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. Instead of binding the practice, the following passage from infant to a cradle board every night for Garcilaso's account of the de Soto the first two years or so of life, as seems entrada (Varner and Varner 1951:457- to have been the custom almost 458): universally in the Southeast (Swanton 1946:539 ff.), the people of Tula simply The people in this province of wrapped their children's heads with broad Tula differ from all those our bands of cloth or leather which they Spaniards encountered previously; wore more or less constantly until they for, as we have said, the others were eight or nine. The Spaniards must are fine and handsome, whereas have seen this for themselves because, as these, both male and female, have is evident from Garcilaso's account, they loathsome countenances. Even couldn't communicate with the people of though naturally well featured, Tula very well, even through interpreters. they render themselves hideous with devices wrought upon their Since there is now little doubt that Tula persons. Their heads are was in the Arkansas Valley, somewhere incredibly long and taper off in the Fort Smith/Spiro area (Early towards the top having been 1993:74-75; Hudson 1993 :146-147), made this way by artifice; for Garcilaso's observation fits the from the moment they are born bioarcheological data perfectly. As far as

J their heads are bound and are left I have been able to discover, the thus until they are from nine to Arkansas Valley in eastern Oklahoma is ten years of age. the one place on their route throughout the Southeast where the Spaniards could This is a perfect description of the have seen the annular style of cranial

13 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter modification. It seems to have been Ouachitas. characteristic of and unique to this particular Arkansas Valley population It is also clear from the accounts of from at least A.D. 1100 on (Brues 1957, Garcilaso and the other chroniclers of the 1958, 1959). So I think Garcilaso was de Soto entrada that these Tula, heirs to accurate on this point, despite his the Spiroan tradition, a tradition of long­ generally poor reputation as a historian. distance trading in my view (Schambach 1993 :196-208; 1995), were still If Garsilaso was describing annular importing buffalo products from central cranial modeling, the implications are Oklahoma in 1542, and, probably, still very interesting. Most importantly, it trading them to people in the Mississippi would mean that the people of Tula, Valley. Garcilaso reports that "In the whom Early (1993:73) equates with the town .... our men found serving as bed Fort Coffee phase, were probably one covers a great number of cowhides and the same with the people of the which had been softened and dressed Spiro phase, which ended in that area without removing the hair; and there about I 00 years earlier. I have already were in addition many others waiting to pointed out that this was probably the be dressed. Moreover there was beef; but case, because the Spiro phase in the no cows were to be seen in the fields, Arkansas Valley differs from the Fort and it could never be learned from Coffee phase only in nuances in the whence the hides had been brought" ceramic assemblage (Schambach (Varner and Varner 1951:457). They had 1993:231; Rohrbaugh 1984:279-281). been brought, I would say, from the Thus, Garcilaso's description reinforces same place the Spiroans obtained buffalo archeological data which indicate that the products several centuries earlier, the old Spiroans were still in the Spiro locality Spiroan entrepot near Oklahoma City, 100 years or so after the apparent 170 miles west of Spiro (Schambach collapse of Spiro. Furthermore, it 1993:207-208; 1995:19-20, n.31). And I indicates that neither the Spiroans nor would bet that some of the hides and their Fort Coffee phase descendants were "beef' the Spaniards saw at Tula were on the Wichita who, on solid archeological the way down the Arkansas to and historical data (Bell 1984a:309, 323; northeastern Arkansas where the Brooks 1989:78; Stewart 1941:349; Spaniards saw various buffalo products, Owsley 1989: 133), did not practice all probably imported from the Plains by "cranial modeling" of any style. Nor, I the people of Tula (Quinn 1979: 130, would say, on massive and -- as we see 133, 180, 184). here steadily accumulating archeological and bioanthropological This "new" bioanthropological and evidence (Schambach 1993: 190-193 ), documentary evidence that the Spiroan were they related culturally or trade network survived the apparent biologically to the Caddo south of the collapse of Spiro as a "ceremonial

14 Volume 7, Number 3

center" ca. 1450 is supported by say) of the Spiroans that the Spaniards independent archeological evidence that encountered in 1542 as the Tula and, organized trade between the Mississippi perhaps, as long distance traders, if they Valley and the Red River Valley via the were not -- as they could not have been Arkansas Valley continued after 1450. -- the Wichita or the Caddo? Barring the The most striking evidence of this post­ possibility that the people of Tula Spiro phase trade is the large population vanished following their encounter with of Mound Place Incised bird-effigy de Soto, as did so many people in bowls that centers in Miller and northeastern Arkansas, that leaves only Lafayette counties in extreme south­ my hypothesis (Schambach 1993:221 • western Arkansas and in Cherokee, 224) that they were the Tunica. Harrison, Titus, and Red River counties in northeastern Texas. These bowls are Until I read Derrick and Wilson's not found farther east in Arkansas south paper, I considered the proposition that of the Arkansas Valley (Suhm and Jelks these people were Tunica more of a 1962:47-49). Phillips, Ford, and Griffin cultural-historical interpretation than an (1951:147-148) noted 45 years ago that hypothesis because, short of the "some of these are very close to St. possibility of using DNA data, I did not Francis forms [i.e., forms common in the see how it could be tested. But there, I St. Francis Basin between Memphis and found an observation that raises the Forrest City, Arkansas], indicating a possibility that it can be tested against northeast to southwest movement". The archeological and historical data in a way occurrence of Mound Place Incised that could confirm it conclusively. This bowls in Ft. Coffee phase contexts was the observation that the annular style (Rohrbaugh 1982:476-478) and at of cranial modeling appears -- let me Sanders2 indicates the route over which remind you -- at two sites in the Red they were transported from northeastern River Valley, Sanders and the nearby Arkansas to northeastern Texas and Womack site. When I first read that, I southwestern Arkansas. The turquoise tried to discount it, hoping the annularly that occurs in Fort Coffee phase contexts modeled crania from Womack would in the Arkansas Valley (Rohrbaugh prove to be from graves that lacked the 1982:547) and is abundant in what early eighteenth century French trade appear to be post-Sanders phase contexts goods characteristic of that site, that they at the Sanders site and other nearby sites were from earlier, Spiroan, graves like (Jurney and Young 1995:21-23) is those at the nearby Sanders site. But that additional evidence of this trade and is hope was dashed when I called Diane

J indicative of the geographical and Wilson, who assured me that at least cultural areas that were probably three of the annularly modeled crania involved in it. were from graves with historic burial offerings and Womack Engraved pottery. Who were these descendants (I would Therefore I was forced to deal with the

15 -

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter puzzling fact that some four to five people with annular rather than frontally­ hundred years after the Spiroan entrepot occipitally "modeled" heads who were at Sanders was abandoned, the same area living and burying their dead at the was occupied by another group of Womack site between 1700 and 1730? intruders in the Red River Valley who used essentially the same locally distinct The archeological evidence indicates style of annular, as opposed to tabular, that -- dare I even say it? -- they were cranial modeling as had the Spiroans the Tunica. While that may sound before them. And as I began to think outlandish, I am not the first to notice a about this new information and about the connection between Womack and dilemma it seemed to pose, I realized Tunican sites in the Red River mouth that it has fascinating implications. area. As Harris et al. (1965 :360) pointed out in the original Womack site report, The current interpretation of the main the European trade bead types and some component at the Womack site is that it of the gun parts found at Womack represents an A .D . 1700-1730 occupation indicate "a definite connection between by an "intrusive" Indian group Angola Farm, Fish Hatchery site, the "tentatively" identified as the Wichita or Nassonite Post, and (sic) Womack site". the Kichai which possessed a wide As Harris et al . also noted, Angola Farm variety of French and Indian trade goods is a Tunica site excavated by Ford (Harris et al. 1965:360; Story et al. (I 936: 129-140) in 1934 and occupied, 1990:346; Perttula 1992: 171 ). But if the according to Swanton, from about 1709 annular modeling the Womack skulls until 1729 (Harris et al. 1965:358). exhibit means anything, it means these people were not Wichita of any stripe, Harris et al. ( 1965:360) argued that neither Arkansas Valley Wichita nor "some of the items common to these western Red River Valley ~ichai, sites represent goods distributed by the because neither the Wichita nor the La Harpe party" but, for three reasons, I Kichai practiced cranial modeling. Nor, think otherwise. For one thing, the dates as we have seen, can they be Caddo. they assign to the European artifacts Nor, and this is the dilemma, can they be indicate that the Womack site could have traced to the Arkansas Valley, as I have been in use for about twenty years before done with the earlier Sanders site La Harpe arrived. Secondly, there is no population, because the consensus among convincing documentary or archeological archeologists working with the Arkansas evidence that any member of the La Valley data is that the Spiro locality was Harpe party visited this site. And, third abandoned by about 1620 (Perttula and most importantly, a significant 1992:142, 161; Brown 1996:27; Rogers number of the aboriginal goods from 1996:68). The Spiroans (or "Tulans") Womack also point down the Red River were gone, and no one ( except, perhaps, to Angola Farm and other Tunica sites. me) knows where. So who were the Indeed, I th!nk there is enough similarity

16 Volume 7, Number 3

between the assemblage from Womack The snub-nosed end scrapers that are so and the assemblage from Angola Farm to abundant at Womack have their support the interpretation that Womack counterparts, as Perttula (1992: 172-173) represents a site unit intrusion from notes, at the Tunican Haynes Bluff, Angola Famf and that the graves at Russell, and Bloodhound sites. At Womack are classic Tunica graves. Bloodhound, one was found next to the left hand of an adult male in Burial 7 According to Harris et al. (1965:315), (Brain 1988:398). These scrapers remind 47 of the 56 bead types found at me of Father Gravier's observation (Brain ) Womack are also found at the Angola 1988:296) that although Tunica men did ) Farm site and their 1700-1729 date for not hunt "they dress [ deer and buffalo Womack is based primarily on numerous skins} the best of all Indians that I have close similarities between gun parts seen". I'll bet they did. As I have said found at Womack and gun parts found at elsewhere (Schambach 1993: 198-200), I the historically dated Angola Farm site think they were doing il 500 years (Harris et al. 1965:327,331,332,335,340, earlier, using the same snub-nosed 341,343). The correspondences in scrapers, at sites like Wybark, Sheffield, aboriginal artifacts are also close: the Tyler-Rose, and Cookson located on the Natchitoches Engraved var. Natchitoches Arkansas River between the Forks of the bowl (Harris et al. 1965:Figure 4B; Arkansas and Spiro. I'll say more about Schambach and Miller 1984: 124, Figure these scrapers in a few minutes. 11-11) from Womack is an import from down the Red River, probably from Finally, there are the graves at south of the Arkansas line, since pottery Womack. These, you will recall, cannot of that type is rare in the Great Bend be Caddo graves because of the annular region. The Tunica were using cranial modeling. The cranial modeling Natchitoches Engraved var. Natqhitoches indicates that they can't be Wichita or because it appears in sherd form at Kichai either, as does the general Angola Farm (Brain 1988:Figure 137e), absence of I) diagnostic Wichita or but they were probably obtaining it by Kichai traits from the graves and other trade from the Natchitoches area. The contexts at Womack, and 2) the absence aboriginal conch shell beads and of independent documentary evidence pendants from Burial 6 at the that either group was living this far south Bloodhound Hill site, a Tunica cemetery and east prior to 1730. But these graves located a short . distance north of the are, I suggest, absolutely typical Tunica Angola Farm site, with which it appears graves in the sense that they contain

J to be approximately contemporaneous precisely the same congeries of European (Brain 1988:Figure 126, 173:Figure 146), trade goods and non-Tunican aboriginal resemble the conch shell beads and pottery and other goods from various gorgets from the graves at Womack local and non-local sources that appears (Harris et al . 1965:305-306, Figure 7). in every Tunica grave on record. The

17 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter one distinctive characteristic that all bead types recognized at Trudeau also Tunica graves identified so far have in appear at Gilbert (Brain l 979: l 16-131) common is that the offerings found in and, as is apparent from Brain's work them consist mainly of traded goods. (1979:214-216), there are some very They contain little, if anything, that is specific similarities between the gun obviously Tunica-made, so little that the parts from Gilbert and the guns from only way they can be identified as Trudeau. For what it is worth to those Tunican is that they are found at who (foolishly, I would say) accept historically documented Tunica sites, and Brain's argument that the pottery he calls they contain European and aboriginal Winterville Incised var. Tunica is an goods of the right period. This is not a infallible marker for a Tunican new observation. James A Ford (1936: occupation wherever it is found, there is 140) noted 60 years ago with respect to also the fact that, as I pointed out in Tunica pottery that the Tunica at Angola 1984 (Schambach and Miller 1984: 121- Farm had "taken over the pottery of the 122) the "Emory Punctated" pottery Caddo and Natchez rather thoroughly". reported from Gilbert (Story et al. 1967:135-139, Figure 57g,h,i) appears to Therefore I consider the historic be practically identical to the Winterville component at the Womack site a site-unit Incised var. Tunica from Trudeau (Brain intrusion from the historic Tunican 1979:234-237). Angola Farm site. Furthermore, I suggest that the historic component at the Gilbert There is, of course, just one last piece site (Jelks 1967), located about sixty of evidence that is needed to confirm the miles south of the Womack site on the rather complex hypothesis I am upper Sabine, also represents a Tunican developing here. The hypothesis is that intrusion, only there the intrusion was the Spiroans/fulans that Garcilaso from the Trudeau site where the Tunica described on the Arkansas in 1541 were were living during the time the Gilbert the Tunica, as I have been suggesting for site was occupied. We do not have the years (Schambach 1993 ). In 1541 they benefit of Harris and Blaine's scholarship were, hypothetically, still living near when it comes to comparing the Spiro in the Arkansas Valley and their assemblage from the Gilbert site ( dated trade network, by then in place for over to approximately 1750, mainly on the 500 years, was still up and running. basis of European bead types and various Hypothetically, they were still moving gun parts; Blaine and Harris salt, bows, pottery, bison products, and 1967:41,47,61,67,71,79,80,81; Harper et other kinds of commodities and prestige al. 1967: 104), with that from the Trudeau goods over long distances. This probably site, which is dated historically to 1731- continued until about 1650, when the 1764 (Brain 1988:66). However, it is sudden introduction of Spanish horses obvious that there are many from the Southwest, and French guns correspondences. At least 17 of the 58 and other trade goods from the

18

ill Volume 7, Number 3

Mississippi Valley disrupted their ancient come to be called the "Tunica Treasure" . system. Horse transport superseded But first, there is still the matter of the human transport and guns superseded type of evidence needed to confirm my bows for warfare, putting the Tunica out hypothesis about the central involvement of business as far as the vital western of the Tunica in the prehistoric Spiroan half of their trade network was trade network and in the operation of . concerned. So, knowing what was going entrepots in east Texas during the early on everywhere in North America historic period. That evidence is, of between the Pueblo area and the course, crania from historically Mississippi Valley, as I imagine they documented Tunica graves exhibiting the would have if they were the long­ annular style of modeling that was distance traders I think they were, most characteristic of the Spiroan population of them moved from the Spiro locality of the Arkansas Valley in eastern directly to the Yazoo (as they would Oklahoma from A.D. 1100 to 1541. move from there to the Red River mouth Unfortunately, that evidepce is not area about 50 years later) to try to available, not necessarily because the insinuate themselves into the hide trade Tunica did not practice annular cranial that English traders based on the modeling, but because (as far as I know) southern Atlantic coast were operating in there are no crania from documented that area. Thus, I hypothesize, when they Tunica graves that are sufficiently intact entered history there on the Yazoo in for observations on the presence and 1699 (Brain 1988:294) they had not style of cranial modeling to be made. All come, anciently, from farther up the we have at the moment is Father Mississippi Valley in the Upper Gravier's observation that the Tunica Sunflower region as Brain (1988:266- deformed their children's heads (Brain 277) conjectures on very poor 1988:295), but no historical or bioan­ archeological evidence. They had come, thropological evidence of the style of recently and probably directly, from the modeling they used. Fort Smith locality in the Arkansas Valley. Probably because they were So confirmation, or rejection, of my trying to cut themselves in on the profits hypothesis that the Spiroans were the rather than merely supply hides at low Tunica and that the so-called Norteno cost to the English as Indians were focus sites in northeastern Texas were supposed to do, they soon got in trouble actually Tunican entrepots must wait the on the Yazoo, and moved again to the discovery either of intact skulls from Red River mouth area and, initially, the historically documented Tunica graves or Angola Farm site. of explicit historical documentation of the type of cranial modeling they used. I will tell you in a moment why I think But in the meantime, since there are, as they went there and how I think they far as I can see, no other equally subsequently amassed the wealth that has plausible competing hypotheses, I am

19 --

Caddoan Archeology Newsleuer

encouraged to continue to build my case "middlemen" was either that limited or for Tunican entrepots in northeastern that passive. I would suggest that, rather Texas on other kinds of evidence. than having, accidentally or otherwise, found a way to profit from an endeavor The final, and crucial, piece of controlled by the French, as everyone evidence I want to consider here bears seems to assume, the Tunica were on two related questions. How did the profiting from this "French and Indian Tunica amass the wealth in goods (the trade" because, as had (in my view) been "treasure") that Leonard Charrier looted their practice for 500 years with salt, from about a hundred of their graves at bow wood, and other commodities, they the Trudeau site (Brain 1979)? And how were running it lock, stock, and barrel. I might the operation of entrepots in would suggest that they controlled the northeastern Texas have been involved in supply of Indian goods to the French, that process? and of French goods to the Indians by establishing their own entrepots at the The consensus on the source of the sources of valuable Indian commodities, Tunica treasure seems to be that the specifically the Womack, Gilbert, and Tunica acquired it by functioning as (possibly) Pearson (Duffield and Jelks "middlemen" in trade between the French 1961) sites, and moving goods to and and other tribes. The Tunica are from them themselves. supposed to have profited from this trade by virtue of their strategic location in the The goods moving through these Red River mouth area between the entrepots probably included all the French in New Orleans and the Caddo, important commodities of the eighteenth Wichita, Osage, Quapaw and other tribes century French-Indian frontier (Gregory living upriver in Louisiana, Mississippi, 1973 :289): salt, hides, Osage orange Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma (Brain bows, European guns and ammunition, l 979:280-282; Perttula 1992:201; Kidder other European goods ranging from axes 1993 :23 7). The problem with this view is to ornaments, and particularly (I think) that no one has tried to explain exactly horses. Horses, generally considered one what the Tunica did as "middlemen", of the main sources of Tunica wealth other than that they had positioned (Gregory 1973:11; Swanton 1911:312; themselves athwart a bottleneck in the Brain 1979:282), were probably also one main river route between the French and of the main reasons, if not the main all of these tribes. But how would this reason, for Tunican interest in the have produced profits for them? Were Womack, Gilbert, and Pearson sites. ., they collecting tolls or tribute from Indeed, as I will try to demonstrate, they French or Indian traders moving through probably account for the locations of their territory? these sites as well.

l doubt that the Tunica's role as There seems to be no doubt that the

20 Volume 7, Number 3

Tunica were horse traders. The Tunica according to Wedel (1981:37-38) was chief, Cahura-Joligo, was "renowned for "the fact that the Tawakoni [Wichita} his involvement in the horse trade" and were reported to have large numbers of a wealthy man by European standards for horses", although the French did not that time and place because of it know where they were getting them. (Gregory 1973:11; Swanton 1911 :312; Brain 1979:282). Because he was a chief, I think there is good historical and he probably was not involved in this circumstantial evidence that the Tunica, enterprise alone; the whole tribe would by virtue of their long and continuing have been involved and profiting from it. familiarity with the Red River Valley in The key question about this horse trade, the vicinity of their old entrepot at the the mechanics of which are unknown, is: Sanders site, and with their old where did the Tunica get horses in the homeland, the Arkansas Valley, knew period between 1700 and 1760, the time about the Wichita's horses long before the "Tunica treasure" was accumulated? the French heard about th~m. that they Conventional thinking on the horse trade knew the Wichita were getting them in Louisiana between 1700 and 1760 is from a significant and growing feral herd that, despite Spanish opposition to trade in northeastern Texas that was unknown between the Caddo and the French in to Europeans of that era (and has Louisiana (particularly if it involved guns remained unknown to archeologists and and ammunition), horses were filtering most historians of this one), and that into the French territory in the they were involved with the Wichita in Mississippi Valley from the Spanish the procurement of horses from this herd, settlements in the Southwest via the some of which they traded to the French Hasinai and the Natchitoches (Gregory in Louisiana. 1973 :281 ). Some evidently were, but that does not explain the Tunican This hypothesis came to mind when 1 involvement in the horse trade. Had they began thinking about why the Gilbert managed, somehow, to msmuate site, located near the headwaters of the themselves between the French and the Sabine, should, like Womack sixty miles Hasinai? Nor, there is reason to believe, to the north on the Red River, be loaded does it account for all the horses that with French trade goods. It seems likely were coming into Louisiana. By 1720, that whatever the so-called "Norteno according to Wedel (1981 :36-37), the focus" people who frequented the Spaniards were making it "more Womack site did to get French trade difficult" for the French to get horses goods in quantity, those frequenting the "through Hasinai Caddo middlemen", and Gilbert site a few decades later probably the French were exploring the possibility did too. But unlike Womack, which was of getting them from the Wichita or the well situated to command what trade and Osage. One reason for Bienville's interest travel there was up and down the Red in La Harpe's second trip to the Wichita, River Valley, Gilbert seems to have been

21 --

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter off the beaten path, an unlikely spot for Prairie herd, "passed through Louisiana trade goods to accumulate in quantity. to eastern markets". Despite what must There is, however, one important have been heavy pressure from the common element in the locations of mustangers, the herd seems to have these sites: both are precisely on the survived until about 1820, at least. When edge of the Blackland Prairie (Fenneman the trader Anthony Glass ascended the 1938:102-108, Figure 27, Plate VIl), as Sulphur River from Natchitoches in are the two other northeastern Texas sites 1808, he began to see feral horses with so-called "Norteno focus" immediately upon entering the Blackland components, Sanders and Pearson. Thus Prairie. Seven days later on Bois d'Arc the question is: what was attracting Creek about "75 miles from its mquth", people to the edge of the Blackland and from the Sanders and Womack sites, Prairie between 1700 and 1760? he "saw great numbers of wild horses" Certainly it was not buffalo hunting, (Flores 1985:43-44) . When Thomas considering the dearth of buffalo bones Nuttall visited the Red River Valley in in the fauna! remains from the sites 1819, he found the first "native stands" themselves and Lynott's (1980) argument of bois d'arc growing on "the Horse­ that the grasses of the Blackland Prairie prairie [basically the northern extension were not attractive to buffalo. But there of the Blackland Prairie across the Red is historical evidence that the attraction River], 15 miles above the mouth of the was feral horses. Kiamesha" and directly across the Red River from the Womack and Sanders According to the e~vironmental sites. This prairie, Nuttall (1980: 173) historian Dan Flores (1985:102 n.8), explained, "derives its name from the when Domingo Teran de Los Rios herds of wild horses, which till lately traveled to the ·Upper Nasoni village on frequented it, and of which we saw a the Red River in northeastern Texas in small gang". 1691 with the intention of establishing a mission, he brought "more than 1000 Granted that the Blackland Prairie horses and mules . .. at least 200 of horse herd was of a size to be which were lost". Apparently, some of economically important around 1800, these animals colonized the Blackland could it have been an important source Prairie so successfully that they increased of horses for the Wichita and the Tunica into a large feral herd whose existence about a hundred years earlier? Probably. remained unknown to Europeans until Between 1691, the time of the Teran American "mustangers" discovered it expedition, and 1701 , the time horses around 1800. It then became a major started appearing in Tunica villages in source for the feral horses they brought the Red River mouth area, according to into the southeast. In 1802 alone "an Gregory (1971 :281), and the time estimated 7300 Texas horses", most of (hypothetically speaking) the Womack them apparently from the Blackland entrepot was probably opened by the

22 Volume 7, Number 3

Tunica, the horses lost by the Spaniards bois d'arc) when he traveled from his could have increased, assuming 50 to newly established "Nassonite Post" on 100 animals to start and the exponential the Red River to the Arkansas Valley. growth characteristic of such situations at But most importantly, I think, as far as that time (Crosby 1972:82-84), to 5000 the question of the function of the animals or more. By 1719, the year La Womack site is concerned, the Wichita Harpe established his post on the Red must have known about the Blackland River and the approximate time that the Prairie horse herd. I suspect that it was occupation of the Womack site ended, an important source, if not the main there could have been as many as 50,000 source, for the "large number of horses" horses on the Blackland Prairie. By (Wedel 1981:37) that the Wichita had, 1750, the generally agreed upon central the horses that attracted the attention of date for the occupation of the Gilbert the French in New Orleans, ca. 1720. site, this herd could have numbered in Although the crania with annular the millions, mathematically speaking. modeling from the graves , at Womack Ecologically speaking, it had probably indicate that someone other than the stabilized at the maximum carrying Wichita (the Tunica, in my opinion) capacity for the Blackland Prairie. "owned and operated" the Womack site, Considering the number of square miles there is archeological evidence that involved, and the apparent scarcity of Harris et al. (1965 :360) were right in buffalo (Lynott 1980) which would associating the Wichita with the otherwise have competed with the horses Womack site in some way. End scrapers for food, their number could have been of Kay County, Oklahoma chert, a in the hundreds of thousands. catlinite pipe fragment (Harris et al. 1965:291-292,294,298) and, less specifi­ The Tunica, who -- according to my cally, triangular arrowpoints (Harris et al. hypothesis that the Sanders site was a 1965:Figure lb-e) and clay elbow pipes Spiroan entrepot (Scharnbach 1995) -­ found at Womack (Harris et al. had been exploiting the trade potential of 1965:Figure 6i-j) indicate contact with the Blackland Prairie bois d'arc for 500 people in north central Oklahoma. On years, would have known about this the other hand, artifacts from the historic growing horse herd early on. So, I Wichita Bryson-Paddock (Hartley and suspect, would the Caddo of the western Miller 1977) and Deer Creek (Wedel reaches of the Red River beyond the 1981) sites on the Arkansas River in Great Bend, since they had to go to the north central Oklahoma, particularly Blackland Prairie to get their bow wood. sherds from Bryson-Paddock of Womack So, by 1719, might the Osage, since in Engraved pottery (Bell 1984b :Figure that year La Harpe (Smith 1958/9:3 83) 17,3h) that must have come from the met a party of twenty of them coming Red River Valley and European trade down the Kiarnichi (headed, perhaps, for beads of the same types found at Angola the Blackland Prairie to get horses and Farm and Womack (Brain 1979:116-

23 Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

131 ), indicate who the early historic (Duffield and Jelks 1961:79), indicate period central Oklahomans visiting the that those occupations began about the Womack site were. time Womack was abandoned. This sug­ gests that the Tunica moved their entre­ Thus it would appear that soon after pot south to the headwaters of the Saline 1700 the Wichita began bringing buffalo soon after La Harpe opened his post in hides and other buffalo products, catlinite 1719. Their main reason may have been pipes, and (I imagine) locally procured to avoid bringing horses down the Red and halter trained feral horses to the River past the newly established French Tunica entrepot at Womack to exchange post, thus blowing the cover on the for the French guns and ammunition they Blackland Prairie horse herd. Increasing needed to fight their battles with the pressure from the Osage may have been Apaches and to keep their neighbors to another factor. Or, maybe they just found the northeast, the Osage, off their backs. the Gilbert site more convenient to their Therefore, I suggest that the Tunica ob­ home base at the mouth of the Red tained their treasure mostly by exploiting River. between 1700 and 1760, in cooperation with the Wichita of north central Okla­ Considering that snub-nosed end­ homa, a supply of feral Spanish horses scrapers were probably not butchering on the Blackland Prairie that the Euro­ tools but tools "used to remove hair and peans did not know about. Their first reduce hide thickness, later steps in hide entrepot was at Womack, with some oc­ processing" (Creel 1991 :42-43), the cupation of the nearby San9ers site, the extraordinarily large numbers of these site of their original Red River entrepot tools at Womack (872 specimens; Harris 500 years earlier. Considering that some et al. 1965:294-295) and Gilbert (418 of the European trade goods indicate the specimens; Jelks 1967: 197-198) leave no site could have been occupied as early as doubt in my mind that these were hide 1675 (Harris et al. 1965:360) and consi­ trading as well as horse trading entre­ dering Gregory's (I 973:281) observation pots, places where the Tunica received that the Tunica were obtaining horses raw ~ides from the Wichita and prepared from somewhere up the Red River as them for transport and trade to the east early as 1701, I estimate that the entrepot and southeast in Arkansas and Louisiana. at Womack had been in operation for about 20 years when La Harpe estab­ In conclusion, I would say that I agree lished the Nassonite Post 11 O miles completely with Gregory (1973 :v, 275; down the Red River from it in 1719. The Jeter et al. 1989:238-239) that when trade goods at Womack indicate that oc­ Europeans began moving into the Lower cupation ended prior to about 1729 Mississippi Valley, the Trans-Mississippi (Harris et al. 1965:360), while those South, and the Southern Plains, they from the Gilbert site (Jelks 1967:243), didn't have to go to the trouble of and possibly the nearby Pearson site finding out for themselves what the re-

24 Volume 7, Number 3 sources of this vast area were and of Native American slaves from the Plains establishing the complex system of trade and Southwest". All I am doing in rein­ relationships with dozens of different terpretation of the Spiroan phenomenon, tribes that was necessary to obtain them. of the Sanders and Nagle sites, and now They simply plugged themselves into "an of Womack, Gilbert, and possibly, established Indian trade network", some­ Pearson, is marshaling evidence that this thing that was easy for them to do since was indeed a "system" and that it was the Indians welcomed the goods they had the creation of the Tunica. I think that to offer. I am convinced that this Indian there is good evidence that they (as the trade network was, as Gregory says, "a Spiroans) established it around A.O. very complex system of barter extending 1000, that they (as the Tula) were from the Mississippi River to eastern running it when the Spaniards invaded New Mexico .. . and from the Arkansas the Mississippi Valley in 1542, and that River to the Gulf' and that, as he also they were still running it one hundred says, "Items exchanged included ceram­ and sixty years later wheq the French ics, salt .. .. hides, Osage orange (bois arrived in Louisiana. d'arc) wood for bows, and horses and

REFERENCES

Barnes, James E., and Jerome C. Rose Blaine, Jay C., and R.K. Harris 1990 Dental Morphological Variants 1967 Guns. In ~'The Gilbert Site: A and Kinship Among Prehistoric Norteno Focus Site in Caddo. Paper presented at the Northeastern Texas", edited by 5 5th Annual Meeting of the Edward B. Jelks. Bulletin of the Society for American Archeolo­ Texas Archeological Society gy, Las Vegas. 37:33-86.

Bell, Robert E. 1984a The Plains Villagers: The Brain, Jeffrey P. Washita River. In Prehistory of 1979 Tunica Treasure. Reports of the Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Peabody Museum of Archaeology Bell, pp. 307-324. Academic and Ethnology Vol. 71. Harvard Press, Orlando. University, Cambridge.

1984b Protohistoric Wichita. In 1988 Tunica Archaeology. papers of the Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited Peabody Museum of Archaeology by Robert E. Bell, pp. 363-378. and Ethnology Vol. 78. Harvard Academic Press, Orlando. University, Cambridge.

25 -

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

Brooks, Robert L. Bruseth, James E., Diane E. Wilson, and 1989 Village Farming Societies. In Timothy K. Perttula From Clovis to Comanchero: 1995 The Sanders Site: A Spiroan Archeo/ogical Overview of the Entrepot in Texas? Plains Southern Great Plains, edited by Anthropologist 40(153):223-236. Joe S. Hays, Douglas W. Owsley, Richard L. Jantz, Murray K. Burnett, Barbara A. Marks, and Mary H. Manhein, 1988 The Biological Synthesis. In pp. 137-156. Research Series No. Human Adaptation in the Ozark 35. Arkansas Archeological and Ouachita Mountains, edited Survey, Fayetteville. by George Sabo III, Ann M. Early, Jerome C. Rose, Barbara Brown, James A. A. Burnett, Louis Vogel, Jr., and 1984 Arkansas Valley Caddoan: The James P . Harcourt, pp. 193-220. Spiro Phase. In Prehistory of Research Series No. 31. Arkansas Oklahoma, edited by Robert E. Archeological Survey, Fayette­ Bell, pp. 241-263. Academic ville. Press, Orlando. 1990 The Bioarcheological Synthesis of 1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The the Gulf Coastal Plain Study Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Area. In The Archeology and Caddoan Culture in Eastern Bioarcheo/ogy of the Gulf Oklahoma, Volumes 1 and 2. Coastal Plain, edited by Dee Ann Memoir No. 29. Museum of Story, Janice A. Guy, Barbara A. Anthropology, University of Burnett, Martha Doty Freeman, Michigan, Ann Arbor. Jerome C. Rose, D. Gentry Steele, Ben W. Olive, and Karl J. Brues, Alice M. Reinhard, pp. 385-508. Research 1957 Skeletal Material from the Nagle Series No. 38. Arkansas Archeo­ Site. Bulletin of the Oklahoma logical Survey, Fayetteville. Anthropological Society 5: 101- 106. Creel, Darrell 1991 Bison Hides in Late Prehistoric 1958 Skeletal Material from the Horton Exchange in the Southern Plains. Site. Bulletin of the Oklahoma American Antiquity 56(1):40-49. Anthropological Society 6:27-32. Crosby, Alfred W., Jr. 1959 Skeletal Material from the Morris 1972 The Columbian Exchange: Site, Cd-39. Bulletin of the Biological and Cultural Conse­ Oklahoma Anthropological quences of 1492. Greenwood Society 7:63-70. Press, Westport, Connecticut.

26 Volume 7, Number 3

Derrick, Sharon McCormick, and Diane Flores, Dan L. ( editor) E. Wilson 1985 Journal of an Indian Trader: 1995 Cranial Modeling as an Ethnic Anthony Glass and the Texas Marker Among the Prehistoric Trading Frontier, 1790-1810. Caddo. Unpublished paper cited Texas A&M University Press, with permission of the authors. College Station.

Dow, Laura Ann Brantly 1987 The Genetic Affinities and Ford, James A. Adaptive Success of Three 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Groups ofLate Prehistoric Amer­ Collections from Louisiana and indians from Texas. Unpublished Mississippi. Anthropological M.A. thesis, Department of Study No. 2. Department of Anthropology, The University of Conservation, Louisiana Texas, Austin. Geological Survey, New Orleans.

Duffield, Lathel F., and Edward B. Jelks Gregory, Hiram F., Jr. 1961 The Pearson Site: A Historic 1973 Eighteenth-Century Caddoan Indian Site at Iron Bridge Archaeology: A Study of Models Reservoir, Rains County, Texas. and Interpretation. Ph .D. Anthropology Series No. 4. Dissertation, Department of Department of Anthropology. The Anthropology, Southern Metho­ University of Texas, Austin. dist University. University Micro­ films, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Early, Ann M. Harris, R. King, Inus Marie Harris, J.C. 1993 Finding the Middle Passage: The Blaine, and Jerrylee Blaine Spanish Journey from the 1965 A Preliminary Archaeological and Swamplands to Caddo Country. Documentary Study of the In The Hernando de Soto Womack Site, Lamar County, Expedition West of the Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Mississippi, 1541-1542, edited by Archeologica/ Society 36:287- Gloria A. Young and Michael P. 364. Hoffman, pp. 68-77. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Harper, Loyd, Ruby Harper, R.K. Harris, Inus M. Harris, Edward B. Jelks, and J. Fenneman, Nevin M. Ned Woodall 1938 Physiography of Eastern United 1967 Ornaments. In "The Gilbert Site: States. McGraw-Hill Book Com• A Norteno Focus Site in North­ pany, New York. east Texas", edited by Edward B.

27

6 -

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

Jelks. Bulletin of the Texas Jurney, David H., and William Young Archeological Society 37: 87-104. 1995 Southwestern Pottery and Tur­ quoise in Northeastern Texas. Hartley, John D., and A.F. Miller Caddoan Archeology Newsletter 1977 Archaeological Investigations at 6(2): I 5-28. the Bryson-Paddock Site: An Early Contact Period Site on the Kidder, Tristram R. Southern Plains. Archeological 1993 The Glendora Phase: Proto- Site Report No. 32. Oklahoma histori c-Early Historic Culture River Basin Survey. University of Dynamics on the Lower Ouachita Oklahoma, Office of Research River. In Archaeology of Eastern Administration, Norman. North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by Hudson, Charles James B. Stoltman. Archaeologi­ 1993 Reconstructing the de Soto cal Report No. 25. Mississippi Expedition Route West of the Department of Archives and Mississippi River: Summary and History, Jackson. Contents. In The Hernando de Soto Expedition West of the Mississippi, 1541-1543, edited by Krieger, Alex D. Gloria A. Young and Michael P. 1946 Culture Complexes and Chronol­ Hoffman, pp. 143-154. University ogy in Northern Texas, with of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Extensions of Puebloan Datings to the Mississippi Valley. Jelks, Edward B. (editor) Publication 4640. The University 1967 The Gilbert Site: A Norteno Focus of Texas, Austin. Site in Northeast Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 37:1-247. Lynott, Mark J. 1980 Prehistoric Bison Populations of Jeter, Marvin D., Jerome C. Rose, Northcentral Texas. Bulletin of Ishmael Williams, Jr., and Anna M. the Texas Archeological Society Harmon 50:89-101. 1989 Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Neumann, Geog K. Arkansas and Loufa·iana. Re­ 1942 Types of Artificial Cranial search Series No. 37. Arkansas Deformation in the Eastern Archeological Survey, Fayette­ United States. American Antiquity ville. 3:306-310.

28 Volume 7, Number 3

Nuttall, Thomas American World: A Documentary 1980 A Journal of Travels into the History of North America to Arkansas Territory During the 1612, Volume 2, edited and Year 1819, edited by Savoie commentary by David B. Quinn, Lottinville. University of pp. 90-198. Amo Press, New Oklahoma Press, Nonnan. York.

Owsley, Douglas W. Rogers, J. Daniel 1989 The History of Bioarcheological 1996 Markers of Social Integration: The Research in the Southern Great Development of Centralized Plains. In From Clovis to Authority in the Spiro Region. In Comanchero: Archeo/ogical Political Structure and Change in Overview of the Southern Great the Prehistoric Southeastern Plains, edited by Joe S. Hays, United States, edited by John F.

Douglas W. Owsley, Richard L. Searcy, pp. 53-681 University Jantz, Murray K. Marks, and Press of Florida, Gainesville. Mary H. Manhein, pp. 123-136. Research Series No. 35. Arkansas Rohrbaugh, Charles L. Archeological Survey, Fayette­ 1982 Spiro and Fort Coffee Phases: ville. Changing Cultural Complexes of the Caddoan Area. PhD. Disser­ Perttula, Timothy K. tation, Department of Anthropol­ 1992 The Caddo Nation: Archaeologi­ ogy, University of Wisconsin­ cal and Ethnohistoric Perspec­ Madison. University Microfilms, tives. University of Texas Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Austin. 1984 Arkansas Valley Caddoan: Fort Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and Coffee and Neosho Foci. In James B. Griffin Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited 1951 Archaeological Survey in the by Robert E. Bell, pp. 265-283. Lower Mississippi Alluvial Val­ Academic Press, Orlando. ley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. Schambach, Frank F. 25. Harvard University, Cam­ 1993 Some New Interpretations of bridge, Massachusetts. Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology of Eastern North Quinn, David B. America: Papers in Honor of 1979 The Expedition of Hernando de Stephen Williams, edited by Soto and his Successor, Luis de James B. Stoltman, pp. 187-230. Moscoso, 1538-1543. In New Archaeological Report No. 25.

29 --

Caddoan Archeology Newsletter

Mississippi Department of Research Series 38. Arkansas Archives and History, Jackson. Archeological Survey, Fayette­ ville. 1995 A Probable Spiroan Entrepot in the Red River Valley in Story, Dee Ann, Byron Barber, Estalee Northeast Texas. Caddoan Barber, Evelyn Cobb, Herschel Cobb, Archeology Newsletter 6(1):10- Robert Coleman, Kathleen Gilmore, R.K. 25. Harris, and Norma Hoffrichter 1967 Indian Artifacts: Pottery Vessels. Schambach, Frank F., and John E. Miller In "The Gilbert Site: A Norteno 1984 A Description and Analysis of the Focus Site in Northeast Texas", Ceramics. In Cedar Grove: An edited by Edward B. Jelks. Interdisciplinary Investigation of Bul/etin of the Texas a Late Caddo Farmstead in the Archeological Society 37:87-104. Red River Valley, edited by Neal L. Trubowitz, pp. 109-170. Re­ Suhm, Dee Ann, and Edward B. Jelks search Series No. 23 . Arkansas (editors) Archeological Survey, Fayette­ 1962 Handbook of Texas Archeology: ville. Type Descriptions. Special Pub­ lication No. 1, Texas Archeolog­ Smith, Ralph A. ical Society, and Bulletin No. 4, 1958-1959 Account of the Journey of The Texas Memorial Museum, Benard de la Harpe: Discovery Austin. Made by Him of Several Nations Situated in the West. South­ Suhm, Dee Ann, Alex D. Krieger, and western Historical Quarterly Edward B. Jelks 62(1-4). 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. Bulletin of Stewart, T.D. the Texas Archeological and 1941 The Circular Type of Cranial Paleontological Society 25. Deformation in the United States. American Journal of Physical Swanton, John R. Anthropology 28:343-351. 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Story, Dee Ann, Janice A. Guy, Barbara Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. A. Burnett, Martha Doty Freeman, Bulletin 43. Bureau of American Jerome C. Rose, D. Gentry Steele, Ben Ethnology, Smithsonian Institu­ W. Olive, and Karl J. Reinhard tion, Washington, D.C. 1990 The Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Gulf 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern Coastal Plain, Volumes 1 and 2. United States. Bulletin 137.

30 Volume 7, Number 3

Bureau of American Ethnology, Wilson, Diane E. Smit~sonian Institution, Washing­ 1993 Incidence of Degenerative Joint ton, D.C. Disease Among the Sanders Site (41LR2) Population. Paper Varner, John Grieg, and Jeanette Johnson presented at the 3 5th Caddo Varner Conference, Norman, Oklahoma. 1951 The Florida of the Inca. Univers­ ity of Texas Press, Austin. Wilson, Diane E., and Sharon Wedel, Mildred Mott McCormick Derrick 1981 The Deer Creek Site, Oklahoma: 1996 Cranial Modeling as an Ethnic A Wichita Village Sometimes Marker Among the Caddo. Paper Called Ferdinandina: An Ethno­ presented at the 61 st Annual historian's View. Series in An­ Meeting of the Society for thropology No. 5. Oklahoma His­ American Archaeqlogy, New torical Society, Oklahoma City. Orleans.

END NOTES

1) This is a lightly revised version of excellent specimen of this type, the paper I read at the 3 8th Caddo cons1stmg of most of a single pot in Conference, Natchitoches, Louisiana, fragments, in the Texas Archeological March 29, 1996. Research laboratory collections from the midden area at the Sanders site. 2) In December 1995, I observed one

31

--