d'Iberville's Unassociated (Missing) Villages
by Stephen R. Cook
, January 2, 2021
In Papers 1, 2 and 3 of The Chickasaw Villages, I presented the locations of the major villages from the late seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries. Paper 1 Table 1 served as a compendium of historic village names by primary sources with each source heading a column on the table. The sources were placed in order temporally running left to right, beginning with d'Iberville 1702 on the left. The table indicates that the various village names were grouped horizontally source-to-source by phonetics, where possible. Interestingly d'Iberville had eighteen village names and nine of those associated with later dated (and sourced) village names; however nine did not. This paper addresses the possible locations of the nine unassociated villages.
What constituted a village to d'Iberville? Certainly given that d'Iberville did not visit the villages makes that question subjective. The village names were provided by Chickasaws and French traders who served d'Iberville. So the matter deserves consideration. For this purpose at a minimum a village constitutes a discrete area of occupation that must express its inhabitants via Chickasaw pottery. One can assume that these unassociated d'Iberville villages are smaller in areal extent and population than those that were associated. It is interesting on Table 1 that by Adair's 1720 the nine unassociated villages no longer exist as being among the Chickasaw Nation. Thus these unassociated villages should have glass beads dating prior to 1720 and should have dominate (by occurrence) types of glass beads types/varieties before 1702. See Paper 2 Table 7 and note that the predominant Major (glass) bead types/varieties prior to 1702 are IVA7, IIA7/IVA7, IIA1/IVA1 and IIA, IVA Other, and IIB/IVB. Likewise Major Glass beads types/varieties shown on Table 7 with a start of trade date of 1720 and later should not be expressed on these possible village sites.
What follows numerically are my best candidates' locations for the unassociated villages' locations. To date I am not aware of a companion 1702 d'Iberville map which would aid this exercise. What are my candidate selection criteria? Either the author has visited these candidate sites, or he has knowledge of them by others, or they identify with the 1832 surveyor notes for Old Fields and Prairies, see Paper 1 Figure 2.
Nine Candidate Unassociated Village Locations . . .
1. Holmes Street Tupelo: This site is situated south of Holmes street, west of Lumpkin and east of N. Thomas street running south of Holmes about 100 yards. Housing development and road construction in the 1970s revealed several midden pits. Glass beads collected from surface included IVA2, IIA7 and IIA1.
2. South Thomas Street Tupelo: This site is located north of new Highway 6/278 (Pontotoc Parkway) and east of S. Thomas. Glass beads found by Julian Riley in 2000s include IVA2, IIA7 and IIA1. The area could contain a separate village especially west of S. Thomas Street.
3, 4, & 5. Coonewah Creek Tupelo and Lee County: Paper 1 Figure 5 indicates the village of Shatara which has a component on the east side of Coonewah Creek. North of Highway 6 and east of Coonewah Creek extending to north of Warren Lane are a series of three relatively small villages, each of which has produced IIA1 glass beads.
6. Coonewah Creek North Lee County: The landowner has indicated a village site East of Lilly Creek and north of Doe Run Road. Glass trade beads including IIA1 have been reported.
7. Mubby Creek South Pontotoc County: See Paper 1 Figure 2. Note the Prairies and Old Fields located on Mubby Creek. This area is north of the confluence of Mubby Creek with Chiwapa Creek and more importantly north of the major village of Yaneka, see Paper 1 Figure 1. While the author has not visited these areas, they deserve inspection. Add Naugher Creek and Hall Branch to inspection area.
8. Mubby Creek North Pontotoc County: North of Highway 6 and west of Mubby Creek is a Chickasaw village. IIB glass beads were discovered there in the late 1950s and given to a collector's son on a bus ride home from school.
9. Belden Tupelo Christian Preparatory School Area: Significant glass bead collecting occurred during school construction. The site before school construction was heavily eroded and extends north towards I-22.
This constitutes my candidate sites for d'Iberville's 1702 unassociated Chickasaw villages. Again these are sites that met my selection criteria.
What happened to these unassociated villages? Did they suffer attacks as did Yaneka from French/Choctaw raids of 1722 and move from their homeland? (see Paper 1 The Decades and the Villages 1720-1730) Since there are no French or British records of any village migrations other than Yaneka, it can be assumed that the unassociated villages moved into the protection of the larger villages.
I should add that there are other areas for which the author has little or no physical knowledge but which may prove to hide other smaller Chickasaw village sites. Perhaps another article will reveal them?
Regards,
Steve Cook