Mapping Native Illinois

Unlike European (and American) maps, this map--drawn by an Inuit man in 1822--does not reflect a way of portraying the world using Cartesian coordinates, standardized scales of linear distance, or even cardinal directions. Instead, this map reflects the worldview of a man accustomed to using such a map to indicate traveling directions. The scale does not reflect actual mileage between two points but instead portrays the time it takes to travel between them. For example, Point A may be only a short linear distance from Point B, but the rough terrain or difficult waters between them make for a full day’s travel. The trip from Point B to Point C, on the other hand, might cover a great deal more distance, but easier traveling conditions make it possible to get there in the same amount of time. The distances between them on the Inuit map are, therefore, the same: One day of travel. The map is about human movement--by traditional means: on foot, by dog sled, or in kayaks--and it lacks the bird's eye view to which most Euro-Americans are accustomed. Instead, it appears to us as little more than a list of place names, some marks indicating resting points, and sketches of a few landmarks one would encounter on one’s journey.

Another problem we often encounter on older maps and documents is a lack of specificity when it comes to tribal names. For example, the Potawatomies, Ottawas, and Ojibwes are often referred to only as gens de feu--"people of the fire" or "the fire nations". These nations are indeed closely related, but even then each possessed its own distinct identity--though no indication of this can be found on many maps. To complicate matters still further, the Mascoutens--a group whose relationship to those already mentioned is ambiguous--are also often referred to on French maps as gens de feu, probably because they lived in and among the Potawatomies at the time. There is also a tendency for mapmakers to retain the name of places and Native groups long after they passed from common usage—which complicates matters still further.

Referring to several distinct Native groups using the same or similar names poses a problem, but we also often find many instances of a single group being called by many different names. The Mesquakies, for instance, might be referred to as "Mesquakies" (or by several different spellings of that name) on some maps, but they are far more likely to be referred to as reynards or renards--the French term for "fox", a reference to a particular clan within the Mesquakie nation though it usually refers (even today) to the entire group. Likewise, a group like the Menominees might be referred using the name they called themselves (Kayaes Matchitiwuk), by what they were called by neighboring groups (Menominee--from manomin, an Algonquin term for wild rice), by a European translation of one of these names (Folles Avoines) or by one of several variations of any of these.

Another difficulty in mapping Native America is that most of the groups living in or near the region that would become Illinois were extremely mobile. Many Sauks, for example, lived in Saukenuk--a large village at the confluence of the Rock and Mississippi rivers—during the summer months then dispersed during the fall and winter into smaller hunting camps to the west. Some agricultural villages—like Saukenuk or the Grand Village of the Illinois--were more or less permanent affairs because of the fertile land and rich resources surrounding them. Others, however were less so--occupied for a few years or even a generation before being abandoned as its inhabitants selected a new village site. The maps above, for instance, show no fewer than five Shawnee villages labelled "Chillicothe", five called "Piqua", and several others with multiple locations--a result of frequent moves within the period the maps attempt to portray. For people whose lives depended on seasonal and non-seasonal movements, static maps often leave much to be desired.

This map (below), perhaps more than any other, illustrates a conspicuous limitation inherent in even the best of maps portraying Native America. Helen Tanner's 1986 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History--the product of years of painstaking research by one of the most highly regarded experts in the field--is generally considered by scholars to be the definitive work of its kind.

Clearly, its geography is accurate: waterways and landforms are located precisely where they ought to be. Tanner and her associates also combed numerous archives and checked countless sources (some contemporary, some historical or archival, others archeological) to accurately identify, name and describe individual villages and place them exactly where they were actually located. Yet even it is limited in its presentation.

On the map shown here, for instance, the areas most closely associated with each group are indicated by shading them using different colors. The problem, however, is that this implies strict and recognized boundaries--like those separating one state from another—that simply never existed between Native groups. Tribal boundaries (social, political, and geographical) were never fixed or static. Individual villages might contain members of many different groups, several unrelated groups might all use and claim ownership of the same general area, and they may allow still other groups to live on and share the resources of lands they consider their own (often referred to as letting one's allies "sit down" upon the land). Certainly, one would never find a line distinctly separating Sauk territory from that of the Winnebagoes in the same way one can find a border between Western nation-states like France and Germany or even between American states such as Illinois and Indiana.