>From reading postings in the past, it has become obvious to me that most people do not have a clue where the Creeks and Cherokees actually lived in Georgia, and when they lived there. This assessment also applies to most state and federal bureaucrats, who disseminate information on the region's Native American heritage . . . the only exception being some professional archaeologists. They must be VERY frustrated people! The general public seems to think that any Native American artifact found north of Atlanta was made by a Cherokee, and that the Creeks were a single ethnic group that occupied the southern 2/3 of the state. Thus, if one has Native American roots north of Atlanta, it is typical that people assume that they were "a Cherokee princess." Guess, there were no male Cherokees - chuckle. A lot of people south of Atlanta also assume that their N A ancestor was Cherokee, because there are so many inaccurate maps floating around the world of tourist promotion. Others assume that the Creeks were just one ethnic group, speaking one language. Cherokees never "legally" occupied any of Georgia east of the Chattahoochee River - even in the mountains, and by the time they got to Georgia, they were using muskets exclusively. Even by the 1750s, they were pretty much reliant on firearms. A delegation of Cherokee chiefs and head warriors went to London to meet the king. An English archery club challenged them to a contest of archery skills. The Cherokees were so out of practice at shooting bows, that they were totally stomped. Among other articles, the upcoming issue of the "People of One Fire" newsletter will contain Colonial Period maps that show how rapidly the ethnic patterns of the Lower Southeast changed during the 1600s and 1700s. They will surprise you. You will never trust another tourist brochure! <chuckle> Richard T,