American Indian Council
to Manataka members and interested members of the public regarding an apparent
Internet "hate campaign" directed at Manataka.
It seems a hate campaign directed by an unidentifiable organization and person or persons unknown are masquerading around message boards and chat rooms spreading venom against the Place of Peace, Manataka. Calling itself the "American Indian Heritage Support Center," it cannot be found anywhere other than an Internet address.
Who or What is the AIHSC?
AIHSC apparently has no links to any other groups or organizations. Although it claims special federal tax status as a non-profit organization, its web site lists no names of leaders or members. The page is vague about the programs and "services" of the group. Based on what is presented for public inspection, it apparently has no meetings or any other purpose but to attack Manataka.
only point of contact is a blind email address.
Not only is AIHSC anonymous as to who is a member, or members, or its officials, or who specifically is making the allegations against Manataka, but AIHSC is going to great pains to remain anonymous.
The federal government and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regulations require all Internet domain holders to submit WHOIS information that is then collected and displayed in a public WHOIS database. AIHSC is using a front host domain service, webpagebuilders.com of Indianapolis, Ind., that advertises that it will "take your public information and make it private."
Certainly, the legality of this web site raises questions, which might appropriately be investigated by the Arkansas Secretary of State to determine if standards for nonprofit status are being met and/or if its charter should be revoked.
It is our belief that a responsible or ethical person or organization would not behave in such a manner. A person or group who will not publicly stand behind his/her/its statements is without honor and unworthy of serious consideration.
So Why Do We Care If Someone Has An Ax to Grind?
In order to maintain our integrity as an organization, it should behoove us to assert our rights and correct any misstatements or errors of fact regarding the organization and not let others who, for whatever reason, have an ax to grind or hidden agenda to malign us and our mission.
purpose of the AIHSC web site appears to have one purpose and that is to
discredit MAIC and malign the character and reputation of members of the
organization. It does so by taking words out of context, public ridicule and
making accusations and claims without allowing opportunity for rebuttal.
It should be noted that whoever is behind the web site could be at considerable legal risk, as even on the Internet, the law for publishing a libel, and penalties for copyright infringement, are quite strict and severe.
Although we are not lawyers, it’s quite possible that even if the web site were to be pulled now, a court may deem each day that it has been in operation for awarding of damages, including possible punitive awards, legal fees and court costs.
It should also be noted that whoever is publishing a libel is personally vulnerable to such legal risk, even if it were done under cover of a legal corporation.
It’s noteworthy also that a large portion of the allegations have been made previously by officials from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, specifically, Jose Fernandez, superintendent of Hot Springs National Park, and Ranger Mark Blaeuer, who are currently involved in dispute with Manataka regarding MAIC’s legal right to meet for religious purposes at Hot Springs National Park.
The Park Service has disputed MAIC’s First Amendment right to assemble for religious and spiritual purposes at this sacred site, claiming that the Native American ceremonies MAIC performs are "pagan" and "un-Christian."
To prevent or deter MAIC access, park personnel have cited trumped up charges, bogus allegations of misconduct and sought to discredit the organization, while also vigorously disputing any Native American connection to the site to the extent even of removing Native American references to the site in park literature.
It is MAIC’s position that Native American groups, individuals and tribes should not be denied access to this sacred site and MAIC is committed to ensuring that this sacred site is preserved, protected and remembered as a Native American sacred site, and not as simply a tourist attraction without spiritual significance.
While the AIHSC web site says it is not acting on behalf of the government, most of its material and viewpoints expressed repeat publicly stated and written material by Fernandez and Blaeuer.
If AIHSC is not an agent of the government, formally advancing its legal position and agenda, it certainly is operating against the rights and interests of Native Americans seeking access to and legal protection for an indigenous sacred site.
But it fits within the pattern of discrimination existent at Hot Springs National Park that amounts to institutional racism against Native Americans that apparently has the support of the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
In this, AIHSC is a tool of the government, wittingly or not, in preventing Native Americans from exercising their legal rights. That’s particularly ironic since this anonymous and unidentified organization claims the title of "American Indian Heritage Support Center," actively engaged in doing the exact opposite!
It seems to us mighty coincidental that an anonymous web site claiming to represent Indians is attacking the ONLY Native American organization dedicated to protecting this sacred site from the government and preserving its character as a Native American sacred site, particularly when 80 percent or more of the references cited on this web site are National Park Service personnel who are named in papers filed in protest by MAIC with the government as the very same individuals barring Native American access to these sacred grounds.
If it’s any solace to MAIC members, it very well could be that if a court were to determine that Fernandez and Blaeuer were acting beyond their official capacities in publishing a libel against MAIC via this web site, they could be personally liable for damages.
possible, too, that Fernandez and Blaeuer could be putting the U.S. Department
of the Interior at legal risk, as well, for damages for their conduct if a court
determined that it were improper and committed under color of their authority as
federal officials. Only a court could determine that, however.
But the inclusion of their asserted claims and viewpoints forming the basis of the document is certainly curious for what should be disinterested government officials in a matter involving Native Americans and their legal rights, particularly in an active case involving allegations of government discrimination denying indigenous peoples their religious freedom rights.
What better way to undermine assertion of those rights than attacks from a "seeming" third party that purports to protect Native heritage?
The question then becomes, do higher officials in Park Service and Interior Department know of these activities and support them? Given the fact that the discriminatory acts are ongoing, the evidence would seem to support the argument that they do and, hence is in fact a policy of the government whether formally written or not. The acts creating a hostile environment toward free religious expression of Native Americans speak for themselves.
From time to time, MAIC, like any other organization, has been the subject of verbal or written attacks by disgruntled individuals. It’s best not to respond. Manataka has nothing to hide; its activities are open and public. The Manataka web site is clear in stating MAIC’s purpose and open in publishing its activities, members, etc. But this attack is the most painstaking, detailed and systematic to date, with considerable potential -- and difficult to calculate actual -- damage to MAIC and its members.
Some of the allegations on the AIHSC web site are so incredible, twisted and outright false misrepresentations, giving only one point of view (to discredit MAIC and maliciously malign its purpose and members), that to credibly respond to them is impossible – along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?"
For example, it starts off stating that MAIC is a fraud organization that has "long been noted among many traditional American Indians and organizations as an exploitative and misleading corporation that is causing damage to both legitimate American Indian peoples."
How can a non-profit organization that is dedicated to honoring, preserving and protecting a Native American sacred site, with a mission of educating the public about Native American ways, and more 854 Web pages and 3,598 printed pages posted for that purpose, and ranks of dedicated volunteers (with no paid staff) performing that function in countless ways over the years, "exploitative," "misleading," in any way somehow not "legitimate" and "causing damage" to Native Americans?
All our activities are open and explained, with full public participation invited. All tribes are welcome and our links with other Native American organizations and peoples is extensive, and cordial.
Who are the "many traditional American Indians and organizations" referenced? They aren’t the traditional American Indians who are MAIC members or the representatives of various tribes that have visited Manataka and gifted MAIC with sacred objects and tokens of appreciation over the years – including letters of support and thanks.
The AIHSC web site seems upset that non-Native people are included and welcome as members and even leaders of MAIC, as if a policy of exclusion toward white people would somehow give legitimacy to the organization.
While some traditionals hold such views, we do not. We believe that placing divisions between people is a common trait of the dominant culture and not of Indian ways. We are non-discriminatory and open to all people, all related, as stated in Lakota, mitakuye oyasin, or the Cherokee (Tsalagi), gus dii dada dv ni. We are one, one tribe, one people, all related.
The AIHSC web site is also obviously not written by Native peoples, or at least those practicing traditional ways, regardless of the name it gives itself, for its displayed ignorance regarding Native spiritual beliefs and attempts to link Manataka with "fringe" groups, labeling some traditional Native ways erroneously as "New Age," and even, conversely, and somewhat ironically, condemning MAIC from a "Christian" perspective.
For example, how can AIHSC not know that "Great Mystery" refers to the Great Spirit? God? Creator? Or not know that "grandfathers" refer to the beings of the Earth and sky that are bigger spiritually than humans – as in the Tsalagi (Cherokee) Grandmother Sun and Grandfather Moon? Or grandfathers (stones) used in the Asi/Inipi (sweat lodge)? Such ignorance shows AIHSC itself as a "fraud" organization if it claims to live up to the name it has given itself of "American Indian Heritage Support Center." How can it "support" Indian "heritage" without knowing the basics of Native American spiritual beliefs and practices?
It is a shame for the AIHSC web site to be casting a stone at the dead spirit of such a wonderful American Indian as Benito Gray Horse who honored and watched over Manataka during the early part of the last century despite tremendous discrimination against Native Americans in this region at that time – his widow isolated and left to fend for herself in her elder years.
And it is reprehensible for the AIHSC web site to be holding people up to ridicule because the "American Indian Heritage Support Center" apparently doesn’t understand the nature of bestowed Native names.
Ernie Eagle Water Bird Garza is a full-blood Jicarilla/Coahuilteco Apache who was given his name by his grandfather. Samantha Sweet Water McIlaney received her name from a Cherokee spiritual elder after days of fasting and prayer. Don Silent Bear Warren is a deaf and disabled man who got his name during Seneca ceremonies in New York. Most people come to Manataka with their own names. Those who do receive a name from a visiting spiritual elder through Manataka are bestowed the name only inside the sacred circle during ceremonies lasting several days. Anyone involved in this custom understands very well the way of gifting a name is not taken lightly. Many have waited many months to several years for spirit names. Some are never given a name -- as this way is not under our control.
Making jokes of these sacred ways is also not something to be taken lightly.
To Answer Some of AIHSC’s Claims:
is not associated with pagan, Wiccan or so-called New Age groups: We do
welcome all people, of all beliefs, all races, and all nationalities. We do not
discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed or national origin.
Indeed, MAIC, seeking to protect the Place of Peace, where all tribes were
welcome, seeks to follow that path honoring the Medicine Wheel of the four
races: black, white, yellow and red. All are members of the five-fingered tribe.
Our formal and informal connections with indigenous peoples in Central and South America are strong: We are fully prepared to prove without question a strong connection between Manataka and our brothers and sisters in the South, including the Maya.
We speak for ourselves: The Elders of Manataka are the legitimate, duly elected and appointed leaders of this organization. Individual members or those claiming membership do not speak for Manataka and we cannot be held responsible for what members say about Manataka, its goals or purposes. Manataka has never held out this organization to be a spokesman for all American Indians.
can document the government’s attempts to eradicate Manataka’s Native
American history: The government has systematically erased (removed from public
view) strong evidence of the presence and practices of indigenous people who
came to this sacred site for thousands of years.
As Marcus Phillips, 90, a well-known and respected local historian and author says, "The Park Service has been removing evidence of Indian presence in this area for years . . . no one knows where thousands of artifacts are located . . . they are not on display and most remain uncataloged, access is nearly impossible."
Tourist brochures and film clips have been edited to remove references to the tremendous Indian legacy. Plaques and signs have been removed. The Indian museum section of the Fordyce Bathhouse is a mere fraction of its former size.
Callahan, a well-respected retired attorney whose family has lived in Hot
Springs for several generations, told Manataka the government stole two Lakota
dolls his grandfather discovered in a cave on the mountain while installing
piping for the closed off hot springs. Many years ago, the family decided to
loan the Sioux artifacts to the Smithsonian and gave them
to the National Park Service to be transferred to Washington, D.C.
Contrary to the allegation made on the AIHSC site, Callahan did not "buy" four rain god figurines from Nampeyo. He commissioned her to make copies of the two dolls already in his possession prior to loaning the originals to the government. Relatives of Nampeyo used the originals to painstakingly describe intricate details of the artifacts to the famous Hopi artist who was totally blind.
here is yet another "official inquiry" into another
"missing" artifact found in one of the Sacred Caves that were in the
possession of the National Park Service at the time of their disappearance. The
so-called inquiry has been going on for years with no end in sight.
The Name "Manataka"
claim no written evidence to say exactly where the name Manataka originated.
Likewise, the government has no supporting evidence to say the name of these
sacred grounds was not Manataka.
do have indigenous stories that are to us evidence of the sacred name Manataka.
At one time, the federal government had signs in downtown Hot Springs all giving
two different Indian names to this place: Nowasalon and Manataka. Now,
they seem to claim that none was correct. We do find basis for the name found in
the 1936 Desoto Commission and the 1857 Henry Lowe Schoolcraft reports.
(Schoolcraft is noted today as the Father of Modern American Indian Ethnology.)
oral tradition is quite strong among Native peoples, who rely upon stories
handed down to define their history and culture, whether those stories coincide
or not with accounts by European authors. We rely on the stories (legends) of
our own people.
We have always assumed the name came from the most predominant tribe in the area because across the continent local place names have traditionally been adopted by visiting tribes and sometimes by early settlers. In this case, the Tula was the principal tribe in the area.
The so-called historian of the Hot Springs National Park (who has no formal training in American Indian history) is quoted as saying, "About the only thing that can be said with some certainty is the Indian groups along the Ouachita River in the Sixteenth Century were related to the Kadohadacho [Caddo]." Yet, in the following sentence, the government admits, "the language of the Tula was fairly distinct in and of itself." Therefore, how can the Tula be related if the Caddo could not understand the Tula language?
We have ample reason, and documentation, to use the name and from which to compile a history, including various articles and publications from people of European descent, as well as letters from spiritual elders of the Lakota, Choctaw, Caddo, Navajo, Hopi, Chumash, Maya, Aztec, and numerous others; and telephone and personal conversations with dozens of American Indian spiritual elders, historians, ethnologists and archaeologists.
Yes, there is disagreement between MAIC and the government over the name Manataka. But disputing the name of Manataka is double-speak intended to confuse the real issues.
The Manataka Symbol
the AIHSC website, the Manataka Seal, four sacred directions points and a
circle, is confused with the Symbol of Manataka that remains unpublished.
The Seal of the Manataka American Indian Council and the Symbol of Manataka are
two distinctly different images. The official seal of the organization is like a
logo and is widely used on letterhead, signs, etc. But, the Symbol of Manataka
is sacred and will never be shown to the government and dominant culture.
The Story of Manataka
Contrary to being "the most sophisticated of fairy tales and New Age concepts. . . .by nature unprovable claims without rational support," most indigenous sacred stories and songs are not recorded most never were. And hopefully, never will be.
A true "American Indian Heritage Support Center" would know this. Native cultures exist through their language, stories and songs – not written documents by Europeans cited as footnotes.
historical records of our story are many. In dominant culture, they include: the
accounts of Thomas A. Nuttall, 1905; George A. Dorsey, 1905; Fred W. Allsopp,
1931, Orso Cobb, 1935; John R. Fordyce, 1939; John G. Fletcher, 1947; John L.
Atkinson 1966; Francis J. Scully, 1966; Dee Brown, 1966; Charles M. Baker, 1974;
Hester Davis, 1975; Dick Whittington, 1975; Herbert E. Baird, 1987; Dee Brown,
1982; Sam D. Dickenson, 1987; Thomas Woodward, 1990; Frank Schambach, 1990;
Marcus Phillips, 1994; etc., detail their understanding of the people and events
at Hot Springs. Of course there are other references
found among early Europeans.
However, we do not entirely base our account on the basis of white historians who have a penchant for writing from the own limited perspective. We rely more heavily on the stories of the Caddo, Choctaw, Osage, Sioux, and many other spiritual elders who are responsible for the history and stories of their people.
For the National Park Service to attempt to debunk our version of the Story of Manataka based on their limited history (200 years verses thousands of years), is at best amusing, but may be considered sinister and ugly when their actions here are added to the innumerable acts of illegal harassment of our people and deliberate acts of physically erasing indigenous history from public places in Hot Springs.
Further, how many pictographs and petroglyphs that exist in the Ouachitas, Ozarks and other areas of Arkansas are unknown to archeologists and the government? We know of many locations that have not been discovered and picked over and cataloged by the government. Some of our members know of many more. Are we going to reveal the locations to those with no respect of what they reveal? Absolutely not.
existence of the Sacred Caves of Manataka is a matter of historical fact and
spiritual faith. How and when all these facts are revealed is not an issue the
bureaucrats can demand. We may speak more on this at a later date.
The "Calendar Stone" as described by the National Park Service
Manataka Stone was discovered in a cave below the main building of what is now
known as the Arkansas Rehabilitation Center. In 1887, the Department of War
constructed the Arkansas Army Navy Hospital on this site. Prior to this time
there were a succession of baths/hotels on this same site. After the Stone was
discovered it was used as a door-stop in the government house
for a time before it disappeared, presumably stolen or disposed of by a government agent. Samuel Fordyce may have acquired the stone and held it for many years and passed it to Col. J.R. Fordyce many years later.
The Calendar Stone was not discovered in the Ouachita River in the 1930s. The ornately carved boulder is made entirely of sandstone. Sandstone is very porous and its delicate etchings would not have withstood the strong current of the river for very long. This story may have been told by Fordyce to keep government agents from claiming it.
The Churchward drawing was a copy of the original drawing made sometime after the Civil War and just prior to the first disappearance of the Stone. We do not recognize the symbolism attributed to the Stone by Churchward in all cases, but there are many similarities between his definitions and our understanding. For example, Churchward says that one of the calendar glyphs portrays the Maya month of Zac and we agree.
Regardless of the "occult" term applied to his writings, Churchward was an expert in indigenous symbols.
lame attempt is made to discredit the Stone. A detailed study of the Calendar
Stone reveals the impossibility of two fakers from Jonesboro, Ark., creating an
intricately designed artifact with symbolism unknown to any non-Indians of that
time and to carve those unknown symbols on to a single Stone that relate
knowledge and prophesies undocumented in dominant
Theories as to the levels of advancement of previous civilizations, including the Mayan, Aztec, others, are many.
By the way, there is no such thing in Indian culture as "Bath Gods." And a true "American Indian Heritage Support Center" would know that.
There is valid documentation found within the Park Service’s own archives that tell of a period when the government and locals began blasting portions of the sacred mountain with dynamite during construction projects and at least one instance when a claimant of one of the springs used dynamite to increase the flow of his spring. Altogether, after the blasting was finally halted, it was discovered several of the springs had stopped flowing. The government allowed this to happen to our sacred waters.
claim by the National Park Service that it has "preserved and
protected" the ancient healing springs and the sacred mountain is totally
without merit. They have poured huge amounts of concrete all over the natural
surroundings. They completely redesigned nature to accommodate their own petty
comforts. They buried the beautiful waters in a large underground
holding tank allegedly to protect people from radon gas and the springs from pollution, but we believe, rather, the reason was money and power. They want to control a natural (re)source for political and monetary gain.
We know the story of the Rainbow Woman cannot be substantiated in modern archeological terms. Any reader of this story knows this, too. The name of the Rainbow Woman can be depicted in many languages of both North and South.
The Mayan name was used here out of respect for two Maya spiritual elders who have visited Manataka several times.
OmeaKaEhekatl Gaada Erick Gonzales (Maya/Haida), is a Maya priest (Aj Q’ ij) and member and international representative of the Great Confederation of Council of Principal Mayan AjQ’ijab of Guatemala and Director of the National Council Nim E; Magdala Rameriz, is a Maya priestess who came here and retold the story using the name Ix Chel to describe the Rainbow Woman.
The comment that Ix Chel is "generally associated with being destructive, deathly and demonic" is totally incorrect and an ugly attempt to cast an unfavorable light on the beautiful characters of both stories -- from the South and the North.
Here is what Magdala Rameriz had to say:
"Your words are true except for the last part; the ‘demonic, bad things.’ As you realize, that was written by a hand of the Spanish people that arrive to our land, and of course, they were shocked to see all this beautiful culture and so much knowledge that they could not grasp. The Spanish were thinking as the white people that the planet was flat. Imagine a culture in the 1400s that already knew about time, space physics. Our culture already knew about quantum physics and the measurements of the planets and the distances to the Sun, Venus and many other planetary dimensions. Of course, for the Spanish and maybe still for (these people), this is a ‘demonic thing.’ . . . . She is indeed a Goddess of Life/Death, very much related now with some religions here like mother Mary ‘in the hour of our death,’ say that prayer.
Then she is also life and death. Now do not think whatsoever that it is only way to see the things. The ancestors explained that to us in very ancient schools that the Rainbow Woman, Ix Chel, can be also dressed in white buckskin, and use the feathers if she pleases for the tribes of the north. The importance of this is that she does bring unity with her knowledge, to all tribes, all together, including white people, because she is indeed the weaver, as you mention."
Of course, if this letter is not enough to satisfy the government, we will be happy to request the Maya elders of Guatemala to supply another.
We could further contest point by point other allegations by the AIHSC web site, regarding intricacies of DeSoto’s travels, tribes in ancient and modern times that have visited the area, the Trail of Tears, the area’s geography, features of the sacred mountain, and other Native American sites and ceremonial grounds in the area, but, particularly regarding the latter, for what purpose? So the government can acquire them, too? Prevent Native Peoples from holding ceremony on those places? Loot them, too? And then say they don’t exist?
In sum, we know Manataka was called by many names across the continent, according to the languages and traditions of many nations. We call it Manataka, but other nations called it by many names. The name we give this holy place is not the point, nor is it to get into endless debates over white history of the area. The only important issue is, is this place a sacred site of ancient times and today?
We consider all the Earth as sacred. But this particular site was and is a place where the Creator of All Things manifests in wondrous ways, therefore, Manataka is a sacred site.
We are, of course, saddened that anyone would go to such great lengths to malign our organization, or cause pain for our members by holding them up to ridicule, for what purpose, we do not know -- but we can conjecture a host of reasons. But if we are to practice the power of the Sacred Site that is Manataka, the Place of Peace, where even the bitterest enemies laid down their weapons to peacefully coexist in the healing waters under the compassionate eye of the goddess of the mountain, then we must lay down our weapons, too, and offer our hands in peace.
We have not sought the dispute with the National Park Service barring us from practicing sacred ceremonies. We have sought every peaceful and amicable means possible to hold our gatherings in cooperation with the government in whatever reasonable way it deems fit. All to no avail.
We offer our thoughts and observations in a good way, to set the record straight, and prevent more damage and hurt by these individuals whoever they may be.
Perhaps if they found the power and beauty of the Place of Peace themselves, there would be no need for such controversy.
Mitakuye Oyasin - We Are One
The Elder Council of Manataka
If AIHSC wants more documentation of MAIC’s assertions, the person(s) behind that anonymous organization may wish to peruse:
• Allsopp, Fred W., Folklore of Romantic Arkansas, The Grolier Society, New York, 1931.
• Baird, W. David, The Quapaw Indians: a History of the Downstream People, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
• Baker, Charles M„ Fancy Hill; Part III, A Brief Study of the Arkansas Novaculite Quarries (University of Arkansas, Master's Thesis, 1974).
• Barry, Ada Loomis, Yunni’s Story of The Trail of Tears, Fudge & Co., Inc. Mitre Chambers, London, 1932.
• Bolton, Herbert Eugene, The Hasinais; Southern Caddoans as Seen by the Earliest Europeans, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1987.
• Brain, Jeffrey P., On the Tunica Trail, Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Baton Rouge, March, 1988
• Brown, Dee, The American Spa: Hot Springs. Arkansas, Rose Publishing Company, Little Rock, 1982.
• Cline, Inez E., "April 20, 1832 - April 20, 1982 — 150 Years, "The Record, Garland County Historical Society, 1982.
• Cobb, Osro, Picturesque Caddo Gap, The Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, May, 1935.
• Creason, Alice, "Indian Lore," The Record, Garland County Historical Society, 1977.
• Cutter, Charles, Cutter's Guide to the Hot Springs of Arkansas, Slawson & Company, 1884-1908.
• Davis, Hester, Ed., Arkansas Before the Americans, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Series No. 40, 1991.
• Davis, Hester, "DeSoto in the Ouachita and Caddo River Valleys," Caddo Gap, Arkansas Archeology Survey (booklet prepared for a training program held in Montgomery County,) 1975
• Davis, Hester, "History of Caddo Gap Region: De Soto in the Ouachita and Caddo River Valleys," Caddo Gap (booklet prepared for training program in Montgomery County, Arkansas) Arkansas Archeological Society, 1975.
• Dickenson, Sam D., "Arkansas' Spanish Halberds," The Arkansas Archeologist, Vols. 25, 26, Arkansas Archeological Society, Fayetteville, Ark., 1987.
• Dorsey, George, A„ Traditions of the Caddo, Carnegie Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1905.
• Early, Ann M., Standridge: Caddoan Settlement in a Mountain Environment, Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 29, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1988.
• Eno, Clara B„ "Legends of Arkansas," Arkansas Historical Quarterly, March, 1943.
• Fletcher, John Gould, Arkansas, University of North Carolina Press, Charlotte, N.C., 1947.
• Ferguson, John L. & Atkinson, J. H., Historic Arkansas, Arkansas History Commission, Little Rock, 1966.
• Fordyce, John R., "De Soto Reaches Hot Springs," Scrapbook of Arkansas Literature by Troy Lewis, American Caxton Society Press, 1939.
• Foreman, Grant, The Five Civilized Tribes, a Brief History and a Century of Progress (undated manuscript from Marcus Phillips files).
• Foreman, Grant, "The Quapaw in a White World," Indians of Eastern Oklahoma, Buffalo Publishing Co., A f ton, Oklahoma, 1964.
• Hanor, Dr. Jeffrey S., Fire in Folded Rocks, Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1980.
• "Historic Indians of Arkansas," The Arkansas Naturalist, Fayetteville, Ark., 1984.
• Hudgins, Mary D., A Thumbnail History of Hot Springs, The Record, Garland County Historical Society.
• Ingenthron, Elmo, "Indians of the Ozark Plateau, Ozark Mountaineer, Branson, MO, 1998.
• Jones, Ruth Irene, Hot Springs; Ante-Bellum Watering Place, Arkansas Historical Quarterly.
Vol. 14, pp. 3-31, Arkansas Historical Association, Spring, 1955.
• Knoop, Faith Y. & Grant, J. R., Arkansas: Yesterday and Today, Arkansas State Textbook, Circa 1930.
• Lankford, George C., Native American Legends, August House, Little Rock, 1987.
• Lewis, Anna, Chief Pushmataha, American Patriot; The Story of the Choctaws' Struggle for Survival, Exposition Press, New York.
• Masterson, James, Arkansas Folklore, Rose Publishing Co., Little Rock, AR, 1974.
• McCrocklin, Claude, The Lost Prairie Cherokee Indian Sites of Miller County, Arkansas. Field Notes, Number 236, Arkansas Archeological Society, September/October, 1990.
• McGimsey, Charles, R., Ill, Indians of Arkansas, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Publications on Archeology, 1969
• Moore, John H„ A School History of Arkansas, Democrat Printing & Litho Co., Little Rock, 1928.
• Nuttall, Thomas A., "A Journal of Travels Into Arkansas Territory During the Year 1819," Thwaites Early Western Travels, Arthur H. dark Co., 1905.
• Rayburn, Otto Earnest, Forty Years in the Ozarks, Wheeler Printing Co., Eureka Springs, AR, 1983.
• The Record, Numerous Articles, Garland County Historical Society.
• Robinson, Ray, Ozark Trails, Apollo Books, Winona, MN, 1984.
• Sabo, George III, Historic Indians of Arkansas, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2000.
• Schambach, Frank F. & Early, Ann M., Late Caddo Culture (Caddo DI-V), Arkansas Archeological Survey, Pictures of Record, Inc., 1985.
• Schambach, Frank & Newell, Leslie, Crossroads of the Past; 12,000 Years of Indian Life in Arkansas, Arkansas Endowment for the Humanities, Little Rock, 1990.
• Schambach, Frank F., The End of the Trail: The Route of Hernando De Soto's Army Through Southwest, Arkansas and East Texas, The Arkansas Archeologist, Vols. 27, 28, Arkansas Archeological Society, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1989.
• Scully, Francis J. M.D., Hot Springs Arkansas and Hot Springs National Park, Pioneer Press, Little Rock, 1966.
• Spence, Lewis, North American Indians, Myths and Legends, Avenelle Books, New York, 1985.
• Swanton, John R., Indian Tribes of North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
• Swanton, John R., Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission, Classics of Smithsonian Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1985.
• Webb, Clarence H. & Gregory, Hiram F., The Caddo Indians of Louisiana, Louisiana Archeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Baton Rouge, 1986.
• Whayne, Jeannie, Cultural Encounters In The Early South, University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas
• Whittington, Dick, "A Brief History of Caddo Gap," Caddo Gap (A booklet prepared for training in Montgomery County, Arkansas) Arkansas Archeological Society, 1975.
• Wilkins, Thurman, Cherokee Tragedy; The Story of the Ridge Family and of the Decimation of a People, The MacMillan Company, 1970.
• Wilson, Charles Banks, Indians of Eastern Oklahoma, Buffalo Publishing Company, Afton, Oklahoma, 1964.
• Wilson, Terry P., The Osage, Chelsea House Publishers, New York.
• Woodward, Thomas, "An Indian Version of De Soto's Expedition," Field Notes (Newsletter of the Arkansas Archeological Society), Number 236, September/October 1990, Fayetteville, AR.
The identity of the primary person responsible for the malicious and slanderous attacks against Manataka and architect of AIHSC, can be revealed to the public with a court order.
Email Home Index Trading Post