Spiritual Diplomacy, the Yamasees, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel: Reinterpreting Prince George’s Eighteenth-Century Voyage to England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the 1710s relationships between the Yamasees and their South Carolina neighbors were rapidly deteriorating. Colonists enslaved and physically abused Yamasee people, stole their property, and encroached on their lands. In the midst of this, a Yamasee “Prince” made a singular trip to London, spending twenty-one months with Anglican schoolmasters and tutors who attempted to transform him into a missionary for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Why did his community pursue this path? This article argues that the Prince’s clan was attempting to engage in spiritual diplomacy with the British: sending a diplomat to a spiritually and politically important capital who then converted to Christianity. This practice was indigenous in origin but was practiced particularly by Indian communities that had sustained contact with Spanish missionaries in La Florida. Such was the case with the Prince’s community: the Euhaws rejoined the Yamasees in 1703 after a century spent in La Florida and needed to establish a more secure footing for themselves in the Yamasee and British worlds. Though it would prove disappointing in a number of respects, analysis of the Prince’s voyage reveals how southeastern Indians responded to European colonialism by drawing on long-standing Native practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".