Choctaw Nationalism: Choktaw Culture, Language and History

By Kennith H York

The Rich Culture and History of the Choctaw Tribe - and the Remarkable Mississippi Band...The Choctaw Indians are one of the oldest tribes in the Americas, dating from the era when the woolly mammoth roamed the Southeast. They are the native inhabitants of the area now comprising the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians still continues to speak their own language, maintain their unique culture, and live on their indigenous land in Mississippi. In this beautifully researched book, Dr. Kennith York draws upon oral traditions, historical documents, and accounts of observers and scholars to illuminate the prehistory, culture, language, and history of the Chahta Okla People. Join this resilient, creative, and memorable band as they survive the Spanish terrorist attack of 1540, the French and British invasion of the 1700s, the US Government Policy of Indian Removal of 1830, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s, and the current economic recession, which threatens the survival of 10,300 Choctaws. Recognized as community leaders in community and economic development through business, education, health care, gaming, and tourism, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians stand out as a shining example of a people striving to embrace their heritage while working within the constraints placed upon them by the US government. This valuable book provides an update to John Swanton's work on the Choctaw Indians.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Proisle Publishing Services
• Release date: Feb 10, 2022
• ISBN: 9781961526358

Book preview

Copyright © 2023 by Kennith H.York

ISBN: 978-1-961526-35-8

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher disclaims any responsibility for them.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Proisle Publishing Services LLC

39-67 58th Street, 1st floor

Woodside, NY 11377, USA

Phone: [phone])

[e-mail]

PREFACE

This book is dedicated to the members of Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; especially the children. Among them are my four children: Hilohah, Tikoklo, Hayaka and Pakali. Thank you go to Katherine, my wife, for supporting all of my life’s pursuits. I also want to honor my Choctaw Indian ancestors and relatives:

Hayaka (straight thinker), Choctaw warrior who lived near what is now Sandtown, Mississippi and defended the Choctaw Nation all his life; Hacheba was Hidaka’s wife. Hayaka’s other name was Yaconya.

Tuck-a-lum-bee (Solomon York), Hayaka’s son, moved from Leake County, MS. 1n 1903 to Choctaw Indian Territory; Tuck-a-lum-bee’s wife was named Martha M. York who apparently had died before 1903.They had Alom, Ben, Bennett,Evan, Scott, Taylor, and three sisters, Eliza, Sally and Mary York.

Scott and Cecilc Ben York, progenitors Of York family in Mississippi; they had John and Laura. Cecile’s brothers were Peter and Madison Ben. Cecile is descendant Of Ben Abononta.

Tobi and Mary Louisa Wishak Jimmie Phillips, Necey’s parents John and Necey (Nancy) Phillips York, archetype of Choctaw tribal sovereignty

Mike and Lizzie John, lived in Bihi Ayasha in Edinburg, MS, father and mother to Sally and Susan John.

Amos and Sealy Jacobs Sam, Walter and Caroline’s parents

Walter and Sally John Willis Sam, our grandparents

Walter’s sister named Caroline Sam Tubby

Sally’s sister named Susan John Willis

Baxter and Grace Sam York, our parents and Choctaw teachers

Uncle Emmett, Gassler, George Beamon, aunts Addie and Eunice, Herman and Wilbur, twins who died in infancy

Uncle Tom and Aunt Diana, Mary, Edna and Manzie

Special recognition to Frank, Alvin, Tony, Loretta, Roseanna, John, Eileen, Rowena, Charlene, all my relatives, and, especially, Buddy Amos Lewis (Nowah).

Special thanks goes to all my students, Choctaw and non-Choctaw, who have provided me with inspiration. Thank you to all the people who have challenged me with difficult questions about our Choctaw language, culture and history throughout my thirty (30) plus years of teaching. I want to especially thank Billy Amos, Odie Jim, R.J. Willis, Calvin J. Isaac, Hayward Bell, Bobby Thompson, Hubert Comby, Hugh King, Anthony Thompson, and Gary White Deer and Janie WillisZah for being good Choctaw friends. I also want to thank Craig Gill, Steve Rosecan, and Jason York for providing me directions and critical review of my drafts. However, any errors and ambiguity in this book are my own creation and my lack of understanding the English Language, my second language.

John R Swanton wrote that Choctaws did not have a good public relations person. Even today, not much is known about the tradition and custom of the Choctaw Indians. I hope this book will provide information to help fill a void about Choctaw Indians. Talley Thompson, a friend of the family, use to say, put knowledge in that lopi (brain) because no one can take that away from you. I hope that I learned enough of the Choctaw language, culture and history to pass them to the next seven generations of Choctaws.

Just as the Choctaw warrior boasted in battle even when facing insurmountable odds, when he yelled out his name and added, Chahta siya hokih! we must never forget the courage of our ancestors and the Choctaw warrior’s blood that runs through our veins. We should be proud of who we are, Chahta Hapiya Hoki! (We are Choctaws!)

Yakoki! (Thank you)

Dr. Kennith H. York

Himak nittak okla kiyokpali hicha holitobli.

(Let us bless and be happy this day)

-Choctaw Priest

1

Introduction

Historians, ethnologists, archaeologists, government officials, and some religious writers have preserved some critical ethnological, educational, governmental, religious, archaeological, and historical information on Native Americans and Choctaw Indians. The majority of the information on Choctaw Indians is bias. Biased because European-American writers were recording information from perspectives different from the Native American Indians. However, some information are useful to the members of the Choctaw communities and descendants of the Choctaw Nation. It is equally important that members of the broader American society know the contributions of the Choctaw people to the overall development of the United States of America. The members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) boast that they have never relinquished anything. Many Choctaw Nation descendants still reside in Alabama, Florida, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

Many Choctaws continue to espouse a kind of native nationalism. Webster defines nationalism as concern for or attachment to a particular nation’s interest or culture. (Webster’s Dictionary, 1996: 458) It is in this spirit of Choctaw Nationalism that this writing is presented. The readers will learn more about the history, culture, language, education, government, and ways of the Choctaw Indian people.

‘Nana Awaya’… In the beginning, the Great Spirit Called Okla, the people, to come up out of the cave.

–Choctaw Origin Story

2

Choctaw Indians

Archaeologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, geneticists, and other scientists have been searching for definitive answers to exactly who the Choctaw people are and where they originated. This chapter will describe what is known about the origins of the Choctaw Indians. Much of the information on Choctaw Indians is an amalgamation of information about the Choctaw Nation before the removal of the majority of Choctaw people to the west of the Mississippi River.

According to Fiedel, Native American Indians derived from an Asian population with affinities to the Mongoloids. However, there are some non-Mongoloid features as well. These might represent the genetic legacy of a pre-Mongoloid, Australoid-Caucasoid population, overwhelmed by a later Mongoloid immigration. They reflect the broad range of physical variation found in early northern Asian populations, before Mongoloid traits became predominant. It is almost certain that the first immigrants from Asia were of the modern human variety, Homo sapiens sapiens. (Fiedel, 1988: 45) This would imply an initial entry date no earlier than 40,000 - 65,000 B. P., when modern man seems to have replaced the Neanderthals throughout Eurasia. (History Channel documentary Ape to Man, 2005) Archaeologists report that early humans have occupied the Mississippi River Valley for over 15,000 B.P (Before Present).

However, Hicks and Dziebel’s proposal contrast the commonly held sentiment of a Peopling of the Americas with a long untested premise, an autochthonous wellspring for Homo sapiens from within the Americas. This alternative suggests that sudden replacement of Old World Homo erectus populations is compatible with a New World source for Homo sapiens, with all human ancestors being the product of an evolutionary process isolated to the Western Hemisphere. They believe reasonable scientific objectives should compel researchers to evaluate this alternative. The following points identify historical and scientific discretion encompassing the evolution of Old World human origin theories, which have effectively nullified the evaluation of this premise. They ask the readers to set aside any initial skepticism and open-heartedly evaluate the rational of some of their ideas, opinions, and concerns:

Philosophical Interpretations: What role did European dominion play in leading later anthropologists to synthesize an Asian origin for the first Americans as the only way to explain how the Americas came to be inhabited peopled by Homo sapiens? The alternative we examine remains untested despite a continuing enigma that pervades a solution to, not only the first Americans, but also, the timing of our species entry into what has long been accepted as, by definition, the Old World.

Historical Concepts: Evolutionary anthropologists may be unaware of the religious and historical terms first used to undermine this discretion inasmuch as the dominant scientific paradigm has steadfastly dictated an Asian origin for the first human inhabitants of the Americas. This reexamination will analyze historical and scientific penchant surreptitiously delineating an American wellspring into a null-hypothesis. We offer compatible explanations to untested historical renderings of our common human past by adopting a new paradigm to guide these effectual observations.

Scientific Testing: We ask, have researchers have ever actually exercised the scientific merit of the numerous ‘Amerindian’ claims of genuine autochthonous origins? Our research strategy frees this claim as theory, entrusting it to guide our observations. It asks how long anatomically modern humans have been Homo sapiens by examining the Procrustean limitations that have us contorting dueling theories set asunder by a paradigm-bias fixed within the confines of the Old World. We believe known Old World hominid precursors of Homo erectus, although we have a great deal of paleontological and archaeological evidence of them, offer no real solutions to Homo sapien origins

Behavioral Archaeology: Archaeology is the backbone of physical observation and while we have little, if any, evidence to validate an earlier then 45,000 year sapient presence anywhere in the Old World (including Border Cave and Klaisies River Mouth). Theories suggesting an exodus Out of Africa remain the archetype while pre-40,000 y.b.p. archaeological contexts can be attributed to Homo erectus groups. We believe the next step in archaeological theory building is to ponder the worldwide significance a validation of early man sites from the Americas holds when scrutinizing the pre-Clovis archaeological record as a truly ancient evolutionary signature. Have we applied paradigm growth and theory building to the autochthonous Amerindian model in order to synthesize a greater antiquity for pre-Clovis America? Certainly, this phase of human behavior is difficult to derive from Old World Middle or Late/Upper Paleolithic contexts, the primary reason the pre-Clovis has taken so long to gain favor. We will examine early pre-Clovis/mid-Pleistocene sites as an ancestral condition uniquely aligned with an autochthonous inhabitancy of the Americas by Exploring Niche Variability as a Possible Key to Evolutionary Processes Operating Within and Among Cultural Systems (Johnson and Binford, SAA Symposium, 2001). Can we distinguish the evolution of human behavior by looking first to the widespread pre-Clovis New World reliance on bone, wood, and simple stone tools? In contrast to later Fluted Paleoindian Traditions, earlier pre-Clovis sites show their own uniformity marked by similarities supporting archaeological descriptions throughout early America (as with the remarkably well preserved site at Monte Verde-II, dated at 12, 800, and the earlier less discernible level MV-I, dated to 33,000 years). The NW hand-made clay-lined hearths often associated with pre-Clovis human activity cannot be the result of geo-factual production due to the simple fact that such natural occurrences would be expected in or near Homo erectus occupations and we all know archaeologists studying the Middle Paleolithic would be exacting we accept such an observation as proof of sapient behavior. These and other pre-Clovis anomalies defy a scientific analogy less we forge an archaeological theory to guide the evolutionary significance of this ancient pattern of behavior.

Migration Theory: Could a modern human exodus ‘out of the Americas’ have predicated niche adaptation (including bone engendered hunting technologies) as Old World human ancestors exited the Americas through the Arctic north. We suggest the origins of the Upper Paleolithic resulted from encounters between once isolated hominid species with this first occurring in southern Siberia (Otte 1996 and others). Homo sapiens later perfected the Aurignacian tool kit as they migrated west across the Russian Steppe into Europe (Leonova 1994)? This effort employs an inter-disciplinary strategy that embraces conservative archaeological and genetic dates for the arrival of our species; conforming with a ‘peopling of the Old World’ by Homo sapiens ‘Amerindius’ beginning ~40,000 (+ 5,000) years ago. The onset and development of Later Stone Age industries is contrasted with a human exodus ‘out of the Americas’ predating the evolution of the modern lithic archaeological contexts. We believe the Upper Paleolithic was directly influenced by Homo sapiens (Amerindian) encounters with late Middle Paleolithic Homo erectus populations. As when a sub-population boldly going where no [sapien] man had gone before!

Geological Perspectives: Could isolation following the onset of the last Ice Age help explain why Old World behavioral advancements (distinguishing the Late/Upper Paleolithic), are missing in pre-Clovis America? If we look at migration in reverse, adaptation to a new niche (natural selection) resulting from migration through the northern corridor (out the backdoor of the Americas) would archaeologically distinguish the initial evolution of hunting cultures (bone to stone) from preceding pre-Clovis antecedents? Can missing behavioral links be explained by incorporating the Americas and pre-Clovis life-styles into the equation? Will the Clovis-First Model finally Rest in Peace and accept the Paleoindian phase as a migration/ diffusion of hunting cultures reunited with the Americas? We will bridge these and other behavioral gaps that have far too long sustained Clovis-First as theory and left, in its wake, unheralded the now established existence of a pre-Clovis human signature. We believe that a new hypothesis is needed to guide the diminished human production accommodating the possible evolutionary dimension underlying the temperament complimenting the pre-Clovis component. We suggest that pre-Clovis was precursory to the Upper Paleolithic and that Ice Age isolation delayed the arrival and diffusion of these earlier Old World advancements embodying subsequent Paleoindian Traditions.

Paleontological Concepts: There are historical footnotes incorporating the contention of separate hominid wellsprings for H. erectus and H. sapiens although few have examined, with earnest, the favorable evolutionary parameters a New World birthplace for humans encompasses. We do not contest the Old World fossil record of evolution and exodus of Homo erectus from Africa while we do counter that favorable paleontological locations and theories drawn from these discoveries have driven this Old World effort. Alternatively, we could agree that the New World does not contain anything similar to a Great Rift Valley while a vast majority of even the most promising NW human specimens remain undated. Could observations of the New World human fossil record suggest a relative stability of the modern human form over time (i.e. Keith, Kollman, and Wallace)? A theory to guide such an effort is confounded by Clovis-First and other inaccurate and/or misleading perspectives based on outdated archaeological perspectives. Most prominent is the belief that our species, Homo sapiens, could not predate our appearance in the Eastern Hemisphere. If pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas predates the Upper/Late Paleolithic then Homo sapiens originated in the Americas, period. A reevaluation of the existing fossil record and a renewed search for fossil remains would have to follow.

Linguistic Compatibility: Shouldn’t the existence of nearly 2/3 of the world’s languages require us to examine anthropological data supporting greater antiquity for mankind within the Americas? Dr. German Dziebel’s data supporting unprecedented antiquity for man in the Americas, based on a worldwide study of kinship systems and their associated nomenclature, sheds new light on human cultural diversity.

Genetic Correlates: Extensive molecular diversity on the tribal level detected in ‘Amerindian Populations’ suggests we define a theory to guide these observations. We believe compelling phylogenetic evidence, complimenting both mtDNA and Y chromosome data, can be synthesized to delineate an Amerindian wellspring. There are simply too many (26) Eves or founding mtDNA lineages from the Americas, to pick just one as the root. Moreover, a single founding population suggesting one population exodus ‘Out of the Americas’ before the onset of the Last Ice Age best accounts for the bottleneck distinguishing Old World population structure while a phylogenic model of decent is best supported by the out of Asia hypothesis for Old World mtDNA distributions.

Evolutionary Models: Franz Boas remarked in 1930 that the presence of apes in the Old World and not the New, would seem to forestall an inclusion of the Americas in the search for human primate ancestors. We believe he was posing a question that remains unanswered; ‘must all hominid/ human ancestors follow the same path as the African paleontological record dictates.’ We might ask today whether there are common anatomical and/or behavioral affinities shared in parallel between primates and hominids that would augment the diagnostic link of knuckle-walking and bipedalism as precursory to hominoid/human evolution. Moreover, there are a number of anatomical conditions that are shared between Homo sapiens and New World primates while similar comparisons can be drawn between Homo erectus and Old World primates, be they ape or monkey. (Hicks and Dziebel, 2000)

The Choctaw Indians have a story that tells of a migration of the people to the Southeast from somewhere in the West. This legend tends to support the conventional theories of archaeologists and historians regarding the Bering Strait. But, the Choctaws also have a creation story of Nanih Wayya, an origin story based on a series of mounds with a fortified village, and a mound cave just to the east of the temple mound in Winston County, Mississippi. However, Patricia Galloway in her recent book, Choctaw Genesis, proposes that Choctaws may have evolved through a coalescence of existing native groups into one Choctaw Nation, although separation likely occurred as well with the large number of Muskogean-speaking groups in the Southeast. (Broadwell, 2005; Martin, 2001) Some writers have reported that Choctaw was the parent tribe of all Muskogean-speaking people; other writers believe the Natchez was the parent tribe.

Whatever the origin, the ancestors of the Choctaw Indians flourished in the South and Eastern part of the United States. They farmed the rich valleys, made elaborate art and religious objects, woven variety of basketry, traded with other native people of North America with an established trade language, and built cities and great ceremonial centers.

In Louisiana about 5,400 years ago, a series of mounds known as Ouachita Mounds were built. After a millennium in 1500 BC, mounds, villages and trading occurred at Poverty Point in Louisiana. After seven hundred years, mounds appeared in the Ohio Valley. As early as 5000 years ago, the Choctaw ancestors lived in settled villages and towns and grew squash, sunflowers, and different varieties of seeds. The community leaders (miko) designed and organized the construction and use of ceremonial grounds based on the seasons and the annual cycles of hunts and harvests. (Pauketat, 2001: 241) The Choctaw ancestors had adopted maize into their diet of crops and wild foods by AD. (anno Domini) 1000. Maize had been apparently domesticated in Meso-Arnerica since 7500 BC.

Around AD. 1150 consolidation of political, economic and military power ruled over large area. The capital, now known as Moundville in Alabama, had over 2000 residents, and the chiefdom controlled western Alabama and eastern Mississippi. This was good for the Moundville people who seem to have been the healthiest of any natives in the Southeast. (Pauketat, 2001: 243) Other important Mississippian towns existed in the Choctaw Nation. Winterville is located on Mississippi State Highway 1 about six miles north of Greenville, MS. There were 23 mounds but several have been reduced through extensive farming. Recent archaeological evidence indicates contact with the great Cahokia city in Illinois. Two other towns in southwestern Mississippi are the Emerald Mound on the Natchez Trace, one of the largest mounds in the United States, and the Grand Village of the Natchez in Natchez, MS. The Nanih Waiya Mother Mound Complex is located near Noxapater, MS., in the heart of the Choctaw Nation. (Lincecum, 1904: 521-542) Although Nanih Waiya has only a few visible mounds today, the site was considered the capital of the Choctaw Nation and may have been as large as Moundville in circumference because another larger mound is located several miles to the east of Nanih Waiya Mound and Cave off of State Highway 21 and if other Villages and towns are included the size of the area would be enormous.

The further most large Mississippian towns are now known as Atzalan in Wisconsin, Cahokia in Illinois, Fort Ancient in Ohio, Spiro in Oklahoma, Toltec in Arkansas, Thunderbird in Virginia, Hollywood, Ocmulgee, Kolomoki, and Etowah (according to Hansen issi Kowah) in Georgia, Hiwassee Island and Indian Knoll in Kentucky, Pinson, Eva, Mound Bottom, and Chucalissa in Tennessee, Sikeston Ridge in Missouri, Poverty Point, Alligator Mound and Marksville in Louisiana, and Santa Rosa, Crystal River, Weeden Island, Little Salt Springs, Fort Center, and Key Marco in Florida. There are many earthen mounds, some lasted from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 700 known as Adena Culture, and others lasted from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 600 known as Hopewell Culture, located in other areas of Southeastern United States. (Finney, 2006) There are three distinct mounds: (1) temple, (2) burial, and (3) effigy. Before European contact, a large native population was located in the Southeast, probably because of abundance of natural resources, great environment and temperate weather.

The State of Mississippi in historic time was inhabited by three major Indian nations: the Chickasaw (Chikasha) in the north, the Choctaw (Chahta) in the central and south, and the Natchez (Nachi) in the southwest along the Mississippi River (misha sipokni). Four other tribes that made up the majority Muskogean-speaking groups are the Alabama, Apalachee, Coushatta, and Mikasuki-Hitchiti. Most, if not all, southeastern natives understood the Muskogean language through the lingua franca a trade language based on the Choctaw and Chickasaw languages. (Crawford, 1978; Dreschel, 1997)

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) are descendants of that portion of the Choctaw Nation people that refused to emigrate west, after the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, a hihla bok, a treaty (1830) between the Choctaw Nation and the United States. The MBCI is the current Choctaws residing in the State of Mississippi, having been organized and accepted as a federally-recognized Indian Tribe in 1945 under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. (Chahta Hapia Hoke, 1981) The Choctaw Nation at this time (1830) was divided into three districts or fires (olhti), each district governed by a miko. A fourth district or Okla chito (important people) had long been abandoned although it is believed this district was where the Choctaw leadership originated. This district was a training ground for Choctaw leadership before the Europeans disrupted the Choctaw government and society.

The northeastern district or ahi apat okla (potato-eating people; also known as okla tannap - people on the other side and hayyip toklo - two lakes) was under the leadership of Homa Isht Abi and, later, his nephew Moskholitabbee. The southeastern district, okla hannali (Six Town Peoples), was under the leadership of Nittakachi, nephew of Aposhmataha. The western district or okla falaya (long