Plains Indian Studies - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

NUMBER 30 131
I have seen no record of the Wichita passing
Apaches or other captured Indians directly to the
French in Illinois, but some of their captives may
have been reaching Frenchmen in 1716-1718 at
Natchitoches where Dutisne had purchased Indian
slaves (M. Wedel 1972-1973:161) from the
Mento (Wichita) trader. Nevertheless, a number
were still being killed and eaten ceremonially at
this time, and even later in 1749 when the Comanche
were trading Indian captives to the
Wichita in exchange for French trade goods.
The Comanche, who were unmentioned in the
Coronado and Onate documents, were perhaps
as Padouca called enemies by the Wichita in 1719,
but there is no evidence of destruction of villages.
After these Shoshoneans had displaced the
Apache northeast of New Mexico, a reversal of
the relationship with the Wichita occurred. This
was signified by the alliance made about 1746-
1747 that was still in effect when the Wichita
moved to Red River a decade later. This partnership,
and the more temporary alliance of 1752,
which included also panana and Ae, were developments
uncharacteristic of the Wichita in earlier
historic times, probably because they were unnecessary.
These alliances have often been attributed
to French manipulation, but there is no firm
evidence (Newcomb and Field, 1967:256-257) for
this viewpoint. In fact, some considerations (M.
Wedel, 1981:42-44, 47) make it highly unlikely.
On the basis of known evidence, I would agree
with W.W. Newcomb, Jr., and W.T. Field in
thinking the alliance of the 1740s to have been a
native arrangement sparked by a desire for European
commodities, particularly horses, mules,
and guns as available, for their own use or for a
middleman trade. This alliance also led to joint
Comanche-Wichita war parties, and, only incidentally
it seems, allowed safe passage for those
Europeans who crossed from the Wichita villages
to Comanche settlements and on to New Mexico.
The later short-lived alliance of 1752 was probably
similar in nature.
It was the Osage who took more concentrated
warfare to the Wichita in their villages after 1719.
At first it may have related to Osage uneasiness
provoked by French traders who, in the 1720s,
sought to bypass these Siouans in order to trade
directly with the Wichita for horses. Later, when
the Osage took over the horse trade with the
Illinois and Louisiana French, the Indians needed
to constantly replenish their supply, one source of
which was the Wichita herds. In addition, there
is some reason to surmise that in the maneuvering
of the Franco-British conflict of the 1730s and
1740s, the Osage were sometimes set upon the
Wichita (M. Wedel, 1981:41), e.g., when the
latter harbored Indians sympathetic to the British.
No doubt other factors were involved that are
not readily apparent in the records. The severity
of the attacks by better-armed Osage evidently
strongly influenced the Wichita subgroup living
on the Verdigris River to move west, and afterwards,
affected the Tawakoni decision to migrate
south into Spanish Texas. It was later reported
that the Osage completely destroyed a Wichita
village. By this time, those remaining at the Deer
Creek and Bryson-Paddock sites, having apparently
fortified themselves to some extent, were
enlisting the help of their Indian allies in their
punitive attacks. Undoubtedly, Osage harrassment
contributed to the final resolution of these
Wichita to leave the Arkansas River basin.
In review, the fluctuating patterns of alliance
and hostility, the changing nature of warfare, and
the population movements recounted above are
seen to have resulted from various stimuli traceable
to the European: namely, competition for
gun and horse possession, the Indian craving for
all kinds of trade goods, Indian jealousy of the
extension of French trade to more distant Plains
tribes, the Indian slave trade, the rivalry of European
nations for control in North America that
utilized Indians as pawns in the power plays.
Many of the factors listed above were contributing
simultaneously to warfare elsewhere in the
Plains.
The ever-increasing amount of time and energy
that was apparently expended in the late 17th
and 18th centuries on a warfare more destructive
than the earlier raids made for family revenge,
for horses, for honors, and so on, must have had
its effect on various sociocultural aspects of Wichita
life. It is unfortunate that information of this