Counting from the north, the Carolinian area is that in which the sassafras, tulip tree, hackberry, sycamore, sweet gum, rose magnolia, red bud, persimmon, and short-leaf pine first make their appearance, together with the opossum, gray fox, fox squirrel, cardinal bird, Carolina wren, tufted tit, gnatcatcher, summer tanager, and yellow-breasted chat. Chestnuts, hickory nuts, hazelnuts, and walnuts grow wild in abundance. (Merriam, 1898, p. 31.) [In the Austroriparian Area] the long leaf and loblolly pines, magnolia, and live oak are common on the uplands; the bald cypress, tupelo, and cane in the swamps. Here the mocking bird, painted bunting, prothonotary warbler, redcockaded woodpecker, chuck-wills-widow, and the swallow-tail and Mississippi kites are characteristic birds, and the southern fox squirrel, cotton rat, ricefield rat, wood rat, and free-tailed bat are common mammals. (Merriam, 1898, p. 45.) [Tropical Area:] Among the tropical trees that grow in southern Florida are the royal palm, Jamaica dogwood, manchineel, mahogany, and mangrove; and among the birds are the caracara eagle, white-crowned pigeon, zenaida dove, a Bahama vireo, and the Bahama honey creeper. The absence of characteristic tropical mammals and the relatively small number of tropical birds in Florida is due to the lack of land connection with other tropical areas. riam, 1898, p. 52.) CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN TRIBES (Mer A natural classification of peoples would be based upon their physical characters, but such a classification is impossible at the present time as applied to the area under consideration and would be impracticable in a treatise like the present, which deals mainly with questions of culture. Therefore, the classification which has been adopted and which is given in table 1 (opposite) is based merely upon linguistic and political considerations. In this table the Muskhogean, Tunican, and Uchean (or Yuchean) stocks are given entire, but only such tribes of the Siouan, Iroquoian, Caddoan, and Algonquian families as lived within the Southeastern province. In its more limited sense, the Southeastern cultural province included the Muskhogean tribes with their recently annexed Natchez and Timucua divisions, the Cherokee, the Tunica and Chitimacha groups, and the Caddo. The tidewater tribes of Virginia and North Carolina, although stimulated by the culture of those just mentioned, had developed a somewhat independent pattern with an economy in which fishing, trading, and the possession of property had assumed more important positions, and the temples a different shape and character. The Siouan tribes which lay between these two areas seem to have been on a lower level (Speck, 1938) and the same may be said of the southern Florida Indians, and the Indians west of the Chitimacha and Caddo. These last, indeed, were entirely marginal to Southeastern culture and should hardly be considered as participants in it. The Siouan Quapaw and Algonquian Shawnee, although on a higher level than the central Texas tribes, were also marginal and seem to have come within its sphere at a very recent period. The same was also true of the Biloxi and Ofo, but we know too little regarding them to make an independent category for them advisable, though Voegelin has shown that they formed one dialectic group with the Tutelo (not indicated in table 1). POPULATION The most careful attempt to date to prepare a detailed estimate of the Indian population north of Mexico is by the late James Mooney, of the Bureau of American Ethnology, though useful modifications have been suggested by Kroeber. This gives us a total population from the Chesapeake to Texas, including the Caddo and Shawnee and excluding the Atakapa, of 171,900. The Atakapa and their relatives are placed at about 2,000. While this figure is protested by Spinden as inadequate to account for the earthworks of the region, I believe it to be rather too high than too low for the years to which it is supposed to apply, 1600-1650. At an earlier period, however, there are evidences of a great expansion of population. My own independent estimates for part of the region yield substantially the same results as Mooney reached except that I should be inclined to reduce the figures for the Creeks and Chickasaw somewhat. The figures for Florida I should also be inclined to scale down and most of those for the Siouan tribes of the east. Nevertheless, the relative strength of the tribes enumerated, I think, would be altered little if we had absolutely trustworthy figures, and those we have will give us a very good idea of the distribution of population. It is something surprising to find that the Cherokee, the only distinctly mountain tribe in the whole area, with the possible exception of the Yuchi, were also the most numerous, the only one exceeding 20,000. Next come the Creeks of the Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Chattahoochee Valleys, and the Choctaw of southern Mississippi. If we regard density of population, we should probably find the Choctaw leading both Creeks and Cherokee. It will be noticed that these are all great corn-raising tribes and still constitute the greatest part of the remaining southern Indians. They are followed by the Powhatan Indians of Virginia, the Timucua and the Apalachee of Florida, the Chickasaw of northern Mississippi, the Catawba of the Piedmont region of South Carolina, and the Tuscarora of the Piedmont escarpment in North Carolina. Most of these are again corn-raising tribes of the interior, but Virginia and Florida now supply us with tribes which combined that industry with fishing in an eminent degree. Fourth in position, of between 2,500 and 5,000 population, come the Natchez and Quapaw, at different points along the Mississippi River; the Potano of Florida, who were inland rather than coastal, though they depended considerably on the fish found in their lakes; the Chitimacha, a nation of canoe men, but perhaps rather more lacustrine than coastal; and the Calusa of Florida, who lived almost entirely by fishing and the pursuit of marine animals. After these come a great number of small scattered tribes constituting, we may say, the fringes of the rest. The only exception to this is probably the Tunica and their allies whose cultural position with reference to their neighbors it is difficult to determine with precision. It is worth noting that the very smallest tribes seem to include a great number of eastern Siouans. Speaking generally, we find that the horticultural tribes of the interior were the largest, but that coastal populations were dense in four places: (1) In the Sound country of Virginia and North Carolina; (2) in the similarly flooded coastland between the present Charleston, S. C., and the St. Johns River, including the course of the latter stream; (3) southwest Florida from Tampa Bay to the Keys; and (4) Grand Lake and its surrounding bayous just west of the Mississippi. The second and third were occupied by two peoples of diverse origin. When we come to southwestern Louisiana and Texas, we find a coastal population set distinctly off from the interior tribes, but in both cases they were of low culture. Rated by stocks we have the following approximate figures: Tunican (Tunica group 2,000; Chitimacha group 4,000) – 66, 600 30, 200 24, 000 16,500 13, 000 8, 500 6,000 4,000 3, 100 Dividing the population between the coast and the interior, we get the following result, a proportion of about 42 to 1: Interior. Population 141, 500 30, 400 These data are based on Mooney's figures. My own suggested modifications appear on map 3, but practically the same proportion would be maintained whichever set we employ. If we compare the distribution of population in 1650-85 with that revealed to us by the chroniclers of De Soto a hundred years earlier, we find comparatively little change, so far as they can enlighten us on the subject, except in the region around Augusta, Ga., in the southern Appalachians, and west of the Mississippi River. In earlier as well as later times, Florida was well populated and we are reasonably certain that this was true |