Partners and Power: Understanding Ancestral Wichita and...

Partners and Power: Understanding Ancestral Wichitaand French Trade at the Deer Creek Site

Sarah Trabert1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

AbstractDeer Creek is an eighteenth-century fortified site in Oklahoma that is featured in dozensof publications yet was not excavated until 2016. While archaeologists today acknowl-edge the site as a Wichita village, others have insisted Deer Creek is a European fort.Historical narratives bereft of archaeological investigation can prove problematic andhave minimized the role of Wichita communities in economic relationships. The DeerCreek site was just one of many villages in the region where Indigenous peoples heldsignificant power as they negotiated with European travelers and archaeological workcan reveal the perspective of those who there.

Keywords Great plains .Wichita . Colonialism . France

Introduction

The Deer Creek site (34KA3) is an ancestral Wichita village located along the ArkansasRiver east of Newkirk, Oklahoma in Kay County (Fig. 1). Deer Creek is one of only afew fortified villages in the southern Plains and was occupied at a critical point in timewhen Wichita peoples were experiencing significant social change resulting from theirparticipation in French trade. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Wichitasettlements consisted of round grass lodges situated on river terraces, and Deer Creekhas a sister village a little more than one mile upstream known to archaeologists as theBryson-Paddock site (34KA5) (see Fig. 1). Agriculture supplemented by foraging andhunting supported thousands of people in each village and dozens of midden moundswere interspersed between houses (Drass 1998; Vehik 2006; Wedel 1959). It wascommon for Wichita communities to build and maintain fortifications in the form of

International Journal of Historical Archaeologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-018-0473-2

* Sarah [email protected]

1 Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey Street, Norman,OK 73019, USA

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10761-018-0473-2&domain=pdf

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9893-7296

mailto:[email protected]

ditches, earthen embankments, and sometimes wooden palisades to provide shelter ifthey were attacked (Drass et al. 2018; Vehik 2006).

It was these fortification ditches and mounds at the Deer Creek site that drew theattention of local artifact collectors fairly early in the Euroamerican occupation of thestate. Archaeologists became aware of the site after speaking with collectors and it hasbeen featured in dozens of publications over Wichita and Oklahoma history, synthesesof French and Spanish accounts of early contacts with Native Americans, and specu-lation over who actually occupied the site. Some early archaeologists hypothesized thatDeer Creek could be a French trading post, surrounded by a Wichita village. In 2008,journalists in Oklahoma referenced the site in their quest to identify the first whitesettlement in the state (Anonymous 2008).

Fig. 1 Map with tribal territories, rivers, and sites mentioned in text

International Journal of Historical Archaeology

People have speculated about the origins, purpose, and extent of the Deer Creek sitefor more than 100 years, yet the site was not excavated until 2016. Since archaeologistswere unable to secure permission to work on the site, they instead debated the accuracyand merits of European accounts of the site, whether French and Spanish travelersactually visited this particular village, and what surface indications of features (fortifi-cation ditches and mounds) paired with artifacts collected from the surface could tell usof the village and its occupants. For too long, European accounts were prioritized indiscussions of this and other ancestral Wichita villages and research was focused moreon whether Deer Creek was a French outpost (Wedel 1981) rather than on the ancestralWichita who built the site and lived there. Here, I provide a summary of the historicaldocumentation and debates surrounding the site (including French travel accounts), abrief discussion of what historical documents and archaeological investigations haveshown us of other Wichita villages, and a discussion of two recent seasons ofexcavation at Deer Creek.

While historical documents on ancestral Wichita villages provide key descriptionsand insights into fortification works and exchange goods, their inherent bias limits theirusefulness for understanding exchange and social change in the southern Plains in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Archaeological investigation through excavationis well positioned to address many of the questions surrounding the Deer Creek site, butfrom a position that recognizes Indigenous agency. De Cunzo (2014:5250) states thatBit is Eurocentric to cast all native actions in colonial settings as mitigating oppression.Doing so risks romanticization, homogenization, and a denial of agency.^ Manyscholars working outside of the Plains have spent the past two decades emphasizingthe need for a combination of theoretical and methodological models that emphasizeIndigenous agency, creativity, and resistance during and after European colonization(Dietler 2010; Lieb 2008; Paterson 2011; Rubertone 2000; Nassaney 2014). Followingtheir lead, a more informed approach to investigating the Deer Creek site can revealinformation on the relationship between Wichita and French groups from the perspec-tive of those that actually lived in the village. I argue that Deer Creek and similar sitesare critical for properly contextualizing and understanding the range of responsesIndigenous groups had to European colonization. These communities’ stories serve asexamples of Indigenous independence and power, and consideration for the complexand integral role many Indigenous groups had in history should take the forefront ofcolonial studies.

Historical Background

Primary documents can offer significant insights into European movement and relation-ships throughNorthAmerica yet often frustrate archaeologists when they attempt tomatchspecific locations with archaeological sites. Adding another layer of complexity tohistorical documentation of the southern Plains rests with European tendencies to groupa lot of different peoples under the same Btribal^ label. The Wichita were often describedby the French and Spanish as being one people, but there was never a single tribe. TheWichita were organized in a number of distinct bands including Wichitas, Wacos,Taovayas, Tawakonis, and Kichais. French and Spanish travelers documenting their visitsto Wichita villages used a number of names including Jumano (Spanish) and variations of


Panis Noir, Panis Piques, Paniassa, and Panipiquet (French) to describe the people theymet (Drass et al. 2018; Wedel 1981). Many of the French terms come from Bthe prickedones^ a reference to tattoos common toWichita peoples (Curtis 1930;Wedel 1981). It wasnot until the early eighteenth century that the French started recognizing distinct bandsubgroups, but it often remains unclear which band they visited. Historically, the Wichitawere a smaller band and often grouped with the Taovaya whomade up the largestWichitasubdivision (Drass et al. 2018). Given their lack of experience and knowledge of the socialand physical landscapes of the southern Plains, Spanish and French travel accounts lackdetail. Their ambiguous and often inconsistent names for rivers and landforms, thedistances they covered, and the identity of the Native peoples they interacted with leavesroom for debate amongst researchers regarding the identity of communities mentioned inthe European traveler narratives.

Eyewitness Accounts of Deer Creek Village

Charles Claude Dutisné may have been one of the first Europeans to visit the DeerCreek village in 1719. The governor of Louisiana charged Dutisné with the task ofmaking alliances with tribes between Illinois and New Mexico (Wedel 1981). Hereported visiting two Panis (Wichita) villages with the first he encountered located 40leagues (approximately 190 km) southwest of the Osage Nation on a stream that wassurrounded by prairie with forests to the southwest (Bell et al. 1974). Dutisné describedthe villages in terms of resources and military strength stating that both had 130 housesand 200 warriors, firearms were common, and Dutisné traded guns, powder, and knivesfor a horse and mule which had Spanish brands (Bell et al. 1974).

Robert E. Bell, a prominent archaeologist working in Oklahoma in the early to mid-twentieth century, was aware of the potential significance of the Deer Creek site butwas unable to secure permission to excavate it. After examining Dutisné’s account, Belland others argued that Dutisné described the Deer Creek and Bryson-Paddock sitesalong the Arkansas River in north-central Oklahoma (Bell et al. 1974; McRill 1963).Other researchers were not convinced. Instead, they suggested Dutisné was more than125 km to the north and east, visiting villages near present-day Neodesha, Kansas (Fig.1). Wedel (1959:533) argued that if Dutisné left Osage sites in southern Missouri, hewould have had to travel 65 km or more per day and cross the Neosho, Verdigris, andprobably Fall rivers to get to Kay County in the time he claimed to travel betweensettlements. Mildred Wedel (1981) was also critical of Bell’s interpretation of Dutisné’snarrative and argued that his description of twin villages near a river where metal itemswere exchanged was not sufficient evidence to link Deer Creek with Dutisné’s account.Instead, the Wedels suggest he visited site 14WN1 just north of Neodesha, Kansaswhere the remains of an earthen fortification ring, shell tempered pottery, and metalartifacts had been recovered (Wedel 1981). Their assertion is largely based on Dutisné’sdescription of the waterways he crossed where he states his party crossed three smallstreams flowing north (likely tributaries of the Osage River) and later crossed a largerone called the river of the Arkansas or Quapaw (Wedel 1981: 25). Other Frenchaccounts list several steams named BArkansas^ and not all can be associated with whatwe call the Arkansas River today. Wedel (1981) argues that other features described inDutisné’s account and the distances he covered make the Neodesha villages the morelikely destination for the French party. Many archaeologists working with Wichita sites


today agree with Wedel’s interpretation of the documents (Drass et al. 2018). However,the earthworks at 14WN1 have been largely destroyed and no systematic archaeolog-ical investigation of the site has occurred.

While Dutisne was forging alliances with tribes in the region, another Frenchexpedition originating in Louisiana entered what is today Oklahoma. Jean-BaptisteBénard de la Harpe provides details on select elements of village life, though noevidence suggests he reached Deer Creek. He describes the significance of horses toWichita groups and that they used saddles, bridles, and leather breast plates as horsetack (see discussion below) (Bell et al. 1974; Odell 2002).

There is much less academic debate concerning the interpretations of a later account byFelipe de Sandoval of his visit to Deer Creek in 1748 and/or 1749. Sandoval left Spain forthe Americas and eventually ended up in a French settlement in Mobile Bay after beingtaken captive for a time in Jamaica. He traveled up the Mississippi River to the ArkansasPost, a French trading post at the mouth of the Arkansas River (see Fig. 1). In 1748,Sandoval traveled with several French and German companions with sights set on Taos,NewMexico (Bell et al. 1974; Wedel 1981). They traveled across the southern Plains andafter arrival in Santa Fe, New Mexico, they were considered deserters and taken intocustody by Spanish forces. They were interrogated by a Spanish translator who wasproficient in French and were asked about their travels. Sandoval’s interrogation wastranscribed and this document serves as a key description of Wichita villages (Wedel1981).

Sandoval recounted that they traveled 50 days after leaving Arkansas Post andarrived at a village occupied by Panipiquees or Jumanes as the people were tattooed.He reports that they were well received and that he and his companions stayed in thevillage for 20 days (Bell et al. 1974; Wedel 1981). There were two villages ofPanipiquees who lived in houses made of poles and grass with nearby fortificationworks. They lived in their villages year round and grew corn, beans, and squash.Sandoval reported that there were around 500 men in the two villages and that they hadfirearms, powder, and bullets all supplied by the French. Sandoval said the Panipiqueeswere very friendly with the French and he observed French traders visiting the villagegiving the Wichita vermillion, beads, knives, guns, ammunition, hats, cloth, and othersupplies. A French flag even flew over at least one of the villages (Wedel 1981).Sandoval observed people from other Indian nations present in the village and aComanche man arrived with horses to trade for a gun and small hand axe. Sandovaland his companions left with the Comanche man and headed back to his camp beforebeing escorted to Taos by Comanche traders (Bell et al. 1974; Wedel 1981).

Bell and Wedel both assert that Sandoval likely visited Deer Creek (he would haveencountered this site first as Bryson-Paddock is upstream) as the timing of their visitand the number of days they report traveling fits the Kay County sites better than anyother known Wichita villages (Bell et al. 1974; Wedel 1981). Deer Creek is located onthe Arkansas River, has a sister village (Bryson-Paddock) upstream, and evidence fromsurface finds indicate the communities were extensively trading with the French andlikely the Comanche as horse bones were recovered from both sites.

One last reference to Deer Creek or Bryson-Paddock comes from Anthony Glass’stravels in Texas from 1790 to 1810. Glass met with a Taovaya Chief named Awahakei,who appeared to be around 50 years old in 1808. Awahakei said he was born on theArkansas River, suggesting those villages may have been abandoned in the mid-1750s


(Flores 1985: 48). Drass et al. 2018 suggest that this account might indicate that DeerCreek and Bryson-Paddock villages were gradually abandoned. Wichita groups mayhave slowly moved south to the Red River over a 10 year period until there were notenough people left to defend themselves from Osage raids.

These European accounts of Deer Creek provide insights into the nature of theirtrade with occupants of the village, which items were valued for exchange, somethingon the number and types of dwellings in the settlement, and that the Arkansas Rivercommunities may have been gradually abandoned. Previous interpretations of the DeerCreek site rested on these rather brief descriptions of the site as excavations were notyet permitted and Wichita oral histories only generally recount their occupation in theArkansas River area. Greater insight into the Wichita and French trade, however, can beachieved by critically assessing European accounts of other Wichita villages andthrough archaeological excavation (discussed below).

Eyewitness Accounts of Other Wichita Villages

Although no other French or Spanish accounts can be directly linked with the DeerCreek site, there are additional descriptions of Wichita villages and social practices.French trader and explorer Jean-Bapiste de la Harpe established a trading post on theRed River (near the modern town of Texarkana) in 1719 and traveled north to visitTawakoni villages to establish good relations (likely near the Lasley Vore site; see Fig.1; Odell 2002). La Harpe reported that the Tawakoni and others owned fine horses thatwere saddled and bridled in a Spanish style. He also describes the extensive tattoos onthe Wichita peoples he encountered, was given an empty house in one of the villages,and participated in a Calumet ceremony that lasted an entire night and morning. Duringhis tours of the settlements he described women using grinding stones to process cornand bone awls for sewing and also described men using chipped stone axes andflintknapping. Chipped stone arrows, bison scapulae hoes, wooden bowls, ceramicpots were also in use throughout the villages. Although he didn’t provide many detailson village layouts, he did describe several refuse mounds past he perimeter of thehouses saying they were full of broken pottery, worn-out stone tools, and rotting meat(Odell 2002: 131–134).

Other narratives possibly describing Wichita villages comes from court documenta-tion of an interrogation of French travelers by the Spanish in Santa Fe. Luis Febro andPedro Sarte were taken into custody by Spanish officials in 1749 and were asked toreport on their travels through the southern Plains. They described villages ofPanipiquet living in two as-yet undiscovered settlements that had hundreds of warriorseach. They stated that the villages were allied with the Comanche and that theyacquired firearms through exchange with travelers from New Orleans. No otherrelevant details were included in their interrogations. Wichita alliances with the Co-manche were further documented during an attack on an Osage village in 1752. AWichita village (location unknown) was devastated by smallpox and measles epidemicsmaking them a target for Osage raids. This village was largely destroyed and theWichita joined with Comanche warriors to attack an Osage village in Missouri inretaliation. French chroniclers reported that thirty Wichita and Comanche were killedduring the attack and the Osage lost twenty of their own men (Rollings 1983). TheOsage then went to the French and the Illinois for assistance but only received arms and


ammunition from the French who were unwilling to antagonize the Wichita (Pease andJenison 1940; Rollings 1983). Finally, 1758 marks the last recorded date for Frenchtraders visiting Wichita villages on the Arkansas River and it is likely that people livingat Deer Creek then moved south (Wedel 1981:47–67).

One destination for some Wichita migrants was likely the Longest site on the RedRiver, occupied between 1757 and 1811 (see Fig. 1). In 1759 Spanish forces under thedirection of Diego Ortiz Parrilla traveled north and attacked a fortified Taovaya villagein south central Oklahoma in retaliation for raids on the San Saba mission in 1758.Although his campaign was largely a failure (he was forced to retreat and leave twocannons behind), Parilla’s venture led to an account describing a fortified village on theRed River that included a stockade, moat, horse corrals, and a winding, fortified,entrance (Drass et al. 2018; Weddle 2007: 124–127). Although not directly referenced,Drass et al. (2018) argue that the Spanish forces were at the Longest site.

In 1765, Antonio Treviño, a captive held by the Taovaya, described one of hiscaptors’ villages as a fortification made of split logs with gaps for muskets to be firedthrough the wall. He describes four interior subterranean apartments where people couldseek shelter if the village was attacked. As Drass et al. (2018) point out, Treviño’saccount lists three different structural features of a fortified village including a rampartand palisade, a trench or dry moat outside of the rampart, and subterranean shelter areasfor noncombatants. Recent excavations at Deer Creek’s sister site, Bryson-Paddock,provided archaeological data that many of the fortification features (ditches and subter-ranean apartments) described by Treviño were present at earlier Wichita villages as well.

Anthony Glass also described the Red River village in 1808 stating it had a councilhouse that could hold 150 people, that the houses were 70–80 ft (21-24 m) in diameterwith a central hearth, and each house had a corral for horses nearby. Athanase deMézières, a former French soldier, diplomat, and linguist (spoke several Caddoandialects), visited the Taovaya in 1778 on the Red River describing two villages includinghouse organization (each had 10–12 beds), population (as many as 800 men and manymore women and children), food storage (each house had several large vessels full ofmaize, beans, and calabashes), technology (continued use of groundstone metates andchipped stone arrow points), and who their partners (Comanche) and enemies (Osageand Apaches) were (Bolton 1914: 202–203). The Red River villages were occupied until1811 when the last Taovaya Chief, Awahakei (the individual born in one of the ArkansasRiver villages) died causing the Taovaya to split (Drass et al. 2018; Smith 2000).

Twentieth Century Interpretations of the Deer Creek Site

The Deer Creek site was first brought to the attention of archaeologists by WilsonFischer in 1914. He was a student at the University of Oklahoma and lived in KayCounty, where he had collected artifacts on a plowed portion of the site. He took thoseartifacts to Joseph Thoburn (OU Department of History) and Thoburn later visited thesite noting the presence of 65 low, circular, mounds varying in size from 7-15 m wideand from 30-75 cm in height (Wedel 1981). A later visit by Wyckoff in 1964 recountedonly 15–25 mounds (Wyckoff 1964). Thoburn and Otto Spring (foreman at Thoburn’sBryson-Paddock excavation) started referring to the Deer Creek archaeological site asFerdinandina, a supposed French trading post. Deer Creek/Ferdinandina was soonviewed as the BFirst White Settlement^ in Oklahoma and a 1956 article in an Oklahoma


City newspaper published an artist’s rendering of the site depicting a typical Frenchtrading post surrounded by a wooden palisade. Drawn just outside of the palisade areearth covered lodges (similar to the northern Plains houses) rather than grass lodgestypically used by Wichita groups at the time. Stories such as this limit Indigenousautonomy and give credit for significant sites to European explorers, rather than Nativeinhabitants (Perkins and Baugh 2008). Despite almost a century of archaeological workat the nearby Bryson-Paddock site, this notion of Wichita fortified sites as Europeantrading posts persists to the present. The Enid News and Eagle newspaper out of Enid,Oklahoma ran an article in 2008 titled BWas Fernandina [sic] the 1st white settlement^stating that while archaeological work hadn’t uncovered Ferdinandina yet that it couldvery well still be out there in the area.

The Enid article references a map that Thoburn used to assign Deer Creek the title ofFerdinandina. McRill (1963) states that Thoburn, Spring, and others drew this connec-tion because early maps of the western U.S. in England and Scotland gave the nameFerdinandina to a town or trading post located on a small tributary west of the ArkansasRiver in the vicinity of Kay County, Oklahoma. In several of his publications over thesite, Bell repeatedly referred to Deer Creek as Ferdinandina but did not criticallyevaluate the origin of that name or connection with the archaeological site (Bell1984; Bell et al. 1974).

Wedel (1981), unsatisfied with their estimations, tracked down a copy of the mapthat Thoburn and Spring likely saw. She believed it was an 1868 Lloyds TopographicalRailway map of North America as it gives the name Ferdinandina in the generallocation of the Deer Creek site. Wedel examined several pre-1868 maps looking forthe origin of that settlement’s name and could not find others that placed it in the sameposition. She found at least one other map that placed Ferdinandina on a different river.Wedel (1981) concluded that the name Ferdinandina was not mentioned in any formalFrench documents, its origins could not be satisfactorily traced, and that it was mostlikely a replicated error that mapmakers made as they plagiarized from each otherwithout verifying the accuracy of place names and locations. Given the lack ofarchaeological data for any formal French trading posts at any investigated Wichitaarchaeological sites, I agree with Wedel that Ferdinandina was likely a mapping errorand one later used to support Eurocentric views of Oklahoma’s history.

Archaeological Investigation of Wichita Villages

Although Deer Creek village was not excavated until very recently, other ancestralWichita villages along the Arkansas and Red Rivers have been intensively investigated.Deer Creek’s sister village, Bryson-Paddock, was excavated in the 1920s and 1970s(focus on trash mounds and possible houses) and again in the mid-2000s (focus onfortifications) (Hartley and Miller 1977; Drass et al. 2018, 2018). Drass et al. (2018)state that at least four circular ditches were built near the center of the Bryson-Paddockvillage and the outer three ditches were dry moats with earthen ramparts used fordefense. The innermost ditch was a semi-subterranean structure likely used to shelternon-combatants, similar to Treviño’s account of the Red River Wichita village. Largeposts scattered throughout the inner ditch supported a roof made of wooden beams andthatch (Drass et al. 2018). The ditches, however, did not encircle the village and most of


the trash mounds and houses (although few were identified for excavation) would havebeen outside of the fortified area.

While European trade goods were collected during the excavations, Leith (2008)points out that there were far fewer trade items recovered from Bryson-Paddockexcavations when compared to just the surface finds from Deer Creek. Deer Creekwould have been the first village visited by traders using the Arkansas River fortransport and this might explain the quantity of metal axes, hoes, large gun parts,ammunition, iron knives, and parts of brass pots that have been recovered by collectorsin the plowed portions of the site (Leith 2008; Sudbury 1976). However, a long historyof metal detecting on the site and Thoburn’s decision to collect only those artifacts formuseum display likely skewed artifact ratios at Bryson-Paddock. It is possible thatresidents of the Bryson-Paddock village acquired manymore metal tools and other tradegoods than what is represented in the collections today.

In their analysis of hide scrapers recovered from Vehik et al. (2010) found thatscraper manufacturing techniques, scraper size, morphology, and use were different atBryson-Paddock than earlier ancestral Wichita villages. They found that scraper sizesincreased as people, most likely women, started using hand-held rather than haftedscrapers and that the scrapers were expediently made and discarded when made dull.Little time was put into choosing the highest quality materials, in manufacturing, or inresharpening scrapers as women were pressed for time given the French demands forincreased numbers of hides (Vehik et al. 2010). While possibly not their first stop,people living at Bryson-Paddock were certainly involved in the hide trade with theFrench as they moved up and down the Arkansas River trading for bison hides, meat,horses, and possibly slaves (Barr 2005; Drass et al. 2018). In their decision toparticipate in this trade, many Wichita groups re-centered their social networks andeconomic pursuits towards French trade leading to changes in where they establishedvillages, how labor was allocated, what goods were produced, and possibly even howwealth, prestige, and wives were acquired (Perkins et al. 2008). Drass et al. (2018)argue that these decisions caused the Wichita on the Arkansas River to move from arather minor player in the French trade to a key position as go-betweens in an escalatingtrade in bison products for European goods. However, this position of power also madethem a continued target for raids, leading them to abandon their position for another onthe Red River.

The Longest site (1757–1811), was also a center for trade with French, Comanche,and other Native American traders (Drass et al. 2018). Drass et al. (2018) investigatedthe fortification works and found an exterior dry ditch, an earthen embankment, aninterior shelter ditch, and likely horse corral as described by Treviño. The horse corral,however, overlapped partially with the ditch and may date to just before or after thevillage abandonment in the 1770s (Drass et al. 2018). Drass et al. (2018) did not find alarge quantity of artifacts within the fortified area and suggest it was possible that thehouses were removed after 1765 and/or the fort was only accessed during enemyattacks and was not continuously used by the village occupants.

Although Bryson-Paddock was occupied at the same time as Deer Creek it would beimprudent to assume Deer Creek had a similar layout and organization, especiallygiven a different band of the Wichita likely lived at each. The European documentsindicate Deer Creek may have been occupied by hundreds or thousands of people and itwas most likely fortified. People lived there year-round and grew corn, beans, and


squash in neighboring fields. Exchange with French traders led to a number ofEuropean goods including firearms, ammunition, beads, and knives circulatingamongst village occupants. However, there are lingering ambiguities in these accountssurrounding power negotiations between Wichita and French traders and more largelythe significant role that Wichita communities had in social and economic relationsacross the region. The archaeological investigation of Deer Creek has greater potentialfor uncovering additional details on these economies from the perspective of those thatlived at the village.

Deer Creek Village

The Deer Creek site, while not formally excavated until 2016, had been surveyedmultiple times. A plowed portion of the site (outside the fortification) yielded anabundance of artifacts made by Wichita and European craftspeople. Early archaeolog-ical reports describe a large U-shaped ditch approximately 75 m in diameter withadjacent earthen embankments that were also visible in aerial imagery (Fig. 2) (Corbyn1976; Drass et al. 2018). Magnetic, electrical resistivity, and radar surveys in the 1980sidentified the presence of a number of mounds and at least two ditches. Visitors to thesite reported that many of these features were visible on the ground surface (Drass et al.2018). These features remain today because early landowners never plowed thefortified area of the site instead leaving it open for cattle grazing, nor did they permitcollectors or archaeologists to dig on their property. Other areas of the site were not sofortunate and decades of plowing has unearthed thousands of artifacts, many of whichare held in private collections. The site was acquired by the US Corps of Engineersduring the construction of the Kaw Lake in the 1970s and Corps officials left the siteuntended and native prairie grasses gave way to shrubs and later a dense forest grew onthe site with a heavy brush understory leaving most of the site impenetrable.

Starting in 2014, the Corps began taking steps to stabilize the site and used heavyequipment to grind down trees and brush, clearing an approximate 40 × 150 m area in thecenter of the fortification works (Fig. 3). In 2014, 2016, and 2017 archaeologists with theUniversity of Oklahoma (OU), Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, and Oklahoma StateUniversity (OSU) conducted a near-surface geophysical survey (gradiometer, groundpenetrating radar, and soil resistivity) of the cleared area. This work revealed possibleditches, ramparts, entryways, trash mounds, and numerous pits within the fort.

After consulting with the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes’ officials it was clear that thetribe has significant interest in the archaeological investigation of the site. The Euro-pean travelers to the region do not describe Deer Creek as a formal European tradingpost, yet these same documents have been referenced in the attempts to undermineWichita history by claiming the site was first a European fort (which Wichita groupslater chose to live near). This interpretation runs counter to Wichita tribal histories oftheir occupation of the region. My work can provide insights into a particularly criticalperiod of Wichita history and highlight their position of power and control over theregion. Additionally, excavations of the site can yield data on how and why the villagewas fortified and details on the diet and health of those that lived at the site. This recentinvestigation rested on several goals: (1) Excavate the fortifications to decide if they areWichita or European in origin; (2) Determine if the material culture recovered from the


site is indicative of a significant Wichita presence at the site; (3) Identify which tradegoods were present and how they were used; and (4) Collect data useful for under-standing the health and diet of the site’s occupants. Work towards the first three goalsare described below and efforts to understand health and diet of those at the village isongoing.

Excavation Results

The uneven ground surface, quantity of wood mulch on the site, and soil conditionsmade geophysical survey challenging. The magnetics data (gradiometer) showednumerous anomalies across the cleared area including two large segments of an interiorfortification ditch now identified as a subterranean structure. Excavations were carriedout over these anomalies to test their extent and to determine whether tree roots werenegatively impacting the site (useful for long-term preservation plans). Two seasons ofexcavation were carried out in 2016 and 2017 with the Oklahoma AnthropologicalSociety and OU/OSU Archaeological Field School. Twenty three 1 × 1 m excavation

Fig. 2 Visible features at Deer Creek before forestation; adapted from Corbyn 1976 Fig. 4


units were opened over the possible fortification ditch, two trash mounds, an entryway,and a pit.

To better understand the site’s fortifications, we placed a 1 × 6 m trench across thewidth of the interior ditch, four units near a potential entryway at the east end of thecleared area, and four units on the west end near the exterior ditch (see Fig. 3). Theseexcavations confirmed the presence of the interior fortification ditch and that at leastsome dirt was thrown on the inside or west side of the ditch, possibly the remnant of anearthen embankment. The interior ditch is estimated to be at least 6 m wide near thecenter, and it extends approximately 1 m below the current ground surface. At thebottom of the ditch we found two post molds similar to those found in the interior ditchat Bryson-Paddock and it is possible they once supported a roof over the subterraneanshelter ditch. The width, profile, and post molds are similar to the interior subterraneanstructures described by Treviño and those excavated at the Longest site. These fortifi-cation works are undeniably of Wichita, rather than French or Spanish, construction.

Fig. 3 Geophysics grid and 2016–17 excavation units at Deer Creek


Furthermore, the ditch at Deer Creek was filled with household waste associatedwith a Wichita occupation including a large quantity of bison bones, Wichita-madeceramics, and chipped stone tools. The units placed near the possible fort entrywayrevealed a break in the interior fortification ditch and a trash deposit approximately35 cm thick, including a small cache containing more than 700 tightly clustered chertflakes. This break in the fortification ditch did not have a hard packed clay floor similarto the entryway at Bryson-Paddock and additional magnetic surveys beyond the clearedarea are necessary to confirm whether it was used as an entrance. The units placedacross the possible exterior ditch on the west end of the site yielded inconclusiveresults. We recovered large quantities of burned faunal remains, lithics, and ceramics inthe fill but did not find clearly defined ditch boundaries. From 60 to 70 cm below theground surface, twin dark (but ephemeral) stains appeared in the bottom of three unitstaking a linear shape with a gap in the middle. This may represent overlapping pits oractivity areas or might be where two sections of the exterior ditch met. Large treestumps with extensive root systems did not permit the expansion of these units toexcavate the edges of the feature.

Several additional features were excavated to investigate activities taking place withinthe fortification. Two trash mounds, both visible on the ground surface, were partiallyexcavated yielding a rich fill of Wichita made goods and food waste with a smallerfrequency of European goods recovered. Mound A near the center of the cleared areaextended to almost onemeter below the ground surfacewhileMoundB (west end of clearedarea) extendedmore than 120 cm below ground. A post hole was found under the south endof Mound B and a defined pit was found below the general trash mound fill. Given theposition of Mound B over where Corbyn (1976) drew the exterior fortification ditch, itcould be that the pit was one end of the ditch and it was later filled with trash, eventuallyaccumulating much higher than the original ditch level. The post hole might represent partof a structure support over the ditch or evidence of a palisade; additional post holes wouldneed to be discovered to identity any structures. The last feature tested was a large bell-shaped pit near the center of the fort. Time only permitted excavating part of this pit,however we estimated it was more than 2 m in diameter near the bottom and wasapproximately 1.75 m deep. Excavators hit the water table at 1.75 m and the fill did notyield many artifacts indicating we were near the bottom of the feature. These deposits werevery well preserved and included articulated bone segments (fish and deer), mussel shell,metal objects, pottery, beads, and a coprolite were recovered.

The artifacts recovered in the 2016 and 2017 excavations are similar to thoserecovered at Bryson-Paddock. In addition to the large quantity of bison, deer, turtle,fish, and other animal remains, several bone tools were recovered including beads,antler billets, and bison scapula hoes. A fragmented iron hoe was also recoveredindicating the scapulae and iron hoes were likely used to dig pits, ditches, and alsoagricultural fields nearby. We consistently found higher quantities of tools made by theWichita across our excavations even when similar tools of European manufacture wereavailable (hoes, knives, beads, etc.) (Fig. 4). Wichita pottery vessel fragments, claypipes, grinding basins and manos, chipped stone scrapers and projectile points werefound in large quantities from most contexts. The chipped stone tools and debris werepredominantly made from local Florence-A chert although a number of items werefrom distant sources as far away as west and north-central Texas. Evidence for tradewith French trappers included gun parts, lead musket balls, glass beads, iron knife


blades, copper/brass tinklers, and other copper and iron objects. Lastly, the articulatedremains of a horse metacarpal and sesamoids were recovered from the pit under MoundB. Horse remains are rarely recovered from sites on the Great Plains and this representsthe first articulated horse remains recovered from an ancestral Wichita site.

Four samples of charred plant remains (one corn cupule, two blackwalnut shell, and oneelm/hackberry charcoal) were submitted for radiometric dating. While this time period isnotoriously difficult to date, the date range with the highest probability (50%) was anoccupation of between 1730 and 1785 for the site (Fig. 5). A number of artifacts were alsosubjected to Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis at PaleoResearchInstitute tocollectdataondiet.Agrindingstonefragment,mano,ceramic rimsherd,andclaypipe bowl were all tested for residue analyses, but results were largely inconclusive. Thegrindingstonefragmentdidnot testpositiveforplants, themanomayhavebeenusedtogrindcorn, meat and plant remains were likely cooked in the ceramic vessel, and a mixture ofcottonwood, willow, or aspen were used in the pipe smoke mixture. No signatures formedicinal plants or tobaccowere identified.

Discussion and Conclusions

For more than 100 years, European documents were the only source of information onthe Deer Creek site and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes’ claim to the site as part oftheir history was not always recognized. Excavations at Deer Creek present clearevidence of fortification works and material culture associated with a Wichita settle-ment. The fortified area included a covered subterranean shelter ditch very similar tothat at Bryson-Paddock and the one Treviño described at the Longest site. The fortifiedareas at Deer Creek were used for multiple purposes as the quantity of broken scapulaehoes, an iron hoe fragment, animal bones, pottery, and chipped stone debris recoveredare indicative of daily activities taking place rather than specialized or occasional use ofthe space. While similar to activities taking place at Bryson-Paddock, this use of spacediffers from that of the Longest site. Drass et al. (2018) reported that few features were

Fig. 4 Knives from 2016 and 2017 excavations at Deer Creek


identified within the fortification and the surface surveys and excavations yielded lowartifact densities. They hypothesized that the fort was likely only used as a retreat if thevillage was attacked and daily activities were carried out beyond the fortified area. Thearchaeological data from Deer Creek does parallel La Harpe’s statements regarding thecontinuation of many Wichita technological practices at other sites such as their use ofceramics, chipped stone tools, and bison scapulae hoes. In many cases, their tradeconnections meant they had metal tools at their disposal (firearms and ammunition,beads, metal knives, metal hoe) yet many Wichita technologies persisted for more than100 years after their initial trade began with the French. Odell (2001) states manyWichita groups slowly adopted metal tools and only replaced their traditional technol-ogies when the metal ones were less costly to produce and when they worked as well astheir chipped stone tools, ceramic pots, etc. Wichita peoples regularly made decisions

Fig. 5 Deer Creek AMS date averages


on which European trade products they wanted to incorporated into their lifeways andwhen those trade goods could replace other forms of technology.

Fewer trade items have been recovered from surface and excavated contexts atBryson-Paddock than at Deer Creek. Leith (2008) suggests that Deer Creek mayhave be a trading or redistribution center whereas Bryson-Paddock inhabitants weremore focused on bison procurement and processing activities. While this could stillbe true, the recent excavations at Deer Creek yielded a similiar suite of Europeantrade items as Bryson-Paddock indicating people at both sites were using some ofthe same trade goods. Given disparities in collection strategies at each site, it is notpossible to calculate the proportion of trade goods. However, it does not appear thatthe excavation units at Deer Creek yielded substantially higher numbers of tradegoods than those at Byrson-Paddock. Additionally, the occupants of Deer Creekwere certainly engaged in bison procurement of some kind as bison dominate thefaunal assemblages. A large quantity of nearly complete bison ribs, upper limbs,and skull portions have been recovered from Deer Creek. While bison could havebeen procured from hunters at Bryson-Paddock, the quantity of bison elementsrecovered from Deer Creek suggest it unlikely that one village was more focused onbison hunting than the other.

Throughout their relationship with French traders, the Wichita controlled economictransactions deciding which elements of their culture they were willing to change tocontinue that exchange. Wichita groups chose to place their villages at points whereFrench traders could access them (off of major rivers) and welcomed those traders intotheir communities for weeks and often longer to establish and maintain social andeconomic connections with the French. This is not to say that all French travelers hadpermission to freely move throughWichita territory. Reports in 1752 state that four Frenchdeserters from Fort de Cavagnial (north of Kansas City on the Missouri River) were killedby Native Americans (no tribe given) in the vicinity of Deer Creek village (Wedel1981:47). Wedel (1981) points out that while this example is not useful for interpretationsof Deer Creek directly, it does provide insights into the complex Wichita or possiblyOsage relationship with the French. Exchanges were not always friendly and subject toconstant renegotiation. Additionally, the French were not in a position to monopolizeWichita exchange, and the occupants of Deer Creek village maintained relationships withComanche and other tribes into the nineteenth century. Their relationships, however, putthem in a position of danger and it was necessary to fortify their settlements against Osageraids. The excavations at Deer Creek showed that the ditches were filled with a rich arrayof artifacts and faunal remains so much so that trash mounds probably grew up oversections of the exterior ditch. This could indicate a gradual abandonment of the externalfortification features as the village shrank in size following migration of groups south. Thevillages on the Red River provided greater strength in numbers and this location allowedfor trade with the French to continue.

As Panich (2013) discusses, too often archaeology as a discipline tends to reinforceterminal narratives focusing on demographic, cultural, and technological loss duringand after European colonization. Given the prevalence of academics who prioritizedEurocentric views of Indigenous societies via European documents and the tendency toignore Native American communities today, it should come at no surprise when thepublic does this as well. Claims in the popular media in 1956 and 2008 of the DeerCreek site being the first white settlement in Oklahoma are examples of this Eurocentric


view of history. Archaeological excavations at the Deer Creek site, however, demon-strate that the borderlands of the southern Plains were not controlled by Europeans inthe eighteenth century. Multiple bands of Wichita groups controlled large sections ofOklahoma and Texas and their villages provide excellent evidence for their indepen-dence and power in the region leading up to the early nineteenth century (Perkins et al.2016). Excavations of Deer Creek and other Wichita villages reveal that Indigenouspeople were major players on a global scale and they regularly made complex politicaland economic decisions that had long-term consequences for themselves, neighboringtribes, and European powers. This counters and flips the Euro-centric narratives thattrivialize Indigenous engagement in global exchange markets and minimize thesignificance of their decision making. As Perkins et al. (2016) point out, earlyresearchers give little credit to Wichita and other tribes for their long history ofparticipation in exchange networks and expulsion of foreign intruders. A much morecompelling and accurate view of colonial history should highlight the decisions madeby Indigenous communities both before and after European contacts. Trading with theFrench and resisting other European and Indigenous intrusion were not new practicesfor Wichita groups. Rather, they adapted their policies to accommodate new friends andthreats in the colonial era.

Acknowledgments A great many thanks are owed to the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and the TulsaDistrict of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their support of this work. The University of Oklahoma,Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Oklahoma State University, the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, theNational Parks Service, and individual donors to an OU Thousands Strong Campaign provided financialsupport. I wanted to thank Scott Hammerstedt and Amanda Regnier for conducting the geophysical survey atthe site. I would like to acknowledge all of the hard work that Richard Drass, Susan Vehik, and StephenPerkins put into laying the groundwork for investigating the site, their advice and help during the excavations,and their comments on an early draft of this paper. Anonymous reviewers provided detailed and usefulfeedback that shifted this paper in a much more interesting direction. Lastly, thanks go to all the OAS membersand students who worked tirelessly in the excavations and lab analysis.

References

Anonymous (2008). Was Fernandina the 1st white settlement. Enid News & Eagle, Enid.Barr, J. (2005). From captives to slaves: commodifying Indian women in the borderlands. Journal of American

History 92: 19–46.Bell, R. E. (1984). Protohistoric Wichita. In Bell, R. E. (ed.), Prehistory of Oklahoma. Academic Press,

Orlando, pp. 363–378.Bell, R. E., Jelks, E. B., and Newcomb, W. W. (1974). Wichita Indian Archaeology and Ethnology: A Pilot

Study. Garland, New York.Bolton, H. E. (1914). Athanase de Mézières and the Louisiana-Texas Frontier 1768–1780. Vol. 2. Arthur C.

Clark, Cleveland.Corbyn, R. C. (1976). Archaeological Photointerpretation of the Deer Creek site, Kay County, Oklahoma.

Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Curtis, E. S. (1930). The North American Indian: The Indians of the United States, The Dominion of Canada,

and Alaska, Volume 19. University Press, Cambridge.Dietler, M. (2010). Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient

Mediterranean France. University of California Press, Berkeley.Drass, R. R. (1998). The southern Plains villagers. In Wood, R. W. (ed.), Archaeology on the Great Plains.

University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, pp. 415–455.


Drass, R. R., Perkins, S. M., and Vehik, S. C. (2018). Digging ditches: archaeological investigations ofhistorically reported fortifications at Bryson-Paddock (34KA5) and other southern Plains village sites. InClark, A. J. and Bamforth, D. B. (eds.), Archaeological Perspectives on Warfare on the Great Plains.University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Drass, R. R., Vehik, S.C., Perkins, S. M., and Carlock, M.D. (2018) Archaeology, Geophysics, and History:Assessing the Longest site (34JF1). Manuscript in untitled volume, working manuscript.

Flores, D. L. (1985). Journal of an Indian Trader: Anthony Glass and the Texas Trading Frontier, 1790–1810.Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Hartley, J. D. and Miller, A. F. (1977). Archeological Investigations at the Bryson-Paddock Site. OklahomaRiver Basin Survey Archeological site Report 32. Norman.

Leith, E. A. (2008). European trade goods on the southern Plains: the Bryson-Paddock (34KA5) and DeerCreek (34KA3) sites. Plains Anthropologist 53(208): 551–564.

Lieb, B. R. (2008). The Natchez Indian Diaspora: Ethnohistoric Archaeology of the Eighteenth-CenturyNatchez Refuge Among the Chickasaws. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

McRill, L. A. (1963). Ferdinandina: first white settlement in Oklahoma. The Chronicles of Oklahoma 41(1):126–159.

Nassaney, M. S. (2014). North America during the European contact period. In Smith, C. (ed.), Encyclopediaof Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 5350–5371.

Odell, G. H. (2001). The use of metal at a Wichita contact settlement. Southeastern Archaeology 20(2): 173–186.

Odell, G. H. (2002). La Harpe's Post: A Tale of French-Wichita Contact on the Eastern Plains. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Panich, L. M. (2013). Archaeologies of persistence: reconsidering the legacies of colonialism in Native NorthAmerica. American Antiquity 78(1): 105–122.

Paterson, A. (2011). A Millennium of Cultural Contact. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.Pease, T. and Jenison, E. (1940). Illinois on the Eve of the Seven Years’ War, 1747–1755. Illinois State

Historical Library, Springfield.Perkins, S. M. and Baugh, T. G. (2008). Protohistory and the Wichita. Plains Anthropologist 53(208): 381–

394.Perkins, S. M., Drass, R. R., and Vehik, S. C. (2016). Decolonizing the borderland: Wichita frontier strategies.

Great Plains Quarterly 36(4): 259–280.Perkins, S. M., Vehik, S. C., and Drass, R. R. (2008). The hide trade and Wichita social organization: an

assessment of ethnological hypotheses concerning polygyny. Plains Anthropologist 53(208): 431–443.Rollings, W. H. (1983). Prairie Hegemony: An Ethnohistorial Study of the Osage, From Early Times to 1840.

Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.Rubertone, P. E. (2000). The historical archaeology of Native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:

425–446.Smith, F. T. (2000). The Wichita Indians: Traders of Texas and the Southern Plains, 1540–1845. Texas A&M

University Press, College Station.Sudbury, B. (1976). Ka-3, the Deer Creek site: an eighteenth century French contact site in Kay County,

Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 24: 1–136.Vehik, S. C. (2006). Wichita ethnohistory. In Hoard, R. J. and Banks, W. E. (eds.), Kansas Archaeology.

University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 206–218.Vehik, S. C., Cleeland, L. M., Drass, R. R., Perkins, S. M., and Leith, E. (2010). The Plains hide trade: French

impact on Wichita technology and society. In Scheiber, L. L. and Mitchell, M. D. (eds.), Across the GreatDivide: Continuity and Change in North American Societies, A.D. 1400–1900. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, pp. 149–173.

Weddle, R. S. (2007). After the Massacre: The Violent Legacy of the San Saba Mission. Texas Tech University,Lubbock.

Wedel, W. R. (1959). An Introduction to Kansas Archaeology. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington,DC.

Wedel, M. M. (1981). The Deer Creek site, Oklahoma: AWichita Village Sometimes Called Ferdinandina, AnEthnohistorian’s View. Oklahoma Historical Society Series in Anthropology, Oklahoma.

Wyckoff, D. G. (1964). The Archaeological Survey of the Kaw Reservoir. Oklahoma River Basin SurveyProject, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Norman.


Partners and Power: Understanding Ancestral Wichita and...

Documents

Transcript of Partners and Power: Understanding Ancestral Wichita and...