Cartographic review of Indian land tenure and territoriality: A schematic approach

American Indian Culture and Research Journal

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 63-114

  Sutton, Imre ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649087530     PISSN: 01616463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17953/aicr.26.2.2jqk2x54353n6533     Document Type: Review

References (253)

1. Laura E. Kelsay, comp., Cartographic Records in the National Archives Relating to Indians in the United States, National Archives and Research in Historical Geography (Washington, DC: National Archives, 1971);
2. id., List of Cartographic Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Special List 13 (Washington, DC: National Archives, 1954).
3. Cf. Francis P. Prucha, A Bibliographical Guide to the History of Indian-While Relations in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 20, entries 191-197.
4. For a broader discussion Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature (New York: Clearwater Publications, 1975), passi/n and 218-219.
5. The largest number of maps in historic volumes is derivative; some are reproductions of earlier, more empirical maps. One needs to identify original sources for such maps. For example, on the inside cover of Douglas Summers Brown, The Catawba Nation: The People of the River (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1966) appears a photocopy of a map by Henry Mouzon et al. entitled "An Accurate Map of North and South Carolina with Their Indian Frontiers," 1778. This map exhibits a 144,000-acre tract belonging to the Catawba Indians at the time.
6. See John C. Christie Jr., "The Catawba Indian Land Claim: A Giant among Indian Land Claims," American IndianCulture and Research Journal 24, number 1 (2000): 173-182, esp. fig. 3, p. 175.
7. I made use of photocopies of two original maps - DeSmet's "Map of Western United States, 1851," and "The Doty Map" of Shoshone Territory, 1863.
8. The former is housed with the Library of Congress and the latter is found in the National Archives, RG 75, Map CA248
9. see Imre Sutton, ed., Irredeemable America: The Indians' Estate and Land Claims [Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1985], frontispiece, p. xiii, and figure 8.2, p. 194. For an extensive listing of relevant geographic studies, many of which contain maps
10. see Stephen C. Jett, comp., A Bibliography of North American Geographers' Works on Native Americans North of Mexico, 1971-1991, Haskell Indian Nations University Studies in the Geography of the American Indian 1 (Lawrence, Kansas: Haskell Indian Nations University, 1994).
11. There is no belter place to cite William C. Sturtevant, general ed., Handbook of North American Indians (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, various years). If we consider just one volume, Great Basin, ed. Warren L. D'Azevedo (1986), we find a quantum of maps, including many related to prehistory, others dealing with specific tribal groups, treaties, and reservations. For such maps, many are original compilations for the volume, others are derivative of other sources. To some degree one will find a cross-section of useful maps in encyclopedic volumes such as Duane Champagne, ed., The Native North American Almanac (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1994, 2001) and in Mary B. Davis, ed., Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia (New York: Garland Publishing Company, 1994). Most of these maps are derivative of other sources, such as maps of land claims adjudication and general maps of reservations and other trust lands.
12. Of the original plats surveyed and drawn for Southern California from 1857 into the 1880s, for example, an inestimable number were lost as a result of the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, where the maps were stored. These and later plats contained site locations of Indian communities and were important sources for the establishment of reservations for the Mission Indians up to 1892.
13. Imre Sutton, "Land Tenure and Changing Occupance on Indian Reservations in Southern California," (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1964), available via University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI, #65-4706.
14. The chief historic source continues to be Charles C. Royce, comp., Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 18th Annual Report, 1896-97, part 2 (Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnography, 1899), 521-997. No one to date has challenged most of the maps in this volume. I raised questions about the accuracy of cession boundaries for Southern California; and Robert P. Swierenga, Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation on the Ioxva Frontier (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1968), p. 18, noted inconsistencies in the delineation of Sac and Fox country.
15. Robert F. Heizer, "Treaties," in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, ed. R. F. Heizer (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978) observed of the land cessions map of California in Royce that there was no basis for their delineation other than the vague impression of the Senate that California Indians were willing to cede most of the lands. "Royce's map is, therefore, his own artifact deriving from the same assumption" (p. 703).
16. The Garland Publishing Company's volumes of the claims cases include useful maps that at times have been poorly reproduced from court exhibits and archival sources. Many of these maps owe their origin to compilations prepared by expert witnesses, and originals are housed either with appropriate federal offices and archives or with the tribes. Cf. Sutton, Irredeemable America, esp. chapter 5, "Configurations of Land Claims: Toward a Model," 111-132.
17. See, for example, E. Richard Hart, ed., Zuni and the Courts: A Struggle for Sovereign Land Rights (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995): figs. 10.1-10.7. I have in my possession a map - "Areas of Zuni Land Taken Since 1846," prepared by Bryan Marozas - that compiles all the Zuni claim areas on one map. The map was prepared for the plaintiff tribe in Zuni Tribe of Neiv Mexico v. US by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California (circa 1987). It has a scale of 1 inch=8 miles and the map size measures 42 inches X 24 inches, suggesting the need for a large area to depict the detail on a single map. Generally, as part of land claims exhibits, plaintiff tribes and the US defendant introduced multiple maps.
18. Royce, Indian Land Cessions. See more discussion under schematic map 6. US Congress, House of Representatives, Report with Respect to the House Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to Conduct an Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, House Report 2503, 82nd Cong., 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1953).
19. Alfred L. Kroeber, Natural and Cultural Areas of Native America, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 38 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939). Readers should turn to the Kelsay guides to locate various older maps by tribe or subject.
20. T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985). See my review, Geographical Review 77, number 3 (1987): 239-240.
21. James M. Goodman, The Navajo Atlas: Environments, Resources, People and History of the Dine Bikeyah (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
22. Cf. "Aboriginal Navajo Land," fig. 1, in Philip Reno, Navajo Resources and Economic Development (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983).
23. The Reno map is based on data from the Navajo Land Findings of Fact. For a different presentation of the Hopi-Navajo land dispute, one that also show potential new Hopi lands as well as Hopi lands to be leased to Navajos
24. Martin Ira Glassner, Political Geography, Second Edition (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996), chapter 16, "Indigenous Peoples," 212-229 (map p. 227). For my review of Goodman, see Geographical Review 73, number 4 (1983): 450-451.
25. Jeff Zucker, Kay Hummel, and Bob Hogfoss, Oregon Indians: Culture, History and Current Affairs (Portland, OR: Western Imprints, Press of the Oregon Historical Society, 1983), 80, 83, 92, 94, and 124.
26. Helen Hornbeck Tanner, ed., Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press for the Newberry Library, 1987).
27. Francis P. Prucha, Atlas of American Indian Affairs (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
28. my review, American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 2 (1991): 231-232.
29. Samuel W. Crompton, general editor, Illustrated Atlas of Native American History (Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 1999), 6.
30. Pierluigi Portinaro and Franco Knirsch, The Cartography of North America, 1500-1800 (Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, Inc, 1987).
31. For example, there is one by Carl Waldman and Molly Braun, Atlas of the North American Indian (New York: Facts on File, 1986), which is largely derivative of other sources yet a useful reference. See my review of the first edition, Geographical Review 76, number 3 (1986): 330-332.
32. For example, Warren A. Beck and Ynez D. Haase, Historical Atlas of the American West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), maps 51 and 52 show Indian lands and judicially established areas.
33. Henry P. Walker and Don Bufkin, Historical Atlas of Arizona (Norman: University of Okahoma Press, 1979) includes Indian tribes circa 1600 (map 12) and circa 1860 (map 24); the development of Indian reservations (maps 42, 43), specifically of Apache, Hopi, and Navajo (map 44); and for the whole state (map 45). Beck and Haase, Historical Atlas of California (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974) similarly offers Native Groups 1770 (map 11) and Indian lands (maps 57 and 58). Thomas J. Noel, Paul E. Mahoney, and Richard E. Stevens, Historical Atlas of Colorado (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994) includes a boundaries section but none of the maps focus on Indian tribes. The settlement section does include maps of prehistoric Coloradans, Anasazi, Fremont, and Plains Culture, and Native American Tribes (maps 43-45). Map 45 does include land cessions. There are no maps of Native territoriality or land claims adjudication. Jerry L. Williams and Paul E. Mcallister, New Mexico in Maps (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1981) includes as part of Historical Landscapes a map (p. 27) revealing paleo-Indian sites, Native American settlements (p. 29). In contrast, Beck and Haase, Historical Atlas of New Mexico (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969) includes several useful maps - prehistoric civilizations (map 12), Pueblos and nomadic tribes, 1541 (map 15), nomadic tribes circa 1845 (map 22), Indian tribal lands (map 56), and present Indian Pueblo towns (map 57).
34. John W. Morris, Charles R. Goins, and Edwn C. McReynolds, Historical Atlas of Oklahoma, Third Edition (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986) updates from the 1980 Census. Thus far, this is the most comprehensive Indian adas, revealing homelands, removal of the Five Tribes, maps specific to Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole, Osage, and smaller groups, as well as Cheyenne and Arapaho leased and allotted lands. Several maps of evolving Indian Territory are included besides one of the proposed state of Sequoyah. A. Ray Stephens and William M. Holmes, Historical Atlas of Texas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989) includes a map of Texas Indians (map 7) and Indian reservations in die 1850s (map 36).
35. James W. Scott and Roland L. De Lorme, Historical Atlas of Washington (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988) includes a section on Indian history showing tribal distributions and Indian reservations; the atlas doesn't include adjudicated claims areas or other Indian territorial maps. Some of these historic atlases have been utilized for other maps of tribes and lands.
36. See for example: Faiman-Silva, Choctaws at the Crossroads: The Political Economy of Class and Culture in the Oklahoma Timber Region (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), figs. 2.1 and 4.1, as partially based on Morris, Goins, and McReynolds, Historical Atlas of Oklahoma;
37. Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life (Cambridge: South End Press, 1999), "The Seventh Generation of Ojibwe Ceded Lands," as based on Wisconsin's Past and Present: A Historical Atlas (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 196.
38. David J. Wishart in An Unspeakable Sadness: The Dispossession of the Nebraska Indians (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994). His maps also reflect die utility of land surveys and ethnographic and historic/documentary maps (e.g., "Auguste Chouteau's Map of Indian Territories, 1816," fig. 3, and "DePuy's Map of die Pawnee Reservation, 1861" redrawn, fig. 22).
39. Lawrence M. Hauptman, Conspiracy of Interests: Iroquois Dispossession and the Rise of New York Slate (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1999).
40. Klaus Frantz, Indian Reservations in the United States. Territory, Sovereignty, and Socioeconomic Change, Geography Research Paper 242 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), figs. 3.5, 3.11, and 3.12;
41. Royce, Indian Land Cessions, other sources include Kroeber, Natural and Cultural Areas, and Sam B. Hilliard, "Indian Land Cessions" (map supplement), Annals Association of American Geographers 62, number 2 (1972).
42. My earlier models may be found in Imre Sutton, "Sovereign States and the Changing Definition of the Indian Reservation," Geographical Review 66, number 3 (1976): 281-295 and id., "Preface to Indian Country: Geography and Law," American Indian Culture and Research foumal 15, number 2 (1991): 3-35.
43. In this study, no attempt has been made to classify maps; however, in 1988 I did publish a typology that includes archaeological, ethnographic, historic/documentary, and environmental maps. I noted then that we could also classify maps by methods of preparation - e.g., field reconnaissance, geodetic survey, and ethnohistoric reconstruction. Many of the maps discussed in this reference study do fit into either scheme.
44. See Imre Sutton, "The Cartographic Factor in Indian Land Tenure: Some Examples from Southern California," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 12, number 2 (1988): 53-80, ref. to p. 54.
45. That study included a surveyor's plat of 1857; an ethnohistoric reconstruction utilizing an earlier map with additional data added; a reserved and ceded lands map based mostly on Royce, Indian Land Cessions, hence mostly historic/documentary; a map of land assignments based on field work and BIA office records; and a composite map showing data based on executive orders, Royce, and other historic data, and utilized in a land claims case Pechanga v. Kacor et al.
46. See John C. Christie Jr., "Indian Land Claims Involving Private Owners of Land: A Lawyer's Perspective, in Sutton, ed., Irredeemable America, chap. 10, 233-246.
47. Kroeber, Natural and Cultural Areas; Robert F. Heizer, Languages, Territories and Names of California Indian Tribes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966); and my review in Professional Geographer 20, number 1 (1966): 75-76.
48. Cf. William C. Sturtevant, "Early Indian Tribes, Culture Areas, and Linguistic Stocks" (map), in The National Atlas of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Geological Survey, 1970).
49. Other sources include those by Charles F. Voegelin and Erminie W. Voegelin, Map of North American Indian Languages, Publ. 20, American Ethnological Society (Menasha, WI: G. Banta, 1944);
50. Harold E. Driver et al., Indian Tribes of North America, Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 9 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1953).
51. Perhaps one of the more intriguing volumes that includes interesting maps is William Christie Macleod, The American Indian Frontier (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928).
52. Among his maps are "The Iroquois and the Great Confederations of the Old Southwest" (map 2); "The Tribes of the Old Northwest, and Their Algonkian Kin" (map 9); and "The Tribes of the Southwestern Plains, Desert, and Great Basin" (map 12). Macleod also includes Appendix X, which discusses his maps. Macleod's maps are not cartographically high quality, yet offer some interesting interpretations of available data. Note that most of his publications were ethnographical or historical in the Indian field, yet he was a professor in the Department of Finance in the Wharton and Graduate Schools of the University of Pennsylvania.
53. See Robert Rundstrom, "The Role of Ethics, Mapping, and the Meaning of Place in Relations Between Indians and 'Whites in the United States," Carlographica 30, number 1, monograph 44 (Spring 1993): 21-28; id., "Mapping, Postmodernism, Indigenous People and the Changing Direction of North American Cartography,"Cartographica 28, number 2 (Summer 1991): 1-12, quote p. 4.
54. Mark Warhus, Another America: Native American Maps and the History of Our Land (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997), 3.
55. G. Malcolm Lewis, "Indian Maps: Their Place in the History of Plains Cartography," in Mapping the North American Plains, eds. Frederick C. Luebke, Francis W. Kaye, and Gary E. Moulton (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press in association with the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1987), 63-80;
56. Lewis, "Misinterpretation of Amerindian Information as a Source of Error on EuroAmerican Maps," Annals Association of American Geographers 77, number 4 (1987): 542-563.
57. See also Lewis, ed., Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998) and its review by Robert Rundstrom, Professional Geographer (May 2001): 292.
58. Correspondence between the author and Daniel J. Gelo, professor of anthropology, University of Texas, San Antonio, April 17, 2001.
59. Cf. Gelo, "'Comanche Land and Ever Has Been': A Native Geography of the Nineteenth-Century Comancherfa," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 103, number 3 (January 2000): 273-307.
60. It is suggested to me that Gelo might have in mind a functional region, not unlike that proposed by Donald Meinig in his "core/domain/sphere" approach to the Mormon culture region and to Texas. For comparative interpretation, see Meinig, "The Mormon Culture Region: Strategies and Patterns in the Geography of the American West, 1847-1964," Annals Association of American Geographers 55 (1965): 191-220;
61. David J. Wishart, "The Dispossession of the Pawnee," Annals Association of American Geographers 69 (1979): 382-401.
62. Daniel Gelo is referring to Steven M. Schnell, "The Kiowa Homeland in Oklahoma," The Geographical Review 90, number 2 (April 2000): 155-176. Gelo, correspondence, April 17, 2001.
63. Sally Fairfax, "Managing Place and Identity: Establishing Boundaries," manuscript refereed by me for The Geographical Review (fall 2000).
64. Louis De Vorsey Jr., The Indian Boundary in the Southern Colonies, 1763-1775 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966).
65. See also De Vorsey, "Early Maps as a Source in the Reconstruction of Southern Indian Landscapes," in Symposium on Indians in the Old South: Red, White, and Black, ed. C. M. Hudson (Athens: Southern Anthropological Society, 1971); and id., "Historical Maps before the United States Supreme Court," Map Collector 19 (June 1982): 24-31.
66. De Vorsey also served as an expert witness for cartographic data on early maps before the US Supreme Court.
67. William C. Sturtevant, "Early Indian Tribes, Culture Areas, and Linguistic Stocks," National Atlas (Washington, DC: US Geological Survey, 1983); map scale: 1:7,500,000, approximately 125 miles=l inch. "Indians of North America," (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1972), supplement to vol. 142, n. 6, p. 739a; map scale: 1:10,610,000, approximately 167 miles=l inch. Of maps of a single state, see "Indian Tribes and Languages of the Old Oregon Country" (Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society, 1959); map scale 1:1,562,000, approximately 25 miles=l inch. This map is based upon the same cultural criteria as the others although some boundaries are not the same.
68. Royce, Indian Land Cessions; see also Hilliard, "Indian Land Cessions." Hilliard's fold-out map presents Royce's land cession data in a series of five maps spanning various dates: 1784-1819, 1820-1839, 1840-1859, 1860-1879, and 1880-1972
69. and utilizing five color gradients on each map. To date, these maps represent the best reconstruction of Royce's data. These maps also reflect reliance on the compendious volumes by Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Law and Treaties, 5 volumes (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1903-1938).
70. See my review of the Hilliard map, Pacific Historical Revieiv 42, number 1 (1973): 108. For a more typical historical use of cartographic sources that utilizes Royce as well as John R. Swanton's Indian Tribes of North America, Bulletin 145 (Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnography, 1952) in a series of treaty of land cessions maps that also include original territories, see Donald E. Worcester, ed., Forked Tongues and Broken Treaties (Caldwell, ID: The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1975). These maps include lands of the Choctaw, Cherokee, Sioux, and Apache. The maps were prepared by the Northwest Cartographic Institute.
71. On recognized tide compared to original (Indian) tide, see Richard W. Yarborough, commissioner, ICC, "Index to the Map Indian Land Areas Judicially Established," Final Report, US Indian Claims Commission (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979): 127-130.
72. See my discussion of executive order changes in Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, passim. Cf. Hart, Zuni and the Courts, which reconstructs in stages the reduction of the Zuni Indian Reservation by land cessions. Similarly, Goodman, The Navajo Atlas, exhibits a series of maps showing land cessions and additions to the Navajo Indian Reservation. As an example of the utility of certain early maps, note in the establishment of a reservation for the Pima and Maricopa Indians in central Arizona, Malcolm Comeaux, a geographer, includes maps based on Captain Adna Chaffee from Arizona Territory 1878, another entided "Sketch of a portion of Salt River " accompanying Chaffee's report, two that include data from executive orders. All of these maps are historic/documentary and include field reconnaissance and other means. Comeaux, "Creating Indian Lands: the Boundary of the Salt River Indian Community,"journal of Historical Geography 17, number 3 (1991): 241-256.
73. I have made use of a copy of "Township No. X (10) South, Range No. I (1) East" (San Bernardino Meridian, 1:125,000, or 1 mile=2 inches). This comprises a portion of the northern area of San Diego County, California. The plat is dated March 21, 1857. It reveals Indian villages, barley fields, and wagon roads. For comparison, consider the photocopy of a plat "Township No. IV (4) South, Range No. IV (1) East" (San Bernardino Meridian), dated Feb. 15, 1901. Written on the plat it says: "Reed [sic] with letter of March 4, 1856." The General Land Office certified its "true and literal exemplification of the township plat." It reveals Indian houses and fields and the site of hot springs (Sec. 14) in the area that is today Palm Springs, California. To date, no one has reexamined treaties of land cession toward realizing a different interpretation of the data. My rendering of plat T10S, R1E dated 1857 (fig. 3.1) has been reproduced in Sutton, "The Cartographic Factor "; on it, I superimposed the bounds of the Cuca Rancho which lies within the Lajolla Indian Reservation, which was established by 1875. In this same article, I also reconstructed the land tenure history of the Pechanga Indian Reservation, revealing parcels claimed by the band but excluded by executive order because of bona fide homestead entries (fig. 3.5). Such demonstrates how agencies did not confer on official land transactions.
74. For example, see Sam B. Hilliard, "Indian Land Cessions West of the Mississippi," Journal of the West 10, number 3 (1971): 493-510;
75. Ronald A. Janke, "The Loss of Indian Lands in Wisconsin, Montana and Arizona," in A Cultural Geography of North American Indians, eds. Thomas E. Ross and Tyrel G. Moore (Boulder: Westview Press, 1987), 127-148;
76. id., "Chippewa Land Losses," Journal of Cultural Geography 2, number 2 (Spring/Summer 1982): 84-100;
77. Janke's maps of Chippewa land cessions credit Kappler, but he acknowledges Royce, Indian Land Cessions, in his notes. For the wording of treaties
78. see Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laius and Treaties, 5 volumes (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1903-1938). Cf. my discussion in Indian Land Tenure, 51-55.
79. On the subject of treaties, see Vine Deloria Jr. and David E. Wilkins, Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999) and Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Cf. Prucha's chapter 12, "The End of Treaty Making."
80. See Wilcomb E. Washburn, The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dazves Act) of 1887, The America's Alternatives Series (New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1975).
81. Leonard A. Carlson, Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land: The Dawes Act and the Decline of Indian Fanning (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981);
82. Janet A. McDonnell, The Dispossession of the American Indian: 1887-1934 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991). Unfortunately, neither of these volumes provide useful maps of land allotment. Carlson includes a general allotment map for die reservations of the Northern Plains (p. 63) as based on the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Considering the time frame of McDonnell's study, we could have hoped for more detail for some reservations, rather than a generalized western map, dated 1935, which poorly and less accurately shows "allocated" (allotted?), "tribally owned," and "open area." Here, open connotes land available under public land entry laws.
83. Harold Hoffmeister, "The Consolidated Ute Indian Reservation," The Geographical Review 35, number 4 (1945): 601-623.
84. See also, for a wide spectrum of interpretations, Imre Sutton, "Private Property in Land among Reservation Indians in Southern California," Yearbook, Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 29 (1967): 69-89;
85. Holly Youngbear-Tibbetts, "Without Due Process: The Alienation of Individual Trust Allotments of the White Earth Anishinaabeg," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 2 (1991): 93-138, esp. figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5;
86. Jack Hunt, "Land Tenure and Economic Development of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation," Journal of the WestS, number 1 (January 1970): 93-109, fig. 2 (p. 97);
87. Frantz, Indian Reservations, fig. 3.7 of land tenure on the Crow Indian Reservation based on BIA Area Realty Office in Aberdeen. For a study by a non-geographer
88. see LaDuke, All Our Relations, map of White Earth Indian Reservation, 114.
89. "Blackfoot Quadrangle, Idaho" (1978), map scale: 1:100,000; "Lodge Grass, Montana-Wyoming" (1980), same map scale; neither map indicates whether the BIA made any specific input in the compilations. "Palm Springs, California" (1978), same map scale. Note that Blackfoot is correct although in the United States we generally refer to the tribe as Blackfeet.
90. "State of Utah," (1977), map scale: 1:500,000.
91. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, "Hunting Regulations and Ownership Map," Department of Natural Resources, Rosebud, South Dakota, n.d., map scale: approximately 10 miles=4.2 inches. As reported in the mid-1990s, Rosebud contained 954,572 acres, of which 409,321 were tribally held. See Tiller's Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations, ed. and comp. Veronica E. Velarde Tiller (Albuquerque: BowArrow Publishing Company, 1996), 561. For its approximate date, this would constitute a useful research map. The casino is about thirty-five miles north of Valentine, a fishing resort in Nebraska. For a discussion of counties in and out of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, see Sutton, "Sovereign States." Researchers will find reference to tribal sources in the credits to various maps, but there is no index to such sources.
92. Cf. Sandra Faiman-Silva, Choctaws at the Crossroads: The Political Economy of Class and Culture in the Oklahoma TimberRegion (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), map 8.1, showing current boundaries, towns, and forest concentrations as adapted from the Comprehensive Plan of the Choctaiu Nation. "The Story of the Palm Springs Reservation," Palm Springs: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, n.d., map scale: approximately 2 miles=l inch. This is not in any way a suitable research source. Cf. Imre Sutton, "Land Tenure and Occupance Change," 139-143; fig. 23, "Land Allotment"; 220-226; and fig. 42, "Alienation and Leasing [on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, circa 1961-1962]." These maps were prepared by me at the field office of the tribe in Palm Springs.
93. Sutton, "Sovereign States." See also Beth R. Ritter, "Dispossession to Diminishment: The Yankton Sioux Reservation" (Ph.D. diss., University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1999).
94. Cf. Glenn A. Phelps, "Mr. Gerry Goes to Arizona: Electoral Geography and Voting Rights in Navajo Country," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 2 (1991): 63-92.
95. Some years ago, the Arizona Legislature sought to enact the creation of an all-Indian county, but this bill was vetoed by the governor.
96. Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, 138-141 and fig. 4, "Indian Reservations in the United States, 1974," which includes then-terminated trust lands. One or more scholars contend that termination came in anticipation of the land claims litigation process. Cf. Clayton R. Koppes, "From New Deal to Termination: Liberalism and Indian Policy, 1933-1953," Pacific Historical Review 46, number 4 (1977): 543-566.
97. The Klamath Indians of Oregon sold off some acreage and retained a smaller area held in common by the Indian community. The Menominee, unlike the Klamath, were later restored to trust status, but considerable tribal acreage was sold out of trust. Again, the Menominee Nation would be the best source for an appropriate map.
98. On the effects of allotment on heirship, see Michael L. Lawson, "The Fractionated Estate: The Problem of American Indian Heirship," South Dakota History 21 (Spring 1991): 1-42.
99. Cf. Elizabeth Thompson, "Babbitt v. Youpee: Allotment and the Continuing Loss of Native American Property and Rights to Devise," University of Hawaii Law Review 19, number 1 (1997): 265-310. Examples of maps showing tribal and allotted lands include Donald J. Ballas, "A Cultural Geography of Todd County, South Dakota, and the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation" (Ph.D. diss., University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1970).
100. Ballas's maps also reveal lands held in the tribal land enterprise program, which was one tribe's attempt to consolidate and utilize fragmented holdings. Cf. Richmond L. Clow, "The Rosebud Tribe and the Creation of TLE, 1943-1955: A Case of Tribal Heirship Land Management," in Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management, eds. Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001), chapter 6. I also produced detailed allotment and heirship maps in Sutton, "Land Tenure and Occupance Change."
101. See Imre Sutton, "Not All Aboriginal Territory is Truly Irredeemable," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 24, number 1 (2000): 149-150
102. Michelle M. Lindo, "Youpee v. Babbitt - The Indian Land Inheritance Problem Revisited," American Indian Law Review 22, number 1 (1997): 223-246.
103. Clow, "The Rosebud Tribe." The Land Consolidation Act is cited as 25 US Code, §2206 (1994) and as amended, 25 USCA, §2201; PL 106-462 (2000).
104. The Comanche reference comes from a letter to me (May 17, 2001) by Professor Daniel J. Gelo, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, San Antonio.
105. A thorough review of the Missouri Valley tribes is provided by Michael L. Lawson, The Dammed Indians: The Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux, 1944-1980 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
106. Katherine Weist, "For the Public Good: Native Americans, Hydroelectric Dams, and the Iron Triangle," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, chapter 3. This study includes two maps based on Army Corps data. The field offices that provided data for Weist's study were the US Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Omaha; and the Pittsburgh District (Ohio River Valley), Pennsylvania. At times, studies deserving of appropriate maps lack them: Jane Lamm Carroll, "Dams and Damages: The Ojibway, the United States, and the Mississippi Headwaters Reservoirs," Minnesota History 52, number 1 (1990): 3-15.
107. This is a historic study - circa 1880s - and would have benefited from detailed reservoir maps; its author was then a historian with the US Corps of Engineers and, I would think, had access to suitable maps.
108. Imre Sutton, "Geographical Aspects of Construction Planning: Hoover Dam Revisited," Journal of the West 7, number 3 (1968): 301-344, ref. pp. 327-334. See also my map and discussion in Indian Land Tenure, 166-171 and a modified edition of it in Waldman and Braun, Atlas of the North American Indian, 202.
109. Cf. Daniel McCool, Command of the Waters: Iron Triangles, Federal Water Development, and Indian Water (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), esp. chapter 6, "Conflicts among Programs and Priorities."
110. See T. J. Ferguson, Öngtupqa niqw Pisisvayu [Salt Canyon and the Colorado River]: The Hopi People and the Grand Canyon, Final Ethnohistoric Report for the Hopi Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Project (Kykotsmovi, Arizona: Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, 1998);
111. William R. Coffeen, "The Effects of the Central Arizona Project on the Fort McDowell Indian Community," Ethnohistory 19, number 4 (1972): 345-377.
112. The project in question was Orme Dam, which was ultimately withdrawn since it would have flooded most of the reservation. See Patricia Mariella and Violet Mitchell-Enos, "Yavapi," in Davis, ed., Native America, 710-712.
113. The Coffeen study includes several maps, including one of the damsite and reservoir area (fig. 5), exchange lands (fig. 6), and others.
114. Hunt, "Land Tenure and Economic Development"; Sutton, "Land Tenure and Occupance Change," 281-283 and fig. LXII.
115. See Ward Churchill and Winona LaDuke, "Native North America: The Political Economy of Radioactive Colonialism," in The Stale of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance, ed.M. Annette Jaimes (Boston: South End Press, 1992), 241-266, maps on 250, 254.
116. Churchill discusses the concept of national sacrifice areas. LaDuke, All Our Relations, maps on 74 and 96. The cartography is attributed to Zoltan Grossman - mtn@igc.apc.org - but otherwise sources are not fully detailed. Regrettably, Donald A. Grinde and Bruce E. Johansen, in Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples (Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 1995
117. Donald L. Fixico, in The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century (Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1998), do not provide any maps to accompany important geographic discussions.
118. "The Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946," 60 Stat. 1049.
119. Indian Claims Commission, Final Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979), "Indian Land Areas Judicially Established," map scale: 1:4,000,000, compiled, edited, and published by the US Geological Survey. "This map portrays the results of cases as before the U.S. Indian Claims Commission or U.S. Court of Claims." It is likely, but not confirmed, that the reference to the Court of Claims identifies cases forwarded from the ICC and not those earlier reported by E. B. Smith, comp., Indian Tribal Claims: Decided in the Court of Claims of the United States, Briefed and Compiled to June 30, 1947 (Washington, DC: University Publications of America, 1976).
120. One might want to compare the ICC map with another by Sam B. Hilliard, "Indian Land Cessions," which includes a map of "Land Claims by Tribe." While some claims areas compare well with adjudicated areas on the ICC map, keep in mind that claims and adjudication do not necessarily represent exactly the same subject matter. The former is the tribal perception of loss and the latter is the adjudicated rendering of that loss.
121. Sutton, Irredeemable America, especially "Configurations of Land Claims.," fig. 5.5, attempts to reconstruct the variable mappable elements in boundary exhibits on claims maps. Ward Churchill, "The Earth is Our Mother: Struggles for American Indian Land and Liberation in the Contemporary United States," in Jaimes, ed., The State of Native America, 139-1188, maps 1-6. Sec for usage of claims cartography: R. H. Ruby and J. A. Brown, The Spokane Indians: Children of the Sun (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970).
122. Some 200 volumes were published by Garland Publishing Company in New York. Many of these volumes include photocopies of map exhibits. While the Clearwater Publishing Company's microfiche series includes far more documents, it does not provide maps that can be easily scrutinized. To date, there is no known complete compilation of land claims maps. An example of a Garland publication is: Ralph L. Beals, Indian Occupancy, Subsistence and Land Use Patterns in California, in California Indians VI (New York: Garland Publishing Company, 1974).
123. The two volumes by Norman A. Ross, Index to the Expert Testimony before the Indian Claims Commission: The Written Reports (New York: Clearwater Publishing Company, 1973) and Index to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission (New York: Clearwater, 1973) serve as catalogs to the microfiche collection. Bibliographies in this special field are rare, but see Richard H. Weil, A Bibliography of American Indian Land Claims, Public Administration Series P2145 (Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies, 1987). Unfortunately, this volume lacks a discussion or entry relating to maps.
124. One of Kroeber's students - Omer Stewart - told me that geographer Carl Sauer was influential in preparing him to work with maps in the Indian field. For Stewart's capacity with maps, see Stewart, "The Shoshone Claims Cases," in Irredeemable America, 187-206, ref. to figures 8.3 and 8. 4., 198-199.
125. Kroeber, Natural and Cultural Areas. For comments on Kroeber's cartographic objectives, see Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, 31-32; poignant comments about Kroeber in Ralph L. Beals, "The Anthropologist as Expert Witness: Illustrations from the California Indian Land Claims Case," in Irredeemable America, 139-155;
126. Omer C. Stewart, "Kroeber and the Indian Claims Commission Cases," Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 25 (1961): 181-190.
127. Kroeber also published on land tenure: "Nature of the Land-Holding Group," Ethnohistory 2, number 2 (1955): 303-315, and "The Nature of the Land-Holding Group in Aboriginal California," in Aboriginal California: Three Studies in Culture History, ed. Robert F. Heizer (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), 81-120.
128. Kroeber, Natural and Cultural Areas, 8.
129. Stewart, "The Shoshone Claims Cases," 198-199, figs. 8.3 and 8.4. As editor of Irredeemable America, 1 had the opportunity to utilize Stewart's large, multiply folded and highly detailed map of the Great Basin, which shows dozens of lines representing the accounts of various observers.
130. D'Azevedo, Great Basin.
131. Richard O. Clemmer and Omer C. Stewart, "Treaties, Reservations, and Claims," in D'Azevedo, Great Basin, 553.
132. Ibid.
133. Omer C. Stewart, "Tribal Distributions and Boundaries in the Great Basin," in W. L. d'Azevedo, Wilbur A. Davis, Don D. Fowler, and Wayne Suttles, eds., The Current Status of Anthropological Research in the Great Basin, 1964, Social Science and Humanities Publications 1 (Reno: Desert Research Institute, 1966), 167-237.
134. Stewart, "The Shoshone Claims Cases," 198-199.
135. Omer C. Stewart, "The Question of Bannock Territory," in E. H. Swanson Jr, ed., Languages and Cultures of Western North America: Essays in Honor of Sven S. Liljeblad (Pocatello: Idaho State University Press, 1970): 201-231.
136. Harold Driver et al., Indian Tribes of North America.
137. Erminie Wheeler-Voegelin, "History and Ethnohistory, and a Case in Point," in A. F. C. Wallace, ed., Men and Cultures. Selected Papers, Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographical Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1956): 364-367.
138. Verne F. Ray, review of Indian Tribes of North America by Driver et al., American Anthropologist 57 (1953): 145-146.
139. Heizer, Languages, Territories," 26; see also my review of Heizer in Professional Geographer XX, number 1 (January 1968): 75-76.
140. Heizer, Languages.
141. Kroeber's expertise became the foundation for research background that abetted the plaintiff tribes in Indians of California v. US On the case, see Beals, "The Anthropologist as Expert Witness," 139-156.
142. Inasmuch as Indiatis of California was consolidated by the ICC, the earlier detailed efforts to delimit territories of bands and tri- belets in California did not figure importantly in the final determination of acreage. However, greater accuracy in the configuration of outer boundaries of the two California claims cases would have been achieved. But, no doubt, the replication of the methods utilized in California assisted in mapping elsewhere.
143. While the ICC relied on Royce numbers in litigation, the map of "Indian Land Areas Judicially Established" (1978) indicates area numbers based on the "Indian Land Area Map Index." See ICC, Final Report, 131-137.
144. For a general discussion of tribal boundaries and claims cartography, see Imre Sutton, "Configurations of Land Claims."
145. D. M. Brugge, "A Linguistic Approach to Demographic Problems: the Tonto- Yavapai Boundary," Ethnohistory 12, number 4 (1965): 355-372.
146. Nancy O. Lurie, "The Indian Claims Commission Act," Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science 311 (May 1957): 56-70, ref. p. 66.
147. See also Lurie, "Problems, Opportunities, and Recommendations," Ethnohistory 2 (Fall 1955): 357-375.
148. Note that Ralph Beals, as chief defense expert witness in California Indians v. US relied on the 'nuclear theory' in arguing that California bands and tribes did not effectively utilize total territory (see Beals, "The Anthropologist as Expert Witness" and Beals and James A. Hester Jr., "A New Ecological Typology of the California Indians," Selected Papers, Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographical Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1956), 411-419.
149. For a general summary of the earlier studies, see Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, 95-106.
150. For another account of ethnohistory, see Kerwin Lee Klein, Frontiers of Historical Imagination: Narrating the European Conquest of Native America, 1890-1990 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 183-186 and passim.
151. J. A.Jones, "Problems, Opportunities, and Recommendations," Ethnohistory 2, number 4 (1955): 347-355, ref. pp. 347-348.
152. On other interpretations of tribe, see Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, 186-193.
153. Jones, "Problems," 350-351. Note that Jones had worked for the US Justice Department and was quite familiar with many cases.
154. Cf. Verne F. Ray, introduction to "Anthropology and Indian Claims Litigation: Papers Presented at a Symposium Held at Detroit in December, 1954," Ethnohistory 2, number 4 (1955): 287-291, ref. p. 288.
155. Lurie, "Problems, Opportunities," 364.
156. Ibid., 365.
157. Ibid. This is perhaps what happened in the case of the Havasupai claims (see John F. Martin, "From Judgment to Land Restoration: The Havasupai Land Claims Case," in Sutton, ed., Irredeemable America, 271-300, ref. to pp. 298-299).
158. Homer Aschmann, a geographer, hailed from the University of California, Berkeley, and did participate as an expert witness. See his "Environment and Ecology in the 'Northern Tonto' Claim Area," expert testimony prepared for Docket no. 22-J, (1963), in Apache Indians 5, A Study of Western Apache Indians, 1846-1886 (New York: Garland Publishing Company, 1974), 167-232 (28 Indian Claims Commission 423 [1972]).
159. I more thoroughly discuss this crossover of anthropology and geography in: "Indian Affairs and Geographers: The Research Vitality of Land Tenure," unpublished manuscript, forthcoming in a Festschrift volume honoring Henry J. Bruman (professor emeritus of geography, UCLA).
160. Also see a recent review of geographic contributions to the study of the Indian: Robert Rundstrom, Douglas Deur, Kate Berry, and Dick Winchell, "Recent Geographical Research on Indians and Inuit in the United States and Canada," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 24, number 2 (2000): 85-110.
161. Yarborough, "Index to the Map," 127-130, ref. p. 127.
162. Ibid., 128.
163. Ibid. Emphasis added.
164. For commentaries on the published findings, decisions, and expert testimony, see my comments: "Appendix B: Bibliographical Note," in Irredeemable America, 399-101, and updated in "Appendix B: The Documentary Record," in Imre Sutton, ed., "The Continuing Saga of Indian Land Claims," American Indian Culture and ResearchJoumal24, number 1 (2000): 196-197.
165. Indians of California vs. US. See also Stewart, "Kroeber and the Indian Claims
166. Commission Cases"; Florence C. Shipek, "Mission Indians and Indians of California Land Claims," American Indian Quarterly 13, number 4 (1989): 407-420; and Lurie, "Problems, Opportunities," 368-369.
167. Alfred L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of California (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1925). Note that publication of this volume was postponed and the actual completion date was circa 1918.
168. US Congress, House, Report ivith Respect to the House Resolution, Appendix IV, Maps 1-75; quote on p. 156. Emphasis added. I adapted three tribal areas from this document as based on Kroeber, in Indian Land Tenure, fig. 2, "Tribal Territory and Reservations."
169. See Sutton, "Not All Aboriginal Territory," 140-141 and fig. 1.
170. David J. Wishart, "Belated Justice? The Indian Claims Commission and the Waitangi Tribunal," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 25, number 1 (2001): fig. 6 ("Payments [Consideration] Established by the Indian Claims Commission") and fig. 7 ("Fair Market Value Established by the Indian Claims Commission"). Both maps superimpose monetary values upon the configurations of judicially established claims areas as based on die 1978 ICC map. Wishart published another pair of maps, "Payments to Indians" and "Fair Market Value," but only for the Great Plains, in Wishart, "Compensation for Dispossession: Payments to the Indians for Their Lands on the Central and Northern Great Plains in the 19th Century," National Geographic Research 6, number 1 (1990): 94-109, fig. 2. These maps appear in multiple colors.
171. David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams Jr., Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, Fourth Edition (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1998), chap. 12, 860-901, esp. 871-901, which deal with off-reservation rights; Francis P. Prucha, American Indian Treaties, passim.
172. On water rights, see: Winters v. United States, 207 US 564 (1908); Getches et al., Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Laiv, 791-859.
173. See: Imre Sutton, "Indian Cultural, Historical, and Sacred Resources: How Tribes, Trustees, and the Citizenry Have Invoked Conservation," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, chap. 7, 165-193;
174. Thomas F. King, Cultural Resources, Laws and Practice: An Introductory Guide (Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press, 1998).
175. Several studies focus on fishing rights in litigation: see Fay G. Cohen, Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986), figs. 8.2 ("Map of the Columbia River below McNary Dam showing areas open to commercial fishing") and 8.3 ("Ocean Jurisdiction Map"). These maps owe their origin to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
176. Cf. Melissa Powers, "The Spirit of the Salmon: How the Tribal Restoration Plan Could Restore Columbia Basin Salmon," Environmental Law 30, number 4 (2000): 867-910. No doubt more detailed maps have been prepared by the commission.
177. Map coverage of water rights litigation is mostly derivative, but discussions bring forward the state of agreement and litigation.
178. See Daniel McCool and Laura Kirwan, "Negotiated Water Settlements: Environmentalists and American Indians," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, chap. 10. For a very different water map that utilizes an early map of mine (Indian Land Tenure, fig. 8), see Frantz, Indian Reservations, fig. 8.1, which relates Indian reservations and dam projects to moisture zones (humid, subhumid, etc.). Other water project maps involving Indian lands include Thomas R. McGuire, "Indian Water Rights Settlements: A Case Study in the Rhetoric of Implementation," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 2 (1991): 139-169, figs. 2 ("The Tucson Basin") and 3 ("Avra Valley and Vicinity"). The study focuses on the Central Arizona Project and the Tohono O'Odham San Xavier District.
179. The Endangered Species Act may be found at 16 USC §§1531-1544. See Sandi B. Zellmer, "Conserving Ecosystems Through the Secretarial Order on Tribal Rights," Natural Resources and Environment 14, number 3 (Winter 2000): 162-165, 211-214;
180. Imre Sutton, "Tribes and States: The Political Geography of Indian Environmental Jurisdiction," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, chap. 9, 239-263.
181. "The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA]," Arizona Law Joumal 24, number 1 (1992); and Devon A. Mihesuah, ed., "Repatriation: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue," American Indian Quarterly 20, number 2 (1996): 153-307;
182. Jhon Goes In Center and Bryan Marozas, cochairs, "The Relevance of Tribal Aboriginal Territories in the Interpretation, Protection, and Restoration of Cultural Resources," for the meetings of the 1999 American Assn. for State and Local History, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1999. Copy of prepared talk sent to author by B. A. Marozas, July 1999. Goes in Center is president of Innovative GIS Solutions, Inc. (Fort Collins, Colorado) and Marozas was then GIS coordinator, BIA (Albuquerque, New Mexico); see also id., "The Role of Spatial Information in the Assessment of Cultural Affiliation," in "Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act," Hearings on PL 101-601, Commissioner on Indian Affairs, US Senate, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1999); this paper was also presented at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Geographic Information Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1999, [Abstracts], 422-427.
183. No one map reports the totality of land restorations for various reasons; but a few maps have been prepared. See Sutton, "Incident or Event?" in Sutton, ed., Irredeemable America; for the Havasupai, see Martin, "From Judgment to Land Restoration, in Sutton, ed., Irredeemable America, 271-300, ref. to n. 1, pp. 298-299.
184. The discussion indicates that several different interpretations of original and later boundaries for this tribe can be rendered. Cf. Kendra S. McNally, "The Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act: Perspectives on Protection of a National Resource," Arizona Law Review 18, number 1 (1976): 232-275;
185. McNally provides a map based upon one in hearings before congressional committees. For the Timbisha, see Steven Haberfeld, "Government-to- Government Negotiations: How the Timbisha Shoshone Got Its Land Back," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 24, number 4 (2000): 127-165. Note that the maps - figs. 2 and 3 - which reveal Tribal Cooperative Activity Areas within Death Valley National Park, were produced by the Bureau of Land Management. The Taos and Zuni restorations are discussed in Sutton, "Incident or Event?" See also E. Richard Hart, "Zuni Claims: An Expert Witness' Reflections," in "The Continuing Saga of Indian Land Claims," 163-171, and fig. 2. The Yakama map of the Mt. Adams boundary changes appears in Yakima Indian Nalion (Toppenish, WA: Yakima Indian Agency, BIA, 1971) and is published in a slightly revised form in Sutton, Irredeemable America, fig. 9.1, 216.
186. See Lawrence M. Lesko and Renee C. Thakali, "Traditional Knowledge and Tribal Partnership on the Kaibab National Forest with an Emphasis on the Hopi Interagency Management," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, chap. 11, 281-301.
187. Cf. Ferguson, Öngtupqa niqw Pisisvayu, fig. 10, "Hopi Tutskwa" 66. This includes several maps that portray original Hopi territory relative to a partnership with the Forest Service.
188. See Marozas and Goes in Center, "The Role of Spatial Information."
189. Cf. Christie, "The Catawba Indian Land Claim."
190. Correspondence from the Phoenix Area Office, Branch of Real Estate Services, by John Philbin, January 17, 2002. The agency reports that the Branch of Roads at the Western Regional Office assumes major responsibility for mapping. The branch produces, revises, and updates reservation maps. The Branch of Realty produces other maps, as related to appraisals, and the Branch of Land and Water Resources produces maps of dams, safety zones, and floodways. The Branch of Land Operations produces soil and land class maps as well as maps of rangelands. The Branch of Housing produces subdivision maps and the Branch of Environmental Quality Services produces and reviews maps of tribal cultural property and archaeological sites pursuant to NEPA and NHPA.
191. This section has made heavy use of manuscripts sent to me by Bryan Marozas, currently a staff member of the Office of Indian Trust Transition and formerly GIS coordinator of the BIA, Albuquerque. "Tribal Use of GIS and Remote Sensing," a presentation at the South West Gathering RS/GIS Workshop Planning Meeting, March 19, 1998, at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Base data layer themes, as for roads, lakes, timber types, were developed on USGS quad sheets at a scale of 1:24,000 for most reservations. Then databases were developed and inserted into a digital library, which were made available online with free use of Arc/Info GIS software. Marozas notes that some fifty tribes were already utilizing GIS technology in 1992.
192. He also stresses that "BIA projects are mostly conducted through the Forestry departments," including wildlife mapping projects, which are an important source of land cover types.
193. Marozas, "Tribal Use of GIS," lists for the Southwest tribes that have their own GIS departments and are busy supporting their IRMP (Integrated Resource Management PIan):Jicarilla Apache, Jemez, Santa Clara, Cochiti, Nambe, Zuni, Santa Ana, Sandia, and others that are known to have GIS capabilities, including San Carlos Apache, Southern Ute, Navajo, and Hopi. In an updated study, "A Brief History of Tribal GIS Implementation (1985-2000) and the Progression to Stand Alone Systems (2000)," Marozas identifies specific land use concerns of Southwest tribes; e.g., the Jemez are concerned with cultural resources and forest management; Santa Clara is using GIS to support land claims; Zuni are developing agricultural databases and using GIS to manage arroyos.
194. One may visit a website entitled "Maps: GIS Windows on Native Lands, Current Places, and History [http://vnw.kstrom.net/isk/maps/US.html]. It includes generalized maps of reservations, and states in which judicially established Indian lands may be found (but the site does not actually reveal the existing ICC map of 1978).
195. Other data relate to reservations in Minnesota, Alaska, and tribes and bands in California. The site is not really useful for serious research on land tenure or territoriality. The last update was in 1997.
196. With reference to off-reservation sites, as related to cultural resource management, see Imre Sutton, "Indian Cultural, Historical and Sacred Resources: How Tribes, Tnistees, and the Citizenry Have Invoked Conservation," chap. 7, and Lawrence M. Lesko and Reneé G. Thakali, "Traditional Knowledge and Tribal Partnership on the Kaibab National Forest with an Emphasis on the Hopi Interagency Management," chap. 11 in Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001), 165-193 and 281-301.
197. For example, the state directors of the Bureau of Land Management provide land status information on their Master Title Plates, Historical Indexes, Cadastral Survey Records, and other materials. Cartographic records of the BIA are identified with Record Group 75, housed at the several Federal Record Centers and by the National Archives and Records Administration. And, of course, the Library of Congress maintains earlier cartographic records. Correspondence with Phoenix Area Office, January 17, 2002.
198. The Phoenix Area Office, of all regional offices of the BIA, provided the most comprehensive response to my research questions. While it is logical that various federal land agencies would generally maintain cartographic records of trust lands, not too many universities across the country would be repositories of similar maps.
199. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88 Stat. 2203 (1975). I made an attempt to generalize the larger Indian Country that includes adjacent political area. See Imre Sutton, "Preface to Indian Country: Geography and Law," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 2 (1991): 3-35, ref. fig. 4, p. 20.
200. Daniel Cole, "One Cartographic View of American Indian Land Areas," Cartographica 30, number 1 (1993), monograph 44: 47-54, ref. to p. 53.
201. "Indian Lands in the United States," map prepared by the BIA, Geographical Map Service Center, 1998, and published by the US Geological Survey, Box 25286, Denver 80225-0046 (2000), ISBN 0-607-90852-1.
202. Correspondence from the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, BIA, Billings, Montana, November 28, 2001, and from the Portland Area Office, BIA, Portland, OR, November 27, 2001.
203. A compendious source that includes details of land use is: Tiller, ed., Tiller's Guide to Indian Country. However, maps in this volume are only locational.
204. Frantz, Indian Reservations, figs. 3.11 and 3.12. Goodman, Navajo Atlas, also includes maps dealing with livestock and grazing capacity (figs. 31 and 33) as based on data by the Office of Land Operations, Navajo Tribe, Window Rock. Hart's Zuni Atlas includes a map of grazing units (fig. 37), which is based on BIA, grazing unit map, at the Zuni Agency, Albuquerque Area Office. He also provides a reconstruction of traditional Zuni grazing areas (fig. 14).
205. Diane L. Krahe, "The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, ch. 8, figs. 8.3a, b, and c. For other examples, see Ballas, "A Cultural Geography"; and Sutton, "Land Tenure and Occupance Change." Cf. Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations, 26, a map of the Seminole area, South Florida, showing various land uses. One example of the frustration in gaining specific map data has to do with my own efforts: I sought cartographic data about Blue Lake, which was restored to the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico. After several unanswered letters to the Taos Pueblo, I ultimately secured sufficient cartographic data only from the Kit Carson National Forest, not the Pueblo. See Imre Sutton, "Incident or Event?" 215-217 and fig. 9.1.
206. See Ward Churchill and Winona LaDuke, "Native North America: The
207. Political Economy of Radioactive Colonialism," in Jaimes, ed., The State of Native America, 241-266, esp. map 1 (p. 250) and map 2 (p. 254).
208. Cf. Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations, 74, a map of coal deposits on various reservations including the Northern Cheyenne; 96, a map of nuclear waste including current and former tribes that have pursued Monitored Retrievable Storage. For broader environmental concerns, see Americans for Indian Opportunity, Survey of American Indian Environmental Protection Needs on Reservation Lands: 1986, submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, September 1986.
209. See Bryan Marozas, "The Role of Geographic Information Systems in American Indian Land and Water Rights Lidgadon," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15, number 3 (1991): 77-93.
210. Many tribes have expanded upon new technology as well as indigenous planning. For example, the Menominee Nation, Sustainable Development Institute at Keshena (in Wisconsin) is developing applications of a "Multipurpose Land Information System - A Collaborative Effort," Sustainable Nations 1, number 1 (September-December 1999).
211. Such programs and trained staff in the Southwest include: Chemehuevi, Colorado River, Fort Mojave, Fort Apache, Quechan (Yuma Indian Reservation), Hopi, O'Odham Nation (formerly Papago Indian Reservation), Ak Chin, Gila River, Fort McDowell, Pascua Yaqui, Salt River, San Carlos, Yavapai-Prescott, Elko Te-Moak, Pyramid Lake Pauite, Washoe, Las Vegas Paiute, Moapa Paiute, and Ute.
212. This listing suggests that GIS has become fundamental to tribal land use planning. Correspondence with Phoenix Area Office, January 17, 2002.
213. This office advises that if any of the tribes are pursuing land consolidation plans, as adopted under §204 of the ILCA, such may be treated as "proprietary information."
214. Frantz, Indian Reservations, 53-54 and fig. 3.7.
215. ILCA, 25 USCA, 2201; PL 106462 (2000) contains amendments. See Bureau of Indian Affairs, "Notice to Indian Land Owners," (pamphlet) 2000 (?). In the Southwest, only the Gila River and Fallon tribes have expressed an interest (correspondence with Phoenix Area Office). For the Northwest, several intertribal meetings were held in April 2001 to present an Indian Land Tenure Partnership Plan hosted by the Intertribal GIS Council (correspondence from Danielle P. Dutt, Portland Area Office, BIA, November 27, 2001). §2203 (formerly 204) discusses the options for tribes that seek land consolidation efforts toward "eliminating undivided fractional interests."
216. USCA 25, §§ 2201-2211; 481 US 704 (1987).
217. Babbitt v. Youpee 117 S. Ct. 727 (1997).
218. See Getches et al., Federal Indian Law, 174-175.
219. "Status Report to the Court, Number Eight [August 1 to December 31, 2001]," (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, January 16, 2002), 59. See also BIA, "Notice to Indian Land Owners."
220. Correspondence with Scott Brueninger, Chippewa of Lac Courte Oreilles Band, from Great Lakes Agency, Ashland, Wisconsin, October 2001, which he shared widi me.
221. Tiller, Tiller's Guide to Indian Country, 237.
222. On Foxwoods, see Anne-Marie d'Hauteserre, "Foxwoods Casino Resort: An Unusual Experiment in Economic Development," Economic Geography extra issue (1998): 112-121.
223. A pair of maps of the Foxwoods development appears in Jeff Benedict, Without Reservation: The Making of America's Most Powerful Indian Tribe and Foxwoods, the World's Largest Casino (NY: HarperCollins, 2000), 355-356.
224. The first reveals acreage approved for the reservation; additional acreage to be added; and another purchase area, formerly a scout camp. The other map shows the existing reservation, new settlement lands, and lands to be transferred by the State of Connecticut', which includes a Pequot burial ground. Map credits appear on p. 370.
225. Frantz, Indian Reservations, 53. The data was supplied by the BIA Area realty office in Aberdeen, South Dakota). Frantz prepared a map (fig. 3.7) which includes allotments purchased by the Salt River tribes.
226. Washington Department of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F 2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit 1985); Imre Sutton, "Preface to Indian Country: Geography and Law," 3-36;
227. David J. Wishart and Oliver Froehling, "Land Ownership, Population, and Jurisdiction: The Case of the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe v. North Dakota Public Service Commission," American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20, number 2: 33-58 (1996).
228. Cf. Brendalev. Confederated Tribes of the Yakima Nation, 109 S. Ct. 2994 (1989); and South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe et al, 523 US 1044 (1998);
229. and Cf. Imre Sutton, "Indian Country and the Law: Land Tenure, Tribal Sovereignty, and the States," in Law in the Western United States, ed. Gordon M. Bakken (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000): 251-266; ref. pp. 263-264.
230. Indian Country is defined in 63 Stat. 94, and further discussed in Vine Deloria Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle, American Indians, American Justice (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983): 58-79.
231. For an alternative spatial analysis of Indian Country, see Sutton, "Preface to Indian Country." This study includes three maps - figures 2, 3, and 4 - that schematically attempt to demonstrate that Indian Country extends beyond the areas of legal definition. As I observed of Indian Country, "[A]lthough many observers would readily identify it with tribes in the hinterland, few would recognize the unique polity of this place" (p. 3). To my knowledge, the only map regularly entitled "Indian Country" has been published by the Automobile Club of Southern California (#2345; scale: 12 miles=l inch; various dates). While it shows a good part of the Southwest, its intent is to show the general region that includes various reservations, including the Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, and others It is not intended as a political term.
232. See Carol Goldberg-Ambrose, Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public Law 280 (Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, 1998). For an attempt to map PL 280, see Imre Sutton, Indian Land Tenure, 153 (fig. 7, "Legal Jurisdiction over Indians");
233. Sutton, "Sovereign States," fig. 3, "Jurisdiction of Indian Reservations by State." With reference to South Dakota's state map, see Sutton, "Sovereign States," figure 1B and discussion in Sutton, "Preface to Indian Country," 18-19.
234. Montana v. US, 450 US 544 (1981).
235. Washington Dept. of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F. 2nd 1465 (1985).
236. See Wishart and Froehling, Devils Lake Sioux Tribe and Brendale v. Confederated Tribes of the Yakima Nation.
237. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 USCA §§ 2701-2721 (Supp. 1996);
238. see discussion in Getches et al., Federal Indian Law, 739-753. To date, several books deal with Indian casinos: W. Dale Mason, Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000).
239. The book focuses on New Mexico but includes some data on Oklahoma, for which it includes a map of "Oklahoma Indian Bingo Facilities" (1998), as provided by the National Indian Gaming Commission (pp. 178-179).
240. Angela Mullis and David Kampcr, eds., Indian
241. Angela Mullis and David Kampcr, eds., Indian Gaming: Who Wins? (Los Angeles: UCLA American Indian Studies Center, 2000), which is based on a 1997 UCLA conference and includes views of scholars, Indians, and others. Two volumes contain a wealth of geographic interpretations including a few maps: Alan A. Lew and George A. Van Otten, eds., Tourism and Gaming on American Indian Lands (New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 1998), which includes useful maps of Foxwoods (pp. 131 and 134), revealing newly purchased lands for casino/resort expansion. There are also maps of casinos in New Mexico (p. 190).
242. In the other volume (Klaus J. Meyer-Arendt and Rudi Hartmann, eds., Casino Gambling in America: Origins, Trends and Impacts [New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation, 1998]) there is a map of casinos in North and South Dakota (p. 79), Oklahoma (p. 97), and the South (pp. 102, 105).
243. See also Imre Sutton, "Recognition and Casinos are Separate Issues," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 17, 1997, op-ed page, B7.
244. There are numerous newspaper articles referring to California casinos: Daryl Kelley, "Oxnard Says No Dice to Casino Bid," Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2001: B1, 10.
245. On Oklahoma tribes, see Mason, Indian Gaming, 217.
246. See d'Hauteserre, "Foxwoods Casino Resort"; unfortunately, the article lacks maps. A pair of maps of the Foxwoods development appears in Benedict, Without Reservation, 355-356.
247. See, more generally, William N. Thompson, "History, Development and Legislation of Native American Casino Gaming," and Carl A. Boger Jr., Daniel Spears, Karen Wolfe, and Li-chun Lin, "Economic Impacts of Native American Casino Gaming," in Legalized Casino Gambling in the United States: The Economic and Social Impact, Cathy H. C. Hsu, ed. (New York: The Haworth Press, 1999), 41-61 and 135-154, respectively.
248. Unfortunately neither study includes maps. On annexation, see Barbara A. Carmichael and Donald M. Peppard Jr., "The Impacts of Foxwoods Resort Casino on Its Dual Host Community: Southeastern Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe," in Lew and Otten, eds., Tourism and Gaming, 133-136.
249. Just prior to the close of the Clinton Administration, then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt proposed tightening the policy of allowing tribes to secure trust status for the purpose of establishing a casino on lands purchased outside existing reservations. Whether policy changes over new trust lands will occur and thus impact Indian gaming'remains open-ended at present. See "US Department of the Interior Press Release," April 8, 1999, and 25 CFR, § 151.
250. While tribes often contract with various reseàrch, environmental, and consultant firms, as well as public agencies, it is advisable that researchers consult with tribes themselves, many of whom have their own planning and environmental staff and facilities that fully utilize GIS technology.
251. See President William J. Clinton, "Executive Order 13007 - Indian Sacred Places," May 25, 1996, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32 (May 27, 1996): 942-943;
252. Imre Sutton, "Indian Cultural, Historical and Sacred Resources," in Clow and Sutton, eds., Trusteeship in Change, 174-175.
253. Websites may prove useful in researching Indian maps. For example, visit falsepromises.com, which tells the story of the Wenatchi fishery reserve claim still pending as of June 2002. The site also exhibits a Wenatchi "Multiple Surveys" map of the fishery reserve. It is a fairly accurate map with seven overlapping configurations. A much larger website was proposed a dozen-or-so years ago. It was to be an online map archive, developed and housed at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Its coverage would include all aspects of the cartographic record of Indians, and its developers had hoped to secure mappable data from official agencies, scholars, archives, and the like. As of summer 2002, this project was still in its developmental stage.