Indian John Hill

Who Was John Quititit?

John Quititit, often referred to as “Indian John,” was a farmer, carpenter, and member of the Upper Yakama Nation. He lived and worked in the area during the late 19th century. As a landowner and skilled craftsman, Quititit played a significant role in the local community. His name and legacy are tied to the land, as oral histories from the Yakama people and regional records highlight his connection to the region now memorialized by the Indian John Hill Rest Area.

Not only was Quititit a figure of industriousness, but he also symbolized the resilience of his people in a changing world. The hill itself originally bore the Yakama name Ta’txancxca, which translates to “sarvisberry ground”—a nod to the area’s natural flora and its importance to the Yakama people’s traditional practices.

For more details about the rest area’s foundation and history, check out this article from the Yakima Herald.

Why Might the Name Change?

Over time, the name “Indian John Hill” has sparked conversations about respect and representation. In collaboration with the Yakama Nation, ongoing efforts strive to preserve the cultural integrity of historical names while reconsidering terms that could be interpreted as insensitive. Some members of the Yakama Nation have voiced concerns over the use of “Indian,” urging for a more culturally appropriate designation.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has discussed renaming the rest area to better reflect the Yakama Nation’s heritage. Preliminary suggestions include reviving the original Yakama name, Ta’txancxca, to honor the land’s indigenous roots. Renaming it would serve as a step toward accurately representing the Indigenous peoples who have called this region home for centuries.

Efforts like these are part of larger state-wide initiatives to remove outdated or offensive place names. For more insight into these discussions, you can visit the Yakima Herald’s coverage.

The evolving dialogue about Indian John Hill reflects a broader shift in how places across the U.S. reexamine both their histories and their future. What do you think? Does renaming a landmark alter its significance, or does it deepen its connection to heritage?