Notes
CHAPTER 1 1. The accounts of La Harpe’s travels related here are taken from translations of Margry by Lewis (1924) and Smith (1958–59), and from the ethnohistoric work of de Villiers du Terrage (1934) and Mildred Wedel (1971, 1978). The Margry reproduction of the diary from which Lewis and Smith’s translations were derived contain “inexcusable alterations, deletions, and additions” (M. Wedel 1978:2), inducing Wedel to make her own translation. Since the latter has not been published, I have employed the published translations from Margry’s text. For our purposes, which do not include ¤ne-grained ethnohistoric interpretations, this should suf¤ce. 2. I have used this spelling for the site rather than “Roseborough Lake,” which has come down through the literature, on the advice of S. D. Dickinson (personal communication 2001). He noted that the site is named for the Rosborough family, which once owned a plantation on this property. I have not changed the name on the relevant maps, because most scholars know the site as “Roseborough.” 3. For a list of mammals, birds, and reptiles common to the prehistoric and early historic Osage Savanna, see Wyckoff (1984:13). For lists of trees, shrubs, mammals, birds, and reptiles found in the principal biotic zones, see Albert and Wyckoff (1984). 4. On the other hand, the American elk is Cervus elaphus, which Europeans were familiar with as red deer. The “unicorn” seen by La Harpe, with which the Europeans were obviously unfamiliar, was more likely a pronghorn antelope, which does not exist in Europe. In addition, Davis (1987:113) recounted a decrease in deer and increase of pronghorn in the upper horizons of Oklahoma sites such as Pohly, Scott, and Wann. 5. Most likely a member of the Caddo Nabedache tribe (Newcomb and Field 1967:251). CHAPTER 2 1. This chapter is undertaken in the spirit of approaching history from multicultural perspectives, as advocated by Rollings (1988). 2. The closeness of the Wichita and Pawnee is manifested in the fact that they are featured in each other’s legends as having separated from each other relatively recently. See Blaine (1982). 3. By protohistoric I am referring to the period between the ¤rst arrival of European goods in a region, no matter whether they came through direct contact or indirect trade, and the historic period. The historic period began with the ¤rst real wave of European settlement in the region (see Brown and Emerson 1992:79–80; Stothers and Abel 1991). In eastern Oklahoma the protohistoric would have been ushered in by La Harpe’s visit, Notes since he was the ¤rst known bearer of European trade goods, though a few items probably trickled into the region before 1719. This period lasted about a century, for Forts Gibson and Towson would not have been constructed in the 1820s had there not existed a substantial population of European settlers in eastern Oklahoma for the U.S. government to protect (Gibson 1981:39). CHAPTER 3 1. Besides trade and access to a southern port, there was always the promise of minerals and conversion of the Indians (Brown 1992:18–19). 2. For an interpretation of Spanish frenzy following La Salle’s gulf mission, see Weddle’s introduction in Weddle (1987); for their reaction to the establishment of New Orleans in 1718, see Weddle (1992:105–106). 3. M. Wedel’s (1971) note 35 is helpful on this point. CHAPTER 4 1. The results of the original survey are contained in Odell (1988). The subsequent process of testing for signi¤cance is documented in a series of management summaries to Sirrine Environmental Consultants, the Kimberly-Clark Company, and the Oklahoma State Archaeologist dated May 11 and May 24, 1988. The preliminary report on the excavation of the Lasley Vore site is Odell (1989a). 2. Waldo Wedel excavated several sites in central and southern Kansas, which may be ancestral Wichita. They had low mounds on them that were not burials but probably trash heaps. People did not live on these heaps but on lower-lying areas peripheral to them—for example, the Tobias site in Rice County (W. Wedel 1959:211–230). Also see Hyde (1951:27–28). 3. A detailed account of this technique and the exact procedure we employed can be found in Odell (1992). 4. Mechanical stripping of the plow zone was not a new tactic, and it continues to be employed. For example, a strategy of test pitting, block excavation, and mechanical stripping in the early 1990s...
OR
