The Womack, Gilbert, and Pearson Sites: Early Eighteenth Century Tunican Entrepots in Northeast Texas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 1996 Article 13 1996 The Womack, Gilbert, and Pearson Sites: Early Eighteenth Century Tunican Entrepots in Northeast Texas Frank Schambach Arkansas Archaeological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Schambach, Frank (1996) "The Womack, Gilbert, and Pearson Sites: Early Eighteenth Century Tunican Entrepots in Northeast Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1996, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.1996.1.13 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1996/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Womack, Gilbert, and Pearson Sites: Early Eighteenth Century Tunican Entrepots in Northeast Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1996/iss1/13 ,-- Volume 7, Number 3 THE WOMACK, GILBERT, AND PEARSON SITES: EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY TUN/CAN ENTREPOTS IN NORTHEAST TEXAS?1 Frank Schambach, Arkansas Archeological Survey For the past few months, I have been south of the Ouachita Mountains. working on a detailed response to a paper by James Bruseth, Diane Wilson, Perhaps the best way to present this and Timothy Perttula (1995) published in new information is to cite the short the fall issue of Plains Anthropologist. section titled "The Bioanthropology of There, these authors challenge my the Skeletons from the Sanders Site" Sanders entrepot hypothesis (Schambach that appears in my response (soon to be 1995) and my new paradigm for the published) to Bruseth, Wilson, and Mississippi period archeology of the Perttula's challenge: Arkansas Valley (Schambach 1993 ), claiming that the Sanders focus, as I must begin by clarifying an propounded by Alex D. Krieger (1946), important point that Bruseth et al. is alive and well, so much so that they (1995:225) have obfus~ated. I am have renamed it the Sanders phase to not the one who "argues that the ready it for service in the 1990s and skeletal sample from [the beyond. Sanders] site is markedly different from Caddoan As I was finishing my response to that populations down the Red River". paper, with the intention of summarizing I'm not qualified to made that it at this conference, some exciting new kind of argument. I merely evidence emerged which caused me to pointed out (Scharnbach 1993: change my plans. This evidence, I think, 204-205~ Scharnbach 1995: 10-11) settJes the argument about the Sanders that the bioantbropologists have site because it proves that the people recently begun to notice and buried in the 21 graves at Sanders were, puzzle over peculiarities in this as I have been arguing on both group of skeletons compared to archeological and bioanthropological those from historically and grounds, an intrusive population from the archeologically documented Arkansas Valley. It also supports my Caddo sites farther east in the J hypothesis that the Mississippi period Red River Valley that are population of the Arkansas Valley was inexplicable in terms of Krieger's significantly different, culturally and Sanders focus hypothesis. The biologically, from the Caddo populations first was Dow (1987) who 9 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter observed that the Sanders them. If they are Caddo, as the skeletons differ significantly from conventional wisdom would have the Hatchel-Mitchell skeletons it, why are they different in these and offered the ad hoc explana ways? tion that this was because people at Sanders were intermarrying And I have pointed out how with Plains people. Then Burnett these differences, inexplicable in ( 1990: 393-3 99), analyzing terms of Krieger's hypothesis, unpublished data assembled by make sense in terms of mine. A Jackson, observed that the group of traders from the infection rate in the Sanders Arkansas Val1ey would have been skeletons was "dramatically high" genetically different in ways compared to other populations in detectable osteologically from the Red River Valley, an people in the Red River Valley observation that Wilson (personal (Barnes and Rose 1990: 12; communication, February 1996) Schambach 1993 : 190-193). Their now considers valid. And it was skeletons could be expected to Burnett, not I, who concluded show, as some of the Sanders that the Sanders skeletons are skeletons do, evidence of "markedly different" overall from infections with the diseases of Caddo skeletal populations from childhood that happen to be sites east of Sanders in the Red grimly characteristic of the River Valley. Then Wilson Mississippi period population of ( 1993: 11) added to the growing the Arkansas Valley (Brues 1958, list of differences the observation 1959; Brown 1984:259; Burnett that the Sanders skeletons evince 1988:212-214), but not of the an unusually high degree of Red River Valley. And the degenerative joint disease of a skeletons of long-distance traders type indicating to her that the regularly plying the 150 mile Sanders people may have riverine and overland route regularly carried heavy loads on between Spiro and Sanders could their backs or heads and might be expected to show the kinds of have done "a great deal of stress induced degeneration that travel[ing]" on foot. Wilson has identified in the Sanders site skeletons. My contribution to this process has been to assemble these I also predicted (Schambach observations and note that they 1993 :203) that as these bioanthro raise the same question about the pological studies progressed, con Sanders skeletons that I raise clusive osteological evidence that about the artifacts found with the Sanders site skeletons 10 - Volume 7, Number 3 represent an Arkansas Valley that information was a December population might emerge. As luck 7, I 995 letter to Wilson would have it, such evidence has containing the following recently been presented to me by paragraphs: none other than Diane Wilson, one of the coauthors of the "Do you agree that the "Brusetb et al." attack on my 'circular' deformation Sanders entrepot hypothesis. I apparently 'produced by a will conclude this section with a circular binding from the brief review of Wilson's new data frontal region to the and a short discussion of their occiput' that Brues implications for my hypothesis. describes as 'almost universal' in the Horton Wilson's data (discussed here population, and which - with her permission) are in a she notes -- was 'similar paper prepared for presentation at to that observed at the the 61 st Annual Meeting of the Nagle site, which was Society for American Archaeolo equated with the type gy (Derrick and Wilson 1995; described by Stewart from Wilson and Derrick 1996) on the Sanders site in Texas' styles of "cranial modeling", i.e., is what you and Sharon head deformation, exhibited by Derrick are describing?" all skulls from presumed "Caddo" contexts in east Texas. Derrick "If so, it seems to me and Wilson's crucial discovery that the limited Red River was that two distinct styles of Valley distribution of this cranial modeling, produced by type of cranial modeling different techniques, were in use supports my hypothesis in the Red River Valley. There is that the Sanders people a "tabular" style (Figure 1) which were Spiroans from the was obviously the norm for the Arkansas Valley." Caddo throughout east Texas and (as Wilson has informed me) Wilson's reply, upon reviewing southwest Arkansas, since ( except the papers by Brues (1957, 1958, one specimen from a site in the 1959) and Stewart (1941), was in Neches drainage) it is the only the affirmative. Therefore I one represented at all but two consider the "Sanders site sites, Sanders and the nearby problem" solved. Wilson and Womack site. At these sites, a Derrick have, I think, supplied readily distinguishable "annular" conclusive evidence that most of style prevails. My response to the people represented by the 11 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter Tabular Modeling Styles PRON'J'O PML\LLELO-PROlft'O-OCCl.P:I'l'M. VERTICO-OCCIPI~ l.'RONTO PT\RALLELO-FRONTO-OCC1PIT1\L VB!ft'ICD-OCCIPITAL ., Annular Modelinsr~tyles Figure 1. Tabular and Annular Styles of Cranial Modeling (after Wilson and Derrick 1996). 12 Volume 7, Number 3 skeletons from the graves at annular style of cranial modeling, which Sanders were from the Arkansas makes the head look very long, seen Valley, just as most of the goods from the front or the side, and makes it buried with them are from the "taper off towards the top" when seen Arkansas Valley. The Sanders from the front (Figure 1). Parallelo site is a textbook example of a fronto-occipital flattening also causes the site unit intrusion. My Sanders head to look long from the front or side, entrepot hypothesis explains this but it does not cause it to taper above intrusion. the ears. It causes it to bulge above the ears, to look hyperbrachycephalic, But who were these Arkansas Valley because of the pressure applied from the people known archeologically as the front and the back. Spiroans? Was anyone in the Southeast practicing annular cranial modeling in Garcilaso also gives a plausible historic times? So far, I have been able description of how annular deformation to find only one reference to this was accomplished.