Great Plains Studies, Center for

 

Date of this Version

Winter 1984

Citation

Great Plains Quarterly Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter 1984, pp. 43-53.

Comments

Copyright 1984 by the Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Abstract

The sixteenth of January 1805 was not the kind of day Lewis and Clark would have chosen for calm deliberation and the thoughtful exchange of cartographic information. On that cold Dakota day, Fort Mandan was the scene of angry words and hostile gestures as Mandans and Hidatsas traded jeers and insults. While Lewis and Clark watched helplessly, Hidatsa warriors from the village of Menetarra charged Mandans with spreading malicious rumors designed to breed fear and keep Hidatsas away from the expedition. As the tough talk flew higher, the expedition's hopes for diplomacy sank. But in the midst of the bitterness and harangue a remarkable event took place-something both important for the immediate needs of the expedition and symbolic of one of the most valuable relations between native people and the explorers. Among the Hidatsas at Fort Mandan was a young war chief intent on mounting a horse-stealing raid against the Shoshonis. Most of what passed between the eager warrior and the edgy explorers centered on an attempt to dissuade him from the proposed raid. Almost as an afterthought, William Clark noted that "this War Chief gave us a Chart in his Way of the Missourie."

That map and the telling phrase "in his Way" typify the substantial cartographic contribution made by native people to the Lewis and Clark expedition. Throughout its nearly two and onehalf years in the field, the expedition actively sought out Indian maps and map-makers. That search brought Lewis and Clark more than thirty of what Malcolm Lewis has so aptly termed "cartographic devices." But more important than the quest for Indian maps was the effort by the Corps of Discovery, and especially William Clark, to understand both the structure and substance of those documents. Lewis and Clark did not pursue Indian map-makers just to obtain travel information from native sources. They knew Indian maps represented a vital part of a broader encounter, an attempt to communicate important ideas and experiences across the cultural divide. This essay seeks to evaluate expedition Indian maps within the framework of that encounter. The questions posed here are aimed at illuminating the maps, their makers, and the ways Lewis and Clark struggled to use those cartographic devices.

When the Hidatsa warrior offered Lewis and Clark a chart of the upper Missouri, he did it "in his Way." That way may have been a relief map constructed with heaps of dirt and marks on the ground or a river channel drawn with charcoal on a piece of hide. But whatever means were employed, we are reminded that native cartographic information came to and was preserved by Lewis and Clark in a variety of ways: described in words, drawn on hides or on the ground, or constructed topographically in sand-and preserved or redrawn by Lewis and Clark as distinctly Indian productions, or incorporated wholly within Lewis and Clark maps.

First, there were maps created by Indians either verbally or graphically and then drawn or traced by Lewis and Clark as distinctively Indian maps. This describes a murky historical and cartographic process that can be clarified with two examples.

Early in January 1805, the Mandan chief Sheheke, or Big White, made one of his frequent visits to expedition quarters. After dinner, Big White offered what Clark described as "a Scetch of the Country as far as the High Mountains, and on the south side of the River Rejone [Yellowstone]" (fig. 1). Big White may well have drawn an outline of the Yellowstone and its tributaries and then the map was copied by Clark. But "sketch" does not necessarily mean a graphic representation. Big White might have given Clark simply a verbal description of the Yellowstone country. In fact, Clark records just such a description, noting the Indian's words about the tributaries of the Yellowstone, the general character of the terrain, and the presence of "great numbers of beavers." And of course, it is equally possible that Big White produced both a graphic map and a verbal description of the river. But whatever the process, the map that emerged was plainly an Indian production and recognized as such by the explorers.

Share

COinS