Mark and remember. The future of American archaeology depends on directing mindful attention to the oral history of descendant communities as a source of inquiry and explanation (Whitely Reference Whitely2002). They offer an opportunity to embrace collaborative efforts and the integration of multivocal narratives (Damm Reference Damm2005). Cherokee descendants of southeastern Kentucky and the archaeological record of 15Cy52 have a shared past that attests to the life, death, and burial of their ancestor Red Bird. Further, they attribute the marks of both Red Bird and Sequoyah on the walls of the rockshelter prior to the vandalism and colluviation observable today. While acknowledging that oral histories are complex, they are integral to a richly storied past (Anyon et al. Reference Anyon, Ferguson, Jackson, Lane, Vicenti, Swidler, Dongoske, Anyon and Downer1997; Echo-Hawk Reference Echo-Hawk2000; Mason Reference Mason2006:10). Thus, oral traditions and primary historical texts of Red Bird and his relationship with Sequoyah's family contribute valuable insights for advancing archaeological theory and practice in the study of rock art, writing, and the origins of the Cherokee Syllabary (Supplemental Materials).

The Brock family of southeastern Kentucky avow their Cherokee heritage from Red Bird through their matrilineal line (Addington Reference Addington1972; Cole Reference Cole1978; Miller Reference Miller1906; Walker-Burns Reference Walker-Burns1960). For more than seven generations, they have kept a tradition about the sites archaeologists now refer to as the Red Bird River Petroglyph site (15Cy51) and the Red Bird River Rockshelter (15Cy52; Figure 1). For them, these are places of continuing importance that contain traditional Cherokee glyphs inscribed by their ancestor. They remember where Red Bird was killed and interred, respectively and respectfully. Since Red Bird's slaughter, the Brocks have been to the best of their abilities the custodians of Red Bird's grave (Supplemental Table 1).

Figure 1. Locations of the Red Bird River Petroglyph site (15Cy51) and the Red Bird River Rockshelter (15Cy52) illustrating the petroglyphs at both sites before and after extensive Euro-American modifications and graffiti over the past ~50+ years.

Simek and colleagues dismissed any historical documentation about Red Bird, his connection with sites 15Cy51 and 15Cy52, and relations to Sequoyah. Yet Red Bird's longtime association with members of Sequoyah's maternal family is well documented. Red Bird was a prominent Cherokee leader whose communications with Major Craig were noted in George Washington's correspondence on Indian affairs (September 4, 1792). Correspondences between Tennessee Governor Sevier and John Watts II (Sequoyah's maternal uncle), and other chiefs of the Cherokee Nation (March 5, 1797); Kentucky Governor Garrad (March 17, 1797); local law enforcement (March 19, 1797); and the leaders of the Cherokee Nation (March 28, 1797) indicate that Tennesseans murdered Red Bird in Clay County, Kentucky (Supplemental Table 2). John Gilbert was a witness, as recounted in detail by his son and grandson (Dickey Reference Dickey1898). Official legal proceedings attribute his namesake of the Red Bird River as the place of Red Bird's demise, with his marks on its ledges (Kentucky Court Order Books A, 1807–1815, and B, 1815–1832).

What is the earliest evidence of the Cherokee Syllabary? Walker and Sarbaugh (Reference Walker and Sarbaugh1993:85) identify a letter from Principal Chief Hicks to Superintendent McKenney, Office of Indian Affairs, on January 14, 1825, crediting George Guess with its invention. The first substantial biography of Guess and the origins of his syllabary occur in the Cherokee Phoenix on August 13, 1828, where his work is described as a process of experimentation that began with logographs incised in stone and culminated with syllabic characters penned on paper. The equation of Sequoyah with the alias of Guess was initially published in the Niles Weekly Register on September 5, 1829, by Samuel Lorenzo Knapp, who professed to have obtained his information following an interview with him in Washington, DC, the year before (Supplemental Table 3).

Claiming descent from George Guess, Bird (Reference Bird1971) offered an alternative history in which the Cherokee Syllabary was ancient. According to Bird, his ancestor, also known as Sogwili rather than Sequoyah, was the last scribe who fought against assimilation to keep the syllabary from appropriation by Christian missionaries. Similar traditions are found among multiple other tribes (Weeks Reference Weeks2004). Hence, Bird (Reference Bird1971) challenged the notion that indigenous peoples of North America, and the Cherokee in particular, lacked writing prior to European conquest.

From our analysis of Coy and Fuller's (Reference Coy and Fuller1969) archival, obliquely lit, color photographs, we argued that inscriptions on the wall of 15Cy52 represent a mixture of formative and consonant examples in the development of the Cherokee Syllabary dating to the first or second decades of the 1800s inspired by glyphs carved by Red Bird and others in the distant past (Weeks and Tankersley Reference Weeks and Tankersley2011). While we were unable to discern a word or phrase, the inscriptions may be meaningful, perhaps in the sense of syllables being enunciated as a song (Carroll et al. Reference Carroll, Cressler, Belt, Reed and Simek2019; cf. Hymes Reference Hymes2004). We thought that the experimentation manifest at the site seemed contrary to Bird's (Reference Bird1971) account. Furthermore, we found that the site's inscriptions closely resembled the characters in an 1839 manuscript attributed to Sequoyah's own hand (GM 4926.488, Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa, Oklahoma). We were particularly struck by the similarities of the character identified as go.

We also assumed that 15Cy52 was a logical and creative space for Sequoyah based on four pieces of contextual evidence. First, Sequoyah's maternal uncle, John Watts II, reported that Red Bird was murdered in what is today Clay County, Kentucky, in 1796. A mother's brother is among the most influential role models in a Cherokee male's life (Gilbert Reference Gilbert1944:224, 235, 246, 274). Second, Sequoyah's maternal kin resided near 15Cy52 (Supplemental Table 4). Third, caves, crevices, and clefts in rocks were generally viewed as entrances to another world, and they were often associated with transformative significance in Cherokee traditions (Mooney Reference Mooney1900:293, 341–347). Fourth, general consensus among biographers suggests that Sequoyah traveled widely (Hoig Reference Hoig1995).

Simek and others (Reference Simek, Carroll, Reed, Cressler, Belt, Adams and White2019) suggest that we misrepresented Sequoyah's Cherokee identity by emphasizing his mixed paternal ancestry. We assume that they drew this conclusion from our brief remarks in passing, which we qualify with “allegedly” (Weeks and Tankersley Reference Weeks and Tankersley2011:990). Nonetheless, Cherokee paternity does play an important role in Cherokee kinship, even traditional kinship and descent systems that emphasize maternal relatives (Gilbert Reference Gilbert1944:216–253).

Simek and colleagues (Reference Simek, Carroll, Reed, Cressler, Belt, Adams and White2019) base their interpretations on a recent field investigation of 15Cy52. Unfortunately, the inscriptions have been altered repeatedly and extensively over the past ~50 years (Weeks and Tankersley Reference Weeks and Tankersley2011; Figure 1; Supplemental Table 5). Thus, they were unable to recognize any of the symbols we had previously identified. Rather, they see the characters as graffiti probably made by children. They associate the symbols with recent tree carvings and twentieth-century inscriptions on local tombstones. However, the Brocks have a different perspective. They recall more than a century ago when the Cherokee inscriptions inside 15Cy52 were at eye level. Since that time, deforestation and erosion have reduced the rockshelter to a mere crawlway, and the rockshelter walls have been covered in graffiti (Figure 1; Supplemental Table 1).

Simek and others’ (Reference Simek, Carroll, Reed, Cressler, Belt, Adams and White2019:Figure 7) description and figures fail to take into account site formation processes and background research on vandalism. This likely led to their omission of significant details of the inscriptions and the inclusion of others. When the petroglyphs are viewed from the perspective of the obliquely lit 1969 photographs by Coy and Fuller, the letter N is absent for their purported name “Nick,” and likewise the H in their “Huds.” Their H is clearly a Y-like symbol, while their letter C resembles an α. In addition, their letters D and S appear to be a single ω-like character. Similar inconsistencies are found with the upper symbols, which they interpret as the name “Ronter Hud.” Their supposed letter O is more complex than they illustrate, as are the symbols they believe are the letters N and T. Their letter e is a θ-like symbol. Finally, their letter U is a V-like symbol, which lacks a D-like symbol (Supplemental Table 5).

Gadugi is the Cherokee concept for “working together” within a community (Fogelson and Kutsche Reference Fogelson, Kutsche, Fenton and Gulick1961; Mooney Reference Mooney1900). Gadugi is germane in terms of multicultural diplomacy, as we are grateful to Simek and colleagues (Reference Simek, Carroll, Reed, Cressler, Belt, Adams and White2019) for bringing the archaeology of the Cherokee Syllabary to the attention of the American Antiquity readership. We invite them to collaborate in a continuing effort to study the Red Bird River Shelter site (15Cy52).