 4 Among these may be included a few Timucua, but most were Guale Indians and Yamasee. The figures refer merely to the number of effective men, not to the total population. After these Indians had settled in South Carolina under the leadership of the Yamasee they occupied 10 towns which in 1708 were estimated to contain 500 men able to bear arms, 5 and in 1715, just before the Yamasee uprising, they were reported to have 413 men and a total population of 1,215. 6 The war which followed sadly depleted them and their losses continued after they had retired to Florida, whither they were pursued by the English and with still more effect by the Creeks. Almost immediately after they had been driven out of Carolina the English settlers learned that one of their chiefs had been made by the Spaniards general in chief over 500 Indians to be sent against Carolina, but of course only a fraction of these were Yamasee. 7 By this time they had probably become completely merged with the Indians of Guale. In 1719 a captive reported only 60 Yamasee near St. Augustine. 8 In 1728 and 1736 we have from Spanish sources detailed statements of the population of all the Indian towns near St. Augustine, 9 and these agree very closely, although a disastrous British raid had taken place between them. The first mentions seven settlements with an aggregate population of 115 to 125 men, 105 women, and upward of 55 children, the number of children in two towns not being given. The second list gives eight towns with 123 men capable of bearing arms and 295 women and children, a total of 418. Fifty or more belonged to the Timucua town and there are two or three Apalachee, but upward of 360 must have been Yamasee or Indians of Guale. While this figure is considerably higher than the total indicated in the earlier list the numbers of men reported in both agree quite closely and there is reason to think that in the earlier the numbers of children, and probably those of the women also, were considerably underestimated. In 1761 Yamasee numbering 20 men were reported living near St. Augustine, 10 but we know that several bodies were settled elsewhere. Some of them constituted the village of Yamacraw with which Oglethorpe had to deal. In Adair’s time a few were with the Catawba. 11 In 1821 the “Emusas” on Chattahoochee River, whom I believe to have been descendants of the Yamasee, numbered 20 souls. 12

It is evident that the Apalachee were a large tribe at the very earliest period, but they certainly did not number 15,000, 16,000, 30,000, or 34,000, as estimated by various Spanish missionaries. 13 Much more probable is the statement in a memorial, dated 1676, to the effect that there were then 5,000. 14 In 1702 we find it stated that Spaniards planned to fall upon the English settlements at the head of 900 Apalachee Indians. 15 From Moore’s report on his destruction of the Apalachee towns in the winter of 1703-04 it appears that he and his Indian allies killed about 400 Apalachee and brought away 1,400. 16 Two towns and part of another did not come with him. He expected some of them to follow, but they fled for the most part to Mobile to place themselves under the protection of the French. 17 Bienville states that these originally numbered 500 men but by 1725 or 1726 had become reduced to 100, 18 partly from natural causes, partly through removal to Pensacola. In 1708 the Apalachee who had been carried off by the Carolinians and settled on Savannah River numbered about 250 men. 19 The census of 1715 gives their population more accurately as 275 men and 638 souls in four villages. 20 A French manuscript of a little later period estimates 600 men. 21 After the Yamasee war all of these seem to have returned to Florida, and in 1718 they started a town near Pensacola, where it is said that more than 100 settled, and they increased every day afterwards, partly from the Apalachee who had been living near Mobile. 22 According to Governor De la Vega the Apalachee in their old country had in 1728 become reduced to two villages, one of 140 persons, the other of 20. 23 In 1758 De Kerlerec gives the number of their warriors as 30, probably including both the Spanish and the French bands. 24 In 1764, after the cession of Mobile to Great Britain, the Apalachee, along with several other tribes, moved over into Louisiana and settled on Red River. In 1806 we learn from Sibley that they counted but 14 men. 25 Whether this band embraced both the Mobile and Florida Apalachee is uncertain, but probably all went together. Morse reported 150 in Louisiana in 1817, a very considerable overestimate. 26 Only one or two Indians of Apalachee blood are now known to be in existence in Louisiana and Texas. There are a very few among the Alabama in Oklahoma.

We have no estimate of the number of Apalachicola Indians until they were removed to the Savannah. In 1708 the number of their men was 80. 27 In the census of 1715 they are credited with 2 villages, 64 men, and 214 souls. 28 After the Yamasee war they settled upon Chattahoochee River, at first all in one town. Later several bands left, most of them going south into Florida. By the census of 1738, 29 and the French census of 1760, 30 those that remained were credited with 60 men, by the French (estimate of 1750 with more than 30, 31 by the English census of 1761 with 20, 32 by the Georgia census of 1792 with 100, including the Chiaha, and in the census of 1832 with 2 settlements and 239 persons besides 7 slaves. 33 The census of 1738 gives, however, what is probably another band of Apalachicola Indians under the name of their chief, Cherokee leechee, and credits them with 45 men. 34 At the present time there are only a few left, living near Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

The Franciscan missionaries reported 300 conversions among the Chatot in 1674. When they settled near Mobile Bienville states that they could muster 250 men, but in 1725-26 they had become reduced to 40 men. 35 Du Pratz says this tribe occupied about 40 cabins, circa 1730. 36 In 1806, after their removal to Louisiana, they numbered 30 men. 37 In 1817 there were, all told, according to Morse, 240, 38 a figure much too large. They have now disappeared, unless they are represented by some band of Choctaw and their name concealed by that of the larger tribe.

No separate enumeration of the Tawasa and Pawokti is available, except in the census of 1760, which returns about 40 Tawasa 39 men, the Georgia census of 1792, which reports about 60, and the 1832 census, where, including Autauga, 321 are given, with 21 negro slaves. 40 It is probable, however, that this last includes all of the Alabama at that time remaining in the Creek Nation.

The Sawokli united with the Lower Creeks. In 1738 the Spaniards estimated the number of their men at 20. 41 In 1750, however, four Sawokli settlements appear to be named with more than 50 men 42 and in 1760 four with a total of 190. 43 The Tamałi are perhaps included in this last census. In 1761 they and the neighboring villages, probably of the same connection, were estimated to contain only 50 hunters. 44 Hawkins says that Sawoklutci contained 20 families, but gives no figures for Sawokli itself. 45 Young (1821) gives a town called Ehawho-ka-les, apparently intended for Sawokli, having 150 inhabitants. 46 He gives 580 in Okitiyagana. 47 The census of 1832 gives 187 Sawokli, besides 42 slaves, 157 in its branch town, Okawaigi, and 106 in another branchy Hatcheetcaba. 48 The few still living are about Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

The Pensacola Indians were so insignificant in historic times that Bienville, writing in 1725 or 1726, says there were not more than 40 men in their village and that of the neighboring Biloxi together. 49 In 1764 John Stuart places them in one group with the Biloxi, Chatot, Capinans, Washa, Chawasha, and Pascagoula, and allows them all but 241 men. 50

From the De Soto narratives we know that the Mobile Indians were once a powerful people. The numbers lost by them when the Spaniards stormed their town — 2,500 according to Elvas, over 3,000 according to Ranjel — at once testify to this fact and to the terrible blow they then suffered. 51 In 1702, when Iberville was in the Pascagoula village on the river of the same name, he was given to understand that the Mobile tribe had 300 warriors and the Tohome as many more, but two years later he visited them himself and estimated that both together comprised only about 350. 52 Du Pratz, about 1730, says that the Tohome were of approximately the same size as the Chatot, which he estimates to include about 40 cabins, but he gives nothing with reference to the population of the Mobile. 53 In 1758 De Kerlerec estimates the Mobile Tohome and Naniaba at about 100 warriors. 54

In 1725-26 Bienville states that the Mobile numbered only 60 men, the Big Tohome 60, and the Little Tohome — probably identical with the Naniaba — 30, and he adds that within his own remembrance the former had counted 500 and the latter 300. 55 This is difficult to reconcile with the statements made by his brother. Regis de Rouillet, in 1730, gives the number of warriors as 30, 60, and 50, respectively, making the Mobile the smallest of the three. 56

As we have seen, there were two distinct bands of Chiaha, one on the Tennessee and one originally near the Yamasee, later among the Lower Creeks. The first are scarcely heard of after De Soto‘s time until we come to the census of 1832, which mentions two towns, one of 126 and the other of 306 Indians. 57 These may have been descendants of this northern body, or a later settlement from the other Creek towns. The second body is said to have numbered 120 men in 1738, 58 160 in 1760, and in 1761, as has already been said, together with the Osochi and Okmulgee, 120 hunters. 59 In 1792 they and the Apalachicola together were reputed to have 100 gunmen. (p. 435). Hawkins states that the Chiaha and Osochi branch settlement of Hotalgihuyana contained 20 families in 1799. 60 Young (1821) enumerates 670 Chiaha proper and 210 Hotalgihuyana Indians. 61 According to the census of 1832 the Chiaha and Hotalgihuyana counted 427 Indians and 70 slaves. 62

The enumeration of 1750 estimates the number of Osochi men at 30, but that of 1760 has 50. 63 In the English census of 1761 they and the Chiaha and Okmulgee are given together 120 men, 64 in 1792 they appear alone credited with 50 men (p. 434), while in the American census taken in 1832 are two Osochi towns with an aggregate Indian population of 539. 65

In 1738 we find the number of Hitchiti men placed at 60, 66 in 1750 at only 15, 67 and in 1760 at 50. 68 In 1761 it was estimated that they had 40 hunters, 69 and in 1772 Taitt says there were “about 90 gunmen.” 70 Young gives the population of the Fowl Towns, occupied largely by Hitchiti Indians, as 300 in 1821. 71 In 1832 they are credited, including a branch village, with a population of 381, besides 20 negro slaves. 72 Though still fairly numerous they are more or less confounded with other groups speaking a similar language.

The Okmulgee are enumerated first in 1750, when they are credited with more than 20 men, and the census of 1760 gives them 30 men. 73 In 1761 they are said to have had, together with the Chiaha and Osochi, 120 hunters. 74 75 Hawkins does not give their numbers, but Morse in 1822 says, on the authority of Young, that there were 220 in all. 76 They may be one of the two Osochi towns in the list of 1832 which number almost alike. 77 The omission of their name is strange since, after the removal to Oklahoma, they constituted a very important town.

In 1738, 50 men are given as belonging to the Oconee, in 1750, 30 men, 78 and in 1760, 50 men. 79 In 1761 we find “Oconees big and little” given with 50 hunters. 80 There were evidently fewer in Hawkins’s time, but meanwhile many of them had gone to Florida.

The Spanish census of 1738 includes two Tamałi towns — old Tamali (Tamaxle el viejo) and new Tamali (Tamaxle nuevo), the first with 12 men, the second with 26. 81 The latter, however, was probably in the main a Sawokli settlement. 82 The French estimate of 1750 mentions only one town of 10 men. 83 No further reference to the population of this town appears until we come to Young’s enumeration of the Seminole towns included in Morse’s report, where the total population appears as 220. 84

The only references bearing on the population of the Tamahita tribe are in the census list of 1750, where the “Tamaita” among the Lower Creeks are set down as having more than 18 men, 85 and in that of 1761 where the “Coosawtee including Tomhetaws” are credited with 125 hunters. 86 But see Oconee Tribe.

In 1702 Iberville estimated that the Alabama Indians consisted of 400 families in two villages. 87 This enumeration would, of course, not include the Tawasa, nor probably the Pawokti, but, on the other hand, may have embraced some Koasati. The same limitations would probably apply to the figures in the Carolina census of 1715, in which we find them given four villages, 214 men, and a total population of 770. 88 According to a French manuscript of the third decade of the same century there were then 6 Alabama towns and 400 men. 89 The estimate of 1750 seems to mention only two Alabama towns with 15 and 40 men, respectively. De Kerlerec places the number of Alabama warriors at 1,000 in 1758, but he includes the Talapoosa Indians and Abihka, therefore his figure is of no value. 90 The census of 1760 gives about 40 Tawasa men and 50 Mugulasha, while a town which perhaps corresponds to Okchaiutci contained 100 men. 91 The census of 1761 gives 30 hunters for Muklasa, 20 for Okchaiutci, and 70 for Wetumpka and “Red Ground,” the second of which was probably also an Alabama settlement, but there is no reference to Pawokti, Tawasa, or Autauga, though at this time they must have been among the Upper Creeks. 92 Henry Bouquet in 1764 gives 6,000 warriors[!], 93 and Marbury in 1792 has 60 Alabama Indians, 40 Okchaiutci, 30 Muklasa, and apparently 60 Tawasa (including Red Ground), though his spelling renders this uncertain. Hawkins in 1799 estimated the Alabama proper — Tawasa, Pawokti, and Autauga — to comprise about 80 gunmen, but he does not give the number of those in Okchaiutci or Muklasa. 94 Stiggins places the number of Alabama in 1814 at 2,000, which is excessive. 95 In 1832 the Alabama are represented only by Tawasa and Autauga with a combined population of 321 and 21 slaves. 96 This was after the separation of those Alabama who went to Louisiana and Texas. In 1806 Sibley states that there were two Alabama villages in Louisiana, one containing about 30, the other about 40 men. 97 According to Morse, in 1817, there were 160 Alabama, all told, in Texas, but he probably overlooked some bands. 98

In 1882 the United States Indian Office reported, or rather estimated, 290 “Alabama, Kushatta, and Muskogee” in the State of Texas, 99 and the same figure is repeated without variation in every subsequent report until 1901, when 470 are given on the authority of the census of 1900. 100 This figure is repeated until 1911. In 1910 a special agent was sent to these people from the Indian Office to inquire into their condition and make an enumeration of them, but his instructions did not cover the Koasati Indians, who were consequently ignored. The number of Alabama was found to be 192; the Koasati were estimated along with some Seminole, Isleta, and other Indians in different parts of the State. 101 These figures were repeated in the Indian Office Reports for 1912, 1913, and 1914. The census of 1910 returned 187 Alabama in Texas and 111 in Louisiana — a total of 298. 102 The number of those in Oklahoma is small, but there are enough to maintain a square ground. No separate enumeration of them has been made, so far as I am aware.

By the earliest writers the Koasati were probably included among the Alabama. The first independent enumeration of them is in the estimate of 1750, which gives 50 men. That of 1760 gives 150 men. 103 In the census of 1761 they and the Tamahita together are reported as having had 125 hunters. 104 At least 100 of these were undoubtedly Koasati. Taitt, writing in 1772, reports 40 “Alibamons” here. 105 He probably means 40 gunmen. In 1792 Marbury credits them with 130 men. About 1793 some of them began to move to Louisiana and others followed from time to time. “Those that were left in 1832 numbered 82 according to the census of that year. 106 In 1806 Sibley states that the Koasati in Louisiana supposed the number of men in all their settlements there to reach 200. 107 Schermerhorn estimates their number on the Sabine in 1814 at 600. 108 Morse, in 1817, gives 350 on Red River, 50 on the Neches 40 miles above its mouth, and 240 on the Trinity, a total of 640 men, women, and children. 109 In 1829 Porter gives 180 Koasati. 110 Bollaert in 1850 estimated the number of warriors among the Koasati on the lower Trinity alone at 500 in two villages. 111 After 1882 they were enumerated by the Indian Office along with the Alabama as given above. In 1910 11 were with the Alabama in Texas, 85 in Louisiana, and 2 in Nebraska — a total of 98. 112 A few more are in Oklahoma.

There were two branches of the Tuskegee, one of which united with the Cherokee. The latter was probably small and I have no data regarding it. The other is set down in the census of 1750 as containing 10 men, in that of 1760 as containing 50 men, 113 and in that of 1761 as containing, along with “Coosaw old town,” 40 hunters. 114 Taitt, in 1772, gives about 25 gunmen, 115 as does Marbury in 1792. In 1799 Hawkins says they had 35 gunmen. 116 The census of 1832 returned 216 Indians and 35 slaves. 117

The Spanish census of 1738 gives 111 men in Kasihta, 118 the French census of 1750 more than 80, 119 and that of 1760, 150, 120 while that of 1761 places the number of hunters belonging to it at 100. 121 With this Taitt (1772) agrees, 122 but Marbury (1792) raises it, counting in the villages, to 375. In 1799 Hawkins estimated the number of gunmen here at 180, although they themselves placed it at 300. 123 It was then the largest town in the nation. The census of 1832 gives them seven distinct settlements and a total population of 1,918 Indians and 134 slaves. 124 They are now, of course, much reduced in numbers.

The estimate of Coweta men in 1738 was 132, 125 in 1750, 80+, 126 in 1760, 150, 127 and in 1761, 130 hunters are enumerated. 128 Taitt (1772) gives 220 gunmen in “Coweta, Little Coweta, and Bigskin Creek,” 129 and Marbury (1792) puts the number of men in Coweta and its villages at 280. Hawkins places the number of gunmen in Coweta Tallahassee and its out villages in 1799 at 66 by actual count against a claimed total by the people themselves of 100, but he furnishes no figure for Coweta itself. 130 The census of 1832 enumerated five Coweta settlements with a total population of 896 Indians and 67 slaves. 131 To this must be added the Indians of Broken Arrow, 132 which, if we could trust this census, would increase the Coweta Indians by 1,082 Indians and 59 slaves. 133 It is evident, however, that among the five Broken Arrow towns here enumerated two or three are really Okfuskee villages and probably only the two first mentioned towns represent this division. If this is so, the Broken Arrow population would number only 438 Indians and 31 slaves, which would raise the total Coweta population to 1,334 Indians and 99 slaves. They have since fallen off very rapidly in numbers.

The Coosa Indians were evidently powerful and numerous in De Soto‘s time. Pardo reported that in 1567 the Coosa town had 150 neighborhoods — i. e., small villages. 134 Garcilasso says there were 500 houses, but he is notoriously given to exaggeration when it comes to figures of any sort. 135 Those of the De Luna expedition who visited Coosa in 1559 reported that the principal town of the province had 30 houses, a figure which may be accepted as approximately correct. They add that there were seven other villages in its neighborhood, “five of them smaller and two larger,” and allowing 20 houses on the average to each of these we should have about 170 houses, by which I suppose we are to understand 170 different family establishments. 136 This would furnish the amount of leeway that Garcilasso’s figuring always requires, and it is not far out of the way as compared with Pardo’s, if the latter’s 150 “vecinos” means family groups. When Coosa reappears in history the town is small and decayed, but, as explained elsewhere 137 , there is every reason to believe that the Coosa tribe continued to be represented by a number of the leading towns of the Creek Confederacy.

The Spanish census of 1738 gives 100 men in Coosa and 414 in the Coosa group of towns. 138 The French estimate of 1750 gives 30+ in the town and 240+ in the group. 139 In 1760 the Coosa group of towns numbered about 430 men, and in 1761 about 270 hunters are reported in them. 140 In 1792 the “Coosa of Chickasaw Camp” were credited with 80 men, and all the Coosa offshoots together with 440. 141 According to the figures furnished by Hawkins the entire Coosa connection would number upward of 520, and by the census of 1832 the grand total was 3,792 Indians, about one-sixth of the entire Creek population.

The Abihka are treated as a distinct tribe by many early writers, but the Coosa Indians are sometimes included with them, and perhaps others. This appears to be the case, for instance, in the census of 1715 which returned 15 Abihka towns with 502 men and a total population of 1773. 142 In 1738 Abihkutci, the only Abihka town given, was estimated to contain 30 men. 143 In 1750 the same town is set down with more than 60 inhabitants, 144 in 1760 with 130 men 145 and in 1761, 50 hunters. 146 Taitt in 1772 estimates 45 gunmen, 147 and Marbury (1792) puts the figure as low as 15. In 1832 Talladega, Abihkutci, and Kantcadi are separately entered with a combined population of 905, exclusive of slaves. 148

In 1738 the Wakokai included 100 men, 149 in 1750 60+, 150 in 1760 100 men, 151 and in 1761 60 hunters. 152 Taitt (1772) gives 100 gunmen; 153 Marbury (1792) 300. In 1832 the combined population of Wiogufki, Tukpafka, and Sakapadai was 942 Indians and 5 slaves. 154

In 1738 the Holiwahali were credited with 10 men, 155 in 1750 with 15, 156 in 1760 with 70, 157 and in 1761 with 35 hunters. 158 Marbury, in 1792, places the number of men as high as 110. In 1832 this town and its branch, Łapłako, appear with a population of 607 Indians and 36 slaves. 159

The number of gunmen, in Hilibi and its branches is given successively as 80 in 1738, 160 20 in 1750, 161 80 in 1760, 162 40 in 1761, 163 100 in 1772, 164 160 in 1732, 165 and in 1832 the total population was reported as 804 souls, exclusive of slaves. 166

In 1738 there were reported 131 Eufaula men among both Upper and Lower Creeks; 167 in 1750, 25+; 168 and in 1760, 160. 169 In 1761 they had 125 hunters, 170 and in 1792 Marbury estimates 80 men in the two towns among the Upper Creeks but does not include the one upon the Chattahoochee. Hawkins gives 70 gunmen in Upper Eufaula, 171 but ventures no estimate of the other Eufaula settlements. Young (1822) gives 670 Lower Eufaula Indians. 172 In 1832 there were 1,440 Eufaula Indians of the upper and lower towns with 21 slaves. 173

Atasi is reported to have had 56 men in 1738, 174 40+ in 1750, 175 80 in 1760, 176 and 50 hunters in 1761. 177 In 1772 Taitt estimated 60 gunmen, 178 but Marbury in 1792 only half that number. According to Hawkins they had 43 gunmen in 1766, afterwards increased to 80, and in his time, 1799, they had fallen off again to 50 gunmen. 179 The population in 1832 is given as 358. 180

In 1738 Kolomi appears with 50 men, 181 in 1750 with 25, 182 in 1760, 1761, and 1792 with 50; 183 but no figures are given by Hawkins.

The Pakan Tallahassee Indians were estimated to have 60 men in 1738, 184 10 in 1750, 185 100 in 1760, 186 75 hunters in 1761, 187 20 gunmen in 1772, 188 and 50 in 1792, and are credited with a population of 288 in the census of 1832. 189 When the last enumeration was made part had gone to Louisiana. In 1806 Sibley says these comprised about 30 men. 190

The Okchai towns are supposed to have counted, all together in 1738, 200 men; 191 in 1750, 80; 192 in 1760, 200 men; 193 and in 1761, 125 hunters. 194 In 1792 they are pyramided up to 385, including, however, the town of Opilłåko. In 1832 the Indian population is given as 1,375. 195 At the present day their numbers proportionately are well kept up.

Although the connection is not established beyond doubt I will consider Tukabahchee and Kealedji together. In 1738 about 150 men; 196 in 1750, 75+; 197 in 1760, about 350 men; 198 and in 1761 about 130 hunters were credited to these towns and their branches. 199 Taitt (1772) has 190 gunmen, 120 in Tukabahchee and 70 in Kealedji. 200 In 1792 Tukabahchee is, curiously enough, omitted; Kealedji is estimated to contain 100 men. In Hawkins’s time, 1799, there were 116 gunmen in Tukabahchee, 201 reduced very much shortly before, he says, by misfortunes in war. He does not give the population of Kealedji. In 1832 the two towns, including Hachee tcaba, are given a total population of 2,079 Indians and 183 slaves. 202

The census of 1715 gives two Yuchi towns with 130 men and 400 souls, 203 but this does not include the Yuchi on Choctawhatchee, the Westo, or the band on Tennessee River. About 1730 this last was supposed to count about 150 men. 204 In 1760 there were 65 men, 15 in an Upper Creek town. 205 In 1761 the Yuchi among the Lower Creeks are credited with 50 hunters, 206 and to them must be added a few Choctawhatchee Yuchi enumerated with the Tukabahchee. Bartram, in 1777, estimated their warriors at 500 and their population at from 1,000 to 1,500. 207 In 1792 Marbury reports 300 men, which would mean a population of over 1,000. By 1799, when Hawkins wrote, practically all of these had been gathered into one main settlement, though with outlying villages. 208 Young (1822) gives in one settlement 130 Yuchi. 209 In 1832 two Yuchi settlements appear, having a total Indian population of 1,139. 210 Dr. Speck states that their number “can hardly exceed five hundred” at the present day (1909), 211 but the official enumeration for 1910 was only 78. 212

Figures and estimates for the Natchez who settled among the Creeks have been given in a separate publication. 213

In addition, a word may be said regarding those Shawnee who for a time constituted part of the confederacy. In 1708 the South Carolina documents give three Shawnee towns in that colony and 150 men; 214 in the census of 1715 three towns with 67 men, and 233 souls. 215 In 1760 there were 100 Shawnee men in the bands among the Creeks. 216 In 1761 the united Shawnee on Tallapoosa River were estimated to have 30 hunters, 217 but Marbury (1792) raises this to 60. Hawkins does not give any figures, and the name Shawnee does not occur in the census list of 1832, but we find a town called “Kjamulga-town” which appears elsewhere coupled with the Shawnee and may have been occupied by them. It had a population of 175. 218

Citations:

1. S. Car. MS. Docs, at Columbia; also Rivers, Chap. In Early Hist. S. Car., p. 94.[↩]
2. Adair, Hist. Am. Inds., p. 225.[↩]
3. Barcia, La Florida, pp. 170-172.[↩]
4. S. Car. Hist. Soc. Colls., v, p. 198.[↩]
5. Pub. Rec. of S. C, MS., v, pp. 207-209.[↩]
6. S. C. MS. Docs. at Columbia[↩]
7. Pub. Rec. of S. C., MS., VII, p. 186.[↩]
8. Pub. Rec. of S. C., MS., VIII, p. 7.[↩]
9. See pp. 105-106, 304.[↩]
10. A Descr. of S. C., etc., 1761, p. 63.[↩]
11. Adair, Hist. Am. Inds., p. 225.[↩]
12. Morse, Rept. on Ind. Affairs, p. 364.[↩]
13. See p. 118.[↩]
14. Lowery, MSS.[↩]
15. Carroll, Hist. Colls. S. C, II, p. 351.[↩]
16. See pp. 121-123.[↩]
17. See p. 123.[↩]
18. Copy of MS. in Lib. Cong.[↩]
19. Pub. Rec. of S. C, Ms., V, pp. 207-209.[↩]
20. Pub. Rec. of S. C, Ms., V, pp. 207-209; also Rivers, A Chapter in the Early Hist, of S.C., p. 94.[↩]
21. Copy of MS. in Lib. Cong.[↩]
22. Barcia, La Florida, p. 341.[↩]
23. See p. 127.[↩]
24. Compte Rendu, XV sess. Internat. Cong. Am., I, p. 86.[↩]
25. Sibley, Annals of Cong., 9th Cong., 2d sess., 1085.[↩]
26. Morse, Rept. to the Sec. of War, p. 373.[↩]
27. Pub. Rec. of S. C, MS., pp. 207-209.[↩]
28. Rivers, Chap. in Early Hist. S. C, p. 94.[↩]
29. Copy of MS. in Ayer Coll., Newberry Lib.[↩]
30. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
31. Copy of MS. in Ayer Coll., Newberry Lib.[↩]
32. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
33. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 345-347.[↩]
34. Copy of MS. in Ayer Coll., Newberry Lib.[↩]
35. Copy of MS. in Lib. Cong.[↩]
36. Du Pratz, Hist, de la Louisiane, II, pp. 212-213.[↩]
37. Sibley, Annals of Cong., 9th Cong., 2d sess., 1087.[↩]
38. Morse, Rept. to the Sec. of War, p. 373.[↩]
39. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, pp. 94-95.[↩]
40. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., iv, pp. 258-260.[↩]
41. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
42. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
43. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
44. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
45. Hawkins in Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., in, p. 66.[↩]
46. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sees., iv, pp. 342-344.[↩]
47. Morse, Rcpt. to Sec. of War., p. 364.[↩]
48. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sees., iv, pp. 342-344.[↩]
49. Copy of MS. in Lib. Cong.[↩]
50. Am. Hist. Rev., XX, p. 825.[↩]
51. Bourne, Narr. of De Soto, l, p. 97; II, p. 128.[↩]
52. Margry, Dec., IV, pp. 427, 514.[↩]
53. Du Pratz, Hist. Louisiane, II, p. 213.[↩]
54. Compte Rendu Int. Cong. Amer., 1906, I, p. 85.[↩]
55. MS., Lib. Cong.[↩]
56. MS., Lib. Cong.[↩]
57. 1 Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 307-309.[↩]
58. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
59. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96; Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
60. Hawkins in Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 64.[↩]
61. Page 409; Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 364.[↩]
62. Sen. Doc. 512, pp. 350-352.[↩]
63. MS., Ayor Coll.; Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
64. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 622.[↩]
65. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., rv, p. 612.*[↩]
66. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
67. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
68. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.*[↩]
69. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 622.*[↩]
70. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 548.*[↩]
71. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 364.*[↩]
72. Sen. Doc. 512, pp. 347-350.*[↩]
73. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.*[↩]
74. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 622.*[↩]
75. * The footnotes on page 435 were missing #9, and I have assumed them as in numerical order since the total number of footnotes matched up. Further analysis of the actual footnote contact matches that assumption.[↩]
76. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 364.[↩]
77. Sen. Doc. 512, pp. 353-356.[↩]
78. MSS. Ayer Coll.[↩]
79. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
80. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 622.[↩]
81. Copy of MSS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
82. See p. 143.[↩]
83. MSS. Ayer Coll.[↩]
84. See p. 409.[↩]
85. MSS. Ayer Coll.[↩]
86. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 524.[↩]
87. Margry, Dec., IV, p. 514.[↩]
88. Rivers, Chap. Early Hist. S. C, p. 94.[↩]
89. MS., Lib. Cong.[↩]
90. Compte Rendu, Int. Cong. Am., XV sess., I, p. 83.[↩]
91. Miss Prov. Arch., I, p. 94.[↩]
92. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, pp. 523-524.[↩]
93. Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, p. 569.[↩]
94. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., ra, p. 37.[↩]
95. Stiggins, MS.[↩]
96. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 258-260.[↩]
97. Ann. of Cong., 9th Cong., 2d sess., 1085.[↩]
98. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 373.[↩]
99. Rept. Comm. Ind. Aff. for 1882 p. 340.[↩]
100. Rept. Comm. Ind. Aff. for 1901, p. 702.[↩]
101. Rept. Comm. Ind. Aff. for 1911, p. 67.[↩]
102. Ind. pop. of the U. S., census of 1910, p. 17.[↩]
103. MS., Ayer Coll.; Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 94.[↩]
104. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 524.[↩]
105. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 536.[↩]
106. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 265-266.[↩]
107. Sibley in Ann. Cong., 9th Cong., 2d sess., 1086.[↩]
108. Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., II, p. 26.[↩]
109. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 373.[↩]
110. Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, p. 596.[↩]
111. Jour. Eth. Soc. of London, 2, p. 282.[↩]
112. Pop., Bur. of Census, p. 18.[↩]
113. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 94.[↩]
114. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 524.[↩]
115. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 541.[↩]
116. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 39.[↩]
117. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 265-266.[↩]
118. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
119. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
120. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
121. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
122. Trav. In Am. Col., p. 550.[↩]
123. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 59.[↩]
124. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 363-398.[↩]
125. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
126. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
127. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
128. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 522.[↩]
129. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 549.[↩]
130. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 56.[↩]
131. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 379-386.[↩]
132. The population of Broken Arrow is referred to by only one other writer. This is David Taitt in 1772, who gives 60 gunmen. See Mereness, Trav. in Am. Col, p. 649.[↩]
133. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 379-386.[↩]
134. Ruidiaz, La Florida, II, p. 484.[↩]
135. Garcilasso, in Shipp, De Soto and Fla., p. 374.[↩]
136. Barcia, La Florida, p. 32.[↩]
137. See: Coosa and their Descendants[↩]
138. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
139. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
140. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95; Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 523. David Taitt (Travels in Am. Col., pp. 502, 528) states in his diary of 1772 that some years before his time Okfuskee numbered 300 gunmen but the town had then spread out so much into branch villages that there were only about 30 gunmen in the old settlement. In the same way Great Tulsa which had once contained 100 gunmen had become reduced to “not above thirty ” by the settlement of two outvillages, one 8, the other 25 miles off. The Coosa towns at about that time must have contained upward of 400 gunmen.[↩]
141. MS., Lib. Cong.[↩]
142. Rivers, Chap. Early Hist. S. Car., p. 94.[↩]
143. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
144. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
145. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95.[↩]
146. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 523.[↩]
147. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 534.[↩]
148. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 304-307, 315-318.[↩]
149. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
150. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
151. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95.[↩]
152. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 523.[↩]
153. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 535.[↩]
154. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 286-293.[↩]
155. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
156. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
157. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95.[↩]
158. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 523.[↩]
159. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 255-258, 268-270.[↩]
160. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
161. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
162. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95.[↩]
163. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 523.[↩]
164. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 530.[↩]
165. MS., Lib. Cong.[↩]
166. Sen. Doc. 512, op. cit., pp. 296-297, 318-323.[↩]
167. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
168. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
169. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, pp. 95-90.[↩]
170. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, pp. 522-523.[↩]
171. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 48.[↩]
172. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 364.[↩]
173. Sen. Doc. 512, op. cit., pp. 275-278, 337-342, 378-379.[↩]
174. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
175. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
176. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 95.[↩]
177. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 523.[↩]
178. Trav. in Am. Col., p. 540.[↩]
179. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 32.[↩]
180. Sen. Doc. 512, op. cit., pp. 252-254.[↩]
181. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
182. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
183. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 94; Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 32.[↩]
184. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
185. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
186. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 94.[↩]
187. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 523.[↩]
188. Mereness, Trav. in Am. Col., p. 535.[↩]
189. Sen. Doc. 512, op. cit., pp. 285-286.[↩]
190. Sibley, in Ann. Cong., 9th Cong., 2d sess., 1086.[↩]
191. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
192. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
193. Miss. Prov. Arch., l, pp. 94-95.[↩]
194. Ga. Col. Reo., VIII, pp. 523-524.[↩]
195. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong , 1st sess., IV, pp. 241-243, 284-285, 293-296, 297-299.[↩]
196. Copy of MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
197. MS., Ayer Coll.[↩]
198. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p .95.[↩]
199. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 523.[↩]
200. Travels in Am. Col., pp. 502, 516.[↩]
201. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, pp. 29-30.[↩]
202. Sen Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 243-252, 278-280, 327-330.[↩]
203. Rivers, Hist. S. C., p. 94.[↩]
204. Copy of MS. in Lib. Cong.[↩]
205. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, pp. 95-96.[↩]
206. Ga. Col. Rec, VIII, p. 522.[↩]
207. Bartram, Travels, p. 386.[↩]
208. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 62.[↩]
209. Morse, Rept. to Sec. of War, p. 364.[↩]
210. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 356-363.[↩]
211. Speck, Anth. Pub. Univ. of Pa. Mus., I, p. 9.[↩]
212. Pop. of Ind. Tribes, 1910, p. 21.[↩]
213. Bull. 43, Bur. Amer. ethn. I may add that Taitt says there were 30 gunmen, “Natches and Creeks,” in the Natchez town among the Upper Creeks in 1772 (Mereness, Trav. Am. Col., p. 532), and Marbury places the figure at 110 in 1792.[↩]
214. S. C. Pub. Docs., MS., V, pp. 207-209.[↩]
215. Rivers, Chap. Early Hist. S. C., p. 96.[↩]
216. Miss. Prov. Arch., I, p. 96.[↩]
217. Ga. Col. Rec., VIII, p. 523.[↩]
218. Sen. Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 1st sess., IV, pp. 302-303.[↩]