Native Lands: Indians in Georgia. Atlanta History Center, Atlanta, GA.

Sarah
H. Hill, Curator; Daniel H. Hoover, Coordinator; Tom Mooney, Myrtle Driver, Joyce
A. Bear, William Bailey, and Nina Gale Thrower, Tribal Representatives; and the
Native Lands project team. 1999, traveling version adapted to present gallery ca. 2009
—Ongoing. https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/explore/exhibitions/native-lands-
indians-and-georgia
The most documented and well-known act of Indigenous removal in U.S. history is the

Trail of Tears, which started its journey in Georgia. With Atlanta being the capital of Georgia,

it is no surprise to me that the Atlanta History Center would have an exhibit pertaining to the

relationship between Indigenous people and the state. Native Lands: Indians in Georgia

explores “how the Mississippian, Muscogee Creeks, and Cherokee [Indigenous nations] lived

on, changed, and lost their native lands in Georgia.” 1 While the exhibit attempts to bring a

voice to those who are underrepresented in society, Native Lands: Indians in Georgia fails to

use clear organization, lacks in proper content, and has an ineffective design.

Occupying the far-right, back gallery, Native Lands is a permanent, one room exhibit

with two accent walls [Insert Stodart-Image 1]. The overarching narrative highlights how the

differences between European settlers and the Indigenous peoples of Georgia led to conflicts

and the eventual removal of certain Indigenous groups from the Southeast. The organization

of Native Lands is unclear and ineffective. As a result of its open, one room structure, there is

no distinct path for guests to follow. Additionally, the sections within the room—which could

be split into either 7 broader sections or 10 specific sections—are hard to distinguish and only

differentiated by single panels of information.

The first section panel, or theme, titled “The Mississippian Indians of the 1500s”

discusses the Indigenous societies within Georgia that shared a cultural tradition known as

Mississippian. The panel provides a brief history of their culture, contact with Europeans, and
1
Wall text, Native Lands: Indians in Georgia, Atlanta History Center, Atlanta, Georgia
eventual collapse. It is accompanied by a video that provides further details about each topic.

The second section, titled “The Creek Confederacy of the 1700s”, expresses the formation and

cultural structure of the Muscogee indigenous nation, who were called the Creeks by

Europeans settlers and modern educational systems because of one group’s proximity to a

certain creek. The third section, titled “The Cherokee Nation in the 1700s”, discusses the

formation and cultural structure of the Cherokee nation, who called themselves the Ani-

yunwiya. The fourth section—if one chooses to follow the structure of splitting the sections up

by panels—would be “Creek Responses to Removal Pressures.” However, if one chooses to

group the sections by theme—which is unclear throughout the exhibit (and made me question

several times what the exhibit team was imagining)—then the section is titled Responses to

Removal and includes the panels discussing Creek and Cherokee responses, the Treaty of

Indian Springs, and the Treaty of New Echota. These themed panels pertain to the

conversations, negotiations, and eventual decisions of removal for these two Indigenous

nations from Georgia. The next section—which could be either 5 or 8 depending on the

uncertain organization chosen—is “Lost Ground: Indian Removal,” and highlights the

expulsion of the indigenous nations from the state through political and lawful enforcement,

including the Trail of Tears. The final two sections, which include “Expressions of Heritage”

and “How Much Can We Learn About the Past?”, address how these Indigenous nations

continue to represent themselves and how this creates conflict between modern interpretations

of their culture and history by outsiders.

It is important to note that these section themes/panels—and the exhibit at large—

introduce and discuss only three Indigenous nations. However, the Mississippian, Creek, and

Cherokee were by no means the only Indigenous people within Georgia throughout its history,
and the content that is provided on these specific nations within Native Lands is also lacking

or incomplete. For starters, the number of physical artifacts on display is limited. This does

not necessarily make the exhibit ineffective, but labels or panels that fail to foster further

conversation and use inappropriate language do. Many of the object labels attached to pottery

and images fail to engage with the audience or provide relevant information regarding how

these artifacts are relevant to the Indigenous cultures they represent. For example, in the

beginning of the exhibit, there is a Chunky Stone labeled “Men chipped and ground stones

into thick discs they rolled along the ground in the game called Chunkey,” [Insert Stodart

Image 2].2 Near the end of the exhibit, there is an image titled The Manner of Their Fishing

which is captioned “Watercolor, John White, 1583-1593. Artist John White illustrated three

different methods of fishing. Indians used a dip net or spear during daytime; by night, a fire in

the canoe attracted fish to the boat, and weirs built along the waterways, shown on the left,

trapped the fish,” [Insert Stodart Image 3]. 3 Though the knowledge of group activities, such as

games, and the process of catching fish are interesting facts, these labels fail to address why

these artifacts were important to the larger indigenous culture and food ways or how they

pertain to this specific exhibit.

Furthermore, the language used within the labels, specifically the word “Indian,” is not

appropriate or effective. The term “Indian” should not be used to describe Indigenous peoples.

While this is a personal opinion, it is one that is becoming more popular within the larger

history/museum fields and is something that should be addressed. “Indian” is a false identity

that was forced upon Indigenous peoples by white settlers who thought they had landed in a

different location. It does not reflect the diverse people and cultures that resided, and continue

2
Object Label, Native Lands: Indians in Georgia, Atlanta History Center, Atlanta, Georgia
3
Object Label, Native Lands: Indians in Georgia, Atlanta History Center, Atlanta, Georgia
to prosper, on the continent, nor is it the way native nations described themselves. Exchanging

the word “Indian” for “Native American” continues the larger historical trend of forcing an

identity—this time national—onto them as well. The title Native American (which is

interchanged throughout the exhibit with “Indian,” creating a lack of consistency in the

narrative as well) also references a situation in which Indigenous peoples were forced to

follow imaginary borders and endure extreme violence and displacement to fit within such

borders. They were given an American title but not full citizenship, recognition, or rights.

Also, this term excludes those who belong to and identify with Indigenous nations but do not

reside within the United States borders. As a result, the title of the exhibit and the language

used on the panels could be considered offensive to some and should be thoroughly reviewed

by museum staff.

In addition to the issues of content language, there is also the issue of limited narrative

fulfilment. Museum professionals understand that every word of research cannot go into the

exhibit, despite how much curators may wish otherwise. However, important information

cannot be left out if there is room for it, and in Native Lands, there is. The “Treaty of New

Echota” panel is only half full [Insert Stodart Image 4] and fails to mention several aspects

that led to its historical enforcement, some of which being: the parties within the Cherokee

Nation who fought for years over the concept of removal (such as the Treaty Party and

National Party), significant people in the signing of this treaty (such as Major and John Ross),

and the past actions that played a role in the treaty’s creation (such as the Indian Removal

Act, involvement of the Governor of Georgia, and the Worcester vs. Georgia Supreme Court

decision). Some of this information could have been put on this blank space and related to the

other objects within the section. There also could have been additional panels added if need
be, considering the overwhelming expanse of open wall space surrounding the content panels

and objects [Insert Stodart Image 5].

This overabundance of open wall space demonstrates another fault within the exhibit:

design. As I mentioned above, there is a lack of differentiation amongst the sections. With the

panels all looking the exact same in color, size, and shape, it is hard to tell if they are relating

to one another or starting a new theme. These similar, little panels on their large walls also

contain little text, which creates an accessibility issue. Guests with poor eyesight or those who

cannot stand for long periods will struggle to get up close and spend time reading the fine

print. While there are two benches in the space to rest one’s legs, they are far from any panels

and instead in front of videos, which create additional distraction from the text. It would be

beneficial to make the panels and text larger, as this would allow for easier viewing and

adequate coverage.

Regarding the videos themselves within the exhibit, they create a horrible sound bleed

throughout the space. Since the design of Native Lands is essentially one large room with

limited dividing walls, there is not much to stop sound from traveling. As a result, the sound

bleed from the front video can not only be heard everywhere within the space, but is also

overpowering the back video—which is the one example of Indigenous voice within the

exhibit—and a massive distraction. When visiting Native Lands, I noticed how guests who

came in would glance back at the front video several times as they walked through, because

the video was so loud that it constantly took one’s attention away from the rest of the exhibit.

If the video isn’t distracting enough, then the clanking of the AC or pipes—which I did not

hear anywhere else in the museum—becomes another disruption that limits full engagement

with the exhibit experience.

 Though I have gone to great lengths to describe its faults, there are some positive

aspects to Native Lands, the main one being the participatory Cherokee Syllabary activity.

Almost every guest who walked through Native Lands stopped at the Cherokee alphabet

[Insert Stodart Image 6]. This activity goes through what the symbols, or letters, within the

alphabet represent and how they can be translated into common English words. It then

encourages guests to participate and spell out said English words, and is a great way of

encouraging engagement with the audience. Due to Covid-19, this participatory element was

not active and the alphabet pieces were taken away. However, guests still stopped regardless,

studied the instructions, and then read the additional narrative that was around the activity as

well. Though I think the design of Native Lands contains distracting elements, the

participatory activity was one thing in the space that brought guests back into the content.

While every exhibit has its positive and negative aspects, Native Lands: Indians in

Georgia could use some considerable revision. Though relevant and imperative in the effort to

tell the Indigenous story within U.S. (and Georgia) history, Native Lands falters and becomes

slightly ineffective. Its lack of organization, proper content, or effective design lead to a

corner gallery with little engagement and an inferior experience.

Haley Stodart, University of West Georgia—Atlanta History Center

Images:
Stodart Image 1
Stodart Image 2
Stodart Image 3
Stodart Image 4
Stodart Image 5
Stodart Image 6