Charles Royce - The Cherokee Nation

The Bureau of American Ethnology was created in 1879 to collect, record, and document the history and culture of Indian tribes, especially in the United States. Data were published in 200 Bulletins and 81 Annual Reports, which were discontinued when the Bureau was amalgamated with the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, in 1965.

This reorganization affected Archives of the Bureau of American Ethnology, which contained many documents of historic and scientific importance. In 1969, the name was changed to the National Anthropological Archives and activities were expanded. Collections are growing and representatives selected by Indian tribes are assisting in their documentation while receiving guidance in the acquisition, preservation, and use of archival materials.

The Native American Library, in which this book appears, is designed to make old and new data more accessible. It will contain both reprints from Bureau of American Ethnology publications with new introductions by Indians, and original works written or edited by Indians. Requests for reprints are initiated by the governing bodies of native American groups; copies are made available to members of the sponsoring tribe at cost and to other native American groups on a non-profit basis. In this way, we hope to assist in the wider dissemination to and by Indians of information on their heritage, which is also a significant part of the heritage of all other Americans.

Herman J. Viola
Director, National Anthropological Archives

Aside from Charles Royce, the most important historian of the Cherokee was James Mooney, whose contribution was originally published in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Having prepared an introduction to the reprint of that work, I found myself making comparisons and judgments on the style, accuracy, techniques, and other aspects of the two monographs in preparing this Introduction. Although both men worked at about the same time and dealt with some of the same material, their impact on me was very different. Mooney was easy to write about, but commenting on Royce required deliberate effort. However, when I compared their contributions, expression became easier. This drew my attention from their work to the men themselves. My psychological reaction suggested marked differences between Mooney and Royce, which are reflected in their writing. I felt that Mooney was a warm, personable individual who wrote from experience, whereas Royce was a serious student who consulted books instead of people. He seemed cold and impersonal, an observer rather than a participant. Is this contrast important? After long consideration, I believe that it has value. Since both authors are highly reliable, their different techniques and interests make their work complementary.

Using the old axiom that writing is about people, places, or things, we can categorize Mooneys work as about people and Royces as about places and things. While there is some overlap, this characterization seems to fit. Mooney lived with the Cherokee and spoke their language. He became close friends with the people, so much so that he was privy to their innermost thoughts and practices. He wrote, for example, about Swimmer and other leading medicine men, about the sacred formulas, myths, secular songs and dances, medical songs, and many other very personal and sacred topics. Much of his work is biographical in form, dealing with Cherokee friends he consulted. Even today, a traditional Cherokee does not freely discuss these topics with an outsider. We must conclude that Mooney was accepted by the people with little or no reservations.

Not so Royce. He wrote with an impersonal, academic, very studied approach. His informant was an extensive library on the Cherokee. His favorite subjects were treaties and boundary descriptions. He footnotes his work with long trails of writers who have gone before him. He quotes Hayward on tradition, Burke, Beverly, and Adair on history and Pericaut on history and geography, to name only five of literally hundreds of authors whose work he studied to write this book. He expands Mooneys earlier horizon of Cherokee history. Both are needed.

Today, informed Cherokee feel greatly indebted to Royce. Most, however, do not realize his connection with modern tribal activity. His accurate reporting on treaties and boundaries provided the data that enabled Earl Boyd Pierce, General Counsel of the Cherokee Tribe, over many years and with the help of Chief W. W. Keeler, to win legal claims for land that brought more than fourteen million dollars to the tribal treasury from the United States Government. Cases pending may add many times that amount.

The Tulsa Tribune of April 16, 1975, ran a full-page feature story on the present status of the Cherokee under the headline: Cherokee Legal Claims Basis for Rejuvenation of Tribe. The four legal judgments that provide the basis for the revitalized economy of the Cherokee Nation emanate from the treaties of May 1828, February 1833, and December 1835, which are included in this reprint. The newspaper summarized the legal decisions as follows: