In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

able to conclude that mating was more frequent within political territories than between them. One obvious exception is the arranged marriage designed to solidify newfound loyalties among competing polities. The most common references to political divisions are based on the use of speci¤c names of villages or chiefs that indicate a clear identity division among native communities . The de Soto chroniclers are particularly astute recorders of such information (Bourne 1904; Elvas 1907), noting the presence of multiple polities by name as well as the distances that separated them. Of particular interest are notations related to the uninhabited buffer zones providing a physical barrier between competing and warring chiefdoms (DePratter 1991). Such buffer zones isolated the Apalachee from their neighbors (DePratter 1991; Hann 1988; Steinen and Ritson 1996) and the Guale from interior chiefdoms (Jones 1978). Macrolevel divisions are relatively easy to identify. More dif¤cult to identify are microlevel distinctions, such as those purported for Guale (Jones 1978) and Apalachee (Hann 1988). At this time, too little is known about the signi¤cance of such divisions to generate mating predictions. In my opinion, however , micropolitical structure had little impact on patterns of gene ®ow within Spanish-recognized political units (Apalachee, Guale). Warfare and Con®ict. Evaluating patterns of warfare provides information on the degree of interaction that two populations may have experienced. Fortunately , the ethnohistoric record provides speci¤c references to con®ict that can be used to differentiate populations. The Apalachee, for example, were feared throughout Florida; they were known to have warred with the Yustaga, Utina, and Potano confederacies to their east and with the Apalachicola,Chine, and Chacato chiefdoms to their west (Steinen and Ritson 1996:113). Various references portray the pattern of warfare among Timucua populations, and the Guale are likewise distinguished by internecine warfare with the Mocama to their south and from the Orista to their north (Lanning 1935:38). Does inclusion within a polyethnic and polyglot confederacy indicate that gene ®ow was concomitant? This is dif¤cult to verify with certainty but may be likely. Another dif¤culty with using con®ict data to discern mating boundaries is the nature of indigenous warfare, which was often small-scale and which frequently resulted in the capture and incorporation of females into the chiefdom of the victor (DePratter 1991; Laudonnière 1975). Laudonnière’s time among the coastal Timucua during the mid-16th century produced these observations : “The kings make great war among themselves, always by surprise attack. They kill every male enemy they can. They cut the skin off their heads to preserve the hair, and carry this back on their triumphant homeward journeys. They spare the enemy women and children, feed them, and retain them permanently among themselves” (Laudonnière, 1975:11). DePratter (1991:51, 52) indicates that the capture of women may have increased the agricultural productivity of the victor and provides an example from the 16th century on the 52 Chapter 3 manner in which captured females were divided among chiefdoms within an alliance. Garcilaso’s account indicates that captives were commonly encountered during de Soto’s march throughout the Southeast (Varner and Varner 1951:329). Therefore, although warfare may have precluded rei¤cation of mate exchange within prevailing systems of social organization, that two chiefdoms warred may not have been as genetically limiting as one might ¤rst assume. It seems likely,however,that submission within a confederacy was more homogenizing a force biologically than was warfare. Linguistic Differences. There are few original documents that contain text of Apalachee, Timucua,or Guale language (for example,Milanich and Sturtevant, 1972). However, the limited information that can be marshaled suggests that three distinct and mutually unintelligible languages were spoken. Internal linguistic consistency is suggested for Guale and Apalachee (Hann 1988), while the Timucua chiefdoms spoke a dozen or so dialects with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility (Deagan 1978; Hann 1996; Milanich 1978, 1996, 1999). Language functions much like warfare in terms of biological patterning. Mating is possible, of course, between people who speak different languages, and Spanish identi¤cation of linguistic geography does not necessarily equate with reality when multilingualism may have been the norm (Moore 1994a, b). Period interpreter requests and travel logs reveal the degree of linguistic diversity and mutual intelligibility characterizing southeastern communities (Lanning 1935:11; Swanton 1922:11). Elvas recorded that by the time de Soto reached the Mississippi interior, he had brought with him a dozen or more interpreters who would be required to translate the local...

Share