SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

VOLUME 2, Number 5

Notes on the History and

Material Culture of the

Tonkawa Indians

William K. Jones

SMITHSONIAN PRESS

Washington: 1969

A Publication of the
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

United States National Museum

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CARD 71-601221

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 55 cents

Contents

NOTES ON THE HISTORY AND MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE TONKAWA INDIANS

OBJECT DESCRIPTION

CONCLUSIONS

LITERATURE CITED

Illustrations

(Follow page 70)

FIGURES

  1. Assistant Surgeon Henry McElderry, United States Army. Collector of the Tonkawa material described in this paper.

  2. Tonkawa quiver, bow, and arrows.

  3. Tonkawa arrow.

  4. Top, Tonkawa bow; middle, rattle or “haw-whootes”; bottom, girdle.

  5. Tonkawa bow and five arrows.

  6. Tonkawa trade tomahawk

  7. Tonkawa trade tomahawk, detail of head.

  8. Tinder pouch and striker.

  9. Tonkawa wooden scraper handle

10. Tonkawa war drum and drum sticks.

11. Tonkawa otter skin girdle.

12. Top, Tonkawa head ornament; bottom, head ornament.

13. Tonkawa head ornament.

14. Tonkawa dolls, front view.

15. Tonkawa dolls, back view.

16. Tonkawa George Miles, an old army scout and the last Chief of the Tonkawa

17. Tonkawa woman, Ocoya, wife of Standing Buffalo.

18. Tonkawa shelter, Ponca Agency, Oklahoma, 1901.

19. Tonkawa Lamar Richard’s house, Ponca Agency, 1901.

MAPS

1. Historic Locations of the Tonkawa Indians.

2. Location of the Tonkawa Massacre in 1862.

3. Location of the Tonkawa Indian village near Fort Griffin Reserve, Texas, in 1871

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is expressed to the National Endowment for the Humanities which, through its intern program, provided the financial support for my research and to John G. Ewers, senior ethnologist for the Smithsonian Institution, who suggested the study and guided my work. Many others aided, including Mr. George S. Metcalf, supervisor of the Processing Laboratory of the Smithsonian Office of Anthropology, Miss Helen R. Purtle, assistant curator of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Medical Museum and Mrs. Sarah Jackson, of the National Archives and Records Service. For their technical information, my thanks to Mrs. Roxie G. Laybourne, zoologist, Bird and Mammal Laboratory, Division of Wild Life Research, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild Life, Department of Interior; Dr. Richard N. Jorgensen, principal wood technologist, Forest Products and Engineering Division, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; and Dr. Elson B. Helwig, pathologist, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

Notes on the History and Material Culture of the Tonkawa Indians

By William K. Jones

One of the little-known tribes of central Texas was the Tonkawa. Few objects made and used by the Tonkawa are preserved in museum collections, and no description of traditional Tonkawa material culture, based upon a study of actual specimens, has appeared in the literature. Nevertheless, a small but unique collection of Tonkawa materials has been a part of the ethnological collections of the Smithsonian Institution for a century. It is unique, not only because it is the earliest known Tonkawa collection, antedating the extermination of the bison on the Southern Plains, but also because the time, place, and conditions under which the collection was made in the field are well documented. In order to place this collection in a meaningful cultural and chronological context I have prefaced my description of the specimens with a brief historical sketch of the Tonkawa, with particular emphasis upon the years immediately preceding the acquisition of these materials by Dr. McElderry at Fort Griffin, Texas, in 1868.

Although the Tonkawa call themselves Títskan wátitch, “the most human people,” the tribal name is derived from the Waco name for these people, Tonkaweya, meaning “they all stay together.” The Comanche and Kiowa, northwestern neighbors and longtime enemies of the Tonkawa, knew them by names which, in translation, meant “man-eating men” or “maneaters.” The Tonkawan language apparently was affiliated with Karankawa, Come-crudo, and Cotoname through the common Coahuiltecan stock, although too little is known of the languages of those extinct tribes to establish with certainty the closeness of their relationship to Tonkawan.

Available data on Tonkawa population, covering a period of nearly 200 years, indicate that the Tonkawa were not a large tribe. A Spanish estimate in 1778 gives 300 warriors. Sibley estimated the Tonkawa at but 200 men in 1805, and the tribal population continued to decline thereafter. Heavy war losses, epidemics, and loss of tribal identity through marriages outside the tribe, as well as other factors, contributed to this decline. Of the sixty-two Tonkawa Indians on the tribal rolls in 1961, only three individuals were believed to be fullblood Tonkawa. (Swanton, 1952, p. 327; Hasskarl, 1962, p. 228.)

If archeological evidence of the Tonkawa exists, it may be represented in the Toyah Focus of the Central Texas Aspect. Dr, Edward B. Jelks states that if the Toyah Focus material excavated at the Kyle Site, located on the Brazos River just above Whitney Dam in Hill County, Texas, can be related to a historic group, it is probably Tonkawa and/or Jumano. But he also believes that this focus may have come to an end in the late prehistoric period and another, yet undescribed, group may have taken its place. This later group, represented by triangular arrow points, Goliad Plain pottery, and other artifact styles, “may represent the archeological remains of the historic and protohistoric Tonkawa ….” Radiocarbon dates from the Toyah Focus at the Kyle Site range from A.D. 1276 ±165 years to A.D. 1561 ±130 years. (Jelks, 1962, p. 99.)

The historic record of the Tonkawa Indians begins with Francisco de Jesus Maria. In 1691 he included them with the Yojuane as enemies of the Hasinai. (Hodge, 1910, p. 779.) Earlier meetings between the Tonkawas and Europeans are questionable. Cabeza de Vaca may have encountered a Tonkawa subgroup in his flight through Texas in 1542, and Joutel of LaSalle’s party reported hearing about a group called the Meghy, possibly the Mayeye, another subgroup, in 1687. (Sjoberg, 1953, p. 281.)

The first French encounter came in 1719, when Benard de la Harpe, while carrying out orders to enter into trade with the Spanish and to explore western Louisiana, came into contact with the Tancaoye, the Tonkawa. M. Du Rivage, La Harpe’s lieutenant, met these Indians, along with representatives of several other tribes seventy leagues up the Red River from Kadohadocho. (Smith, 1959, p. 37576.) Herbert E. Bolton, in his discussion of the Tonkawa in the Handbook of the American Indians, states that the Red River may have been a temporary location for the Tonkawa. (Hodge, 1910, p. 780.) During the early period of Spanish contact with the Tonkaway-speaking Mayeye, Yojuane, Ervipiane, and Tonkawa, these Indians were living a nomadic life along a broad belt from the San Antonio River on the southwest to the Neches River on the northeast and extending out about 125 miles either side of the Camino Real between San Antonio and Nacogdoches. They are reported being seen frequently along this road between 1727 and 1730, and from 1745 to 1762 three missions were established for the Tonkawas on the San Xavier River, San Gabriel River today. (See Map 1.) (Bolton, 1914b, p. 327.)

Up to the late 1750s relations between the Tonkawa and Spanish were fairly peaceful, but in the spring of 1758 the Tonkawa for the only time in their history joined the Comanches to attack the Lipan Mission, on the San Saba River, near the present town of Menard, Texas. (Dunn, 1914, p. 404–11.) During the next ten years the Tonkawa lived along the San Gabriel River. On 4 July, 1772, Athanase de Mézieres sent a letter to Baron de Ripperda, governor of Texas, in which he describes the Tancaques, Tonkawa, as abhorred vagabonds, “a people without fixed homes, of undeveloped language, and disposed to thievery.” (Bolton, 1914a, pp. 289–90.) At this time they were living between the Trinity and Brazos Rivers.

Seven years later de Mézieres, writing to Theodore de Croix, commandant-general of the Interior Provinces, described a group of Tonkawas with whom he was traveling in the area of the San Andres River, Little River today. On this trip with Chief Mocho and seventy-five of his people, de Mézieres observed their dependence on hunting and gathering. The most important animal to the Tonkawa, as with the other Plains tribes, was the buffalo. In de Mézieres’ letter to de Croix he describes their relationship to the buffalo as follows:

In truth, one cannot exaggerate the inestimate benefits for which these natives are indebted to divine providence. The buffalo alone, besides its flesh, which takes first place among healthful and savory meats, supplies them liberally with whatever they desire in the way of conveniences. The brains they use to soften skins; the horns for spoons and drinking vessels; the shoulder bones to dig and to clear off the land; the tendons for thread and for bow-strings; the hoof, as glue for arrows; from the mane they make ropes and girths; from the wool, garters, belts, and various ornaments. The skin furnishes harness, lassos, shields, tents, shirts, leggins, shoes, and blankets for protection against the cold—truly valuable treasures, easily acquired, quietly possessed, and lightly missed, which liberally supply an infinite number of people, whom we consider poverty-stricken, with an excess of those necessities which perpetuate our struggles, anxieties, and discords. (Bolton, 1941a, p. 279–80).

In the same letter de Méziere describes the offensive weapons and defensive armament carried by these people. The former are firearms, bows, and spears; the latter of “skins, shields, and leather helmets with horns and gaudy feathers.” (Ibid, p. 278.)

By 1778 the Mayeye division of the Tonkawa had separated themselves from the rest of the group and had moved to an area near the mouths of the Colorado and Brazos Rivers. Here they joined the Karankawan Cocos Indians and by 1805 were apparently completely incorporated into this tribe. During this same period the rest of the Tonkawan groups began to be considered a single tribe. (Sjoberg, 1953, p. 283.)

The Tonkawa were wandering between the Trinity and Colorado Rivers in 1805. The approximately 200 men of the tribe are described as good hunters preying primarily on buffalo and deer. They used the bow and were excellent horsemen. Their relationship with the Spanish seemed alternately friendly and hostile, and their economy was still based on gathering wild fruit and hunting. They are described as a physically strong, athletic people. (Sibley, 1832, p. 723.)

Two years later, while his Spanish captors were escorting him across Texas along the San Antonio Road, Zebulon Montgomery Pike became the first American to meet and to describe the Tonkawa, On 16 June 1807, he encountered several near a small Spanish station on the Colorado River. The next day he visited a large encampment of more than forty lodges. He described the Indians as follows:

The Tancards (Tonkawas) are a nation of Indians who rove on the banks of Red river (Colorado), and are 600 men strong. They follow the buffalo and wild horses, and carry on a trade with the Spaniards. They are armed with the bow, arrow, and lance. They are erratic and confined to no particular district: are a tall, handsome people, in conversation have a peculiar clucking, and express more by signs than any savages I ever visited: and in fact, language appears to have made less progress. They complain much of their situation and the treatment of the Spaniards; are extremely poor, and except the Appaches, were the most independent Indians we encountered in the Spanish territories. They possess large droves of horses. (Jackson, 1966, p. 79.)

Samuel Davenport in an 1809 report on the Indian populations in the Interior Provinces of Mexico stated that the Tancahuos, Tonkawa, ranged between the Brazos and San Marcos Rivers, above and below the Camino Real. He estimated the population at 250 men and their families. They were hunters preying on deer and buffalo and doing no planting. Davenport also stated that the Tonkawa generally formed two groups. (Davenport, 1809, p. 204.)

Between 1809 and 1820 the Tonkawa were ranging along the middle and lower reaches of the Guadalupe, Colorado, and Brazos Rivers. In 1820 two statements assessing their military prowess appear. One is an unsigned and undated document attached to an April 1820 paper in the Arkansas Territorial Archives. This document states that the “Toncowas (Tonkawa), … are considered to be the most expert with fire arms, and warlike Indians of any in the Province of Texas.” (U.S. Territorial Papers, 1820, p. 198.) The other statement is made with equal force that “they are not so warlike as those Indians (Comanche and Lipan) ….” It goes on to say that they will fight and do not lack valor, but they are “lazier and greater knaves” than the Comanche and Lipan. (Padilla, 1919, p. 56.)

The settlement of American colonists in Texas revolutionized the Tonkawa way of life. Beginning in the 1820s and for the next thirty years the Tonkawa, as other Texas tribes, would be more and more limited in their movement over their traditional lands, and in the late 1850s they would be removed from Texas.

When Stephen F. Austin and his party arrived in Texas in 1822, they found the Tonkawa camping along the west bank of the Brazos River in the area of present Washington County. The relationship between these Indians and their new white neighbors was sometimes congenial and sometimes strained. In the fall of 1823 Austin, writing to Lucian Garcia, governor and political chief of Texas, stated that:

A party of Tancahue (Tonkawa) Indians have made, towards the middle of last September an incusion up this river, and stolen from citizens their horses, several of them of American breed and very valuable. At the same time another party of the same nation went down the river, where settlers live very scattered, and compelled them to give them corn, etc., etc., with threats to kill them. … (Barker, 1922a, p. 702.)

Austin reported that he inarched against the Tonkawa and forced their chief to give up the stolen horses and to punish the marauders with a severe lashing “in my presence.” Also the Tonkawas were ordered to leave the Colorado and Brazos and to stop stealing or they would be shot. (Ibid, p. 702.)

During the early 1820s the Tonkawa became closely associated with a segment of the Lipan Apache. The two tribes apparently agreed that each could hunt on the other’s land. As the whites became increasingly annoyed by the Tonkawa, they decided to assemble all of them and move them away from the white settled areas. At the time when the Tonkawa were about to be forced to move, a group of Lipan arrived with a letter from Austin making them guardians over the Tonkawa. The Lipan reportedly took them to an area between the upper Nueces and the Rio Grande, Both tribes remained in this area for several years but eventually drifted back toward the coast and white settlements. (Sjoberg, 1953, p. 283.)

By 1827 the Tonkawa and Lipan moved back into the more settled areas south of the San Antonio Road. In February 1827, James Kerr reported to Austin that he had heard of a battle in which the Comanche and Waco attacked a party of Lipan and “nearly all the Tonkawas” on the San Marcos River about nine miles above the town of Gonzalez. The Lipan and Tonkawa suffered a defeat and lost between five and six hundred horses. (Barker, 1922b, p. 1607.) Another battle fought the same year farther east on Yequa Creek, in present Washington County, apparently turned out to be a draw between the Tonkawa and Waco. (Hasskarl, 1962, p. 222.)

In November 1827, the Supreme Government of Mexico appointed General Manuel de Mier y Terán to command a field party to explore Texas and to survey the boundary between Mexico and the United States. Among the men appointed to this expedition were Jean Louis Berlandier, a botanist and zoologist, and José Mária Sánchez, a draftsman. Both of these men left unique records of the Tonkawa of 1828.

The Mexican boundary party met an aged Tonkawa between the Navidad and Colorado Rivers, probably in present Colorado County, Texas, on 21 April 1828. Sanchez estimates the age of the man at between seventy and eighty years. The elderly Tonkawa wore a piece of deer skin around his waist and a pair of tequs of the same material. The Spaniards, after feeding him, learned that the camp of his brother was nearby. Three of the party, including Berlandier, went to the Tonkawa camp that day. Sanchez and General Terán waited until the following day to visit the camp.

Sanchez recorded what they saw in his diary. They arrived at the Tonkawa camp about eight o’clock in the morning.

It was situated in the center of a thick grove at the entrance of which several horses were tied, apparently all very good. On arriving at the edge of the camp, Losoya, a soldier in our escort, uttered the war cry used by these Indians in battle, and immediately the whole camp was in motion several even started to mount their horses, but as soon as they saw who we were they became quiet. They till came out to see us, and, while the general talked to the chief of the tribe, I examined these Indians about whom I obtained greater information later. Their huts were small and barely numbered thirty, all conical in shape, made of light branches, covered with the same material and occasional buffalo skin. In the center of each is located the fireplace around which lie the male Indians in complete inaction, while the women are in constant motion either curing the meat of the game, or tanning the skins, or preparing the food, which consists chiefly of roast meat, or perhaps making arms for their indolent husbands. The elder women work the hardest because the younger ones have a few moments of rest at the expense of the wretched elders. The men wear ear rings and other ornaments on their neck and hair, made of bone, shells, or showy feathers, while the women wear only black stripes on their mouth, nose, back and breast. On the breast the stripes are painted in concentric circles from the nipple to the base of each breast. They wear nothing but a dirty piece of deer skin around their waist, leaving the rest of their bodies naked, and wearing their hair short. This tribe is small and poor, being composed of eighty families, but they are brave friends of the Lipanes and other tribes found in the vicinity of Nacogdoches and deadly enemies of the Comanches, Tahuacanos (Tawakoni), and Wacos. (Sanchez, 1926, p. 268–70.)

Sanchez also left a visual record of two Tonkawa men and one woman. From his original drawing Sanchez y Tapia later did a watercolor.¹ The drawing shows a woman in a very short skirt and bare painted breasts. One of the men is wearing a long breechclout, and the other man is wearing a shirt over the upper part of his body. The shirt extends down to cover the groin and resembles early leather armor. If it is armor it is one of the last evidences of such garments on the Southern Plains.

¹ Reproduced in Jean Louis Berlandier, The Indians of Texas in 1830, edited by John G. Ewers. Smithsonian Institution Press, 1969, fol. p. 164.

During the next several years the Tonkawas raided white settlements and Indian camps for horses. Occasionally they aided whites in campaigns against other tribes. With their allies, the Lipans, they were reported to be hunting between the Brazos and the Colorado Rivers, probably south of the Camino Real. (Sjoberg, 1953, p. 283.)

After declaring her independence from Mexico on 2 May 1836, the new Republic of Texas immediately faced the problem of dealing with her Indian population. One of the first steps was to survey the new wards. On 12 October 1837, the newly formed Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, chaired by I. W. Burton, sent to President Sam Houston a list of the names and a brief description of the Indians within the borders of Texas. The Tonkawa, Lipan, and Karankawa are lumped together in this survey as part of Mexico and “no longer to be considered as a different People from that nation.” The location of these tribes is given as the western part of Texas. (Winfrey, 1966, vol. 1, p. 28–29.)

On the twenty-second of the following month the Republic reversed its attitude toward the Tonkawa and entered into a treaty with them, setting up a trading agent who would control the intercourse between the Tonkawa and the people of Texas. This control included licensing traders who wanted to deal with the Indians. The treaty appointed Nathanial Lewis as trading agent. The signers were Ouchcala, Gosata, and Harshokena for the Tonkawa and Henry W. Karnes, Indian Commissioner, for Texas. (Ibid., p. 49.)

Five months later the Texas government entered into another treaty with the Tonkawas. In Houston on 10 April 1838, Secretary of War Barnard E. Bee and Colonel George W. Hockley met with General Campos, Colonel Oquin, and Placido Benvido to sign a treaty of peace and amity between Texas and the Tonkawa. It allowed the government to appoint an agent to deal not only with trade but also with all facets of tribal business. During the following years the agent’s duties devolved to simply trying to keep the Tonkawa out of the white settlements. The treaty also contained the usual stipulations against killing or stealing livestock. After the treaty was signed, Secretary Bee authorized the expenditure of twenty dollars for a beef to be given to the Tonkawa delegates, and they were sent back home. (Ibid., pp. 46–49.)

On 22 August 1843, William Bollaert, an English traveler, met a Tonkawa man near the Colorado River and wrote an account of this encounter. The young man was clothed only with a “girdle round his loins and a long narrow strip of cloth hanging before and behind; his body painted with Vermillion, ….” (Hollon, 1956, p. 188.) The Tonkawa was making a cabresto, a rope of the mane of a mustang, for a local settler. On the same day Bollaert visited the boy’s camp.

The camp was composed of four or five families and was headed by the Tonkawa chief Campos. Most of the people were drying venison and beef over slow fires to preserve it for traveling. Campos informed Bollaert that his people had just returned from a buffalo hunt in the mountains. What mountains he is discussing here is questionable—he may have meant the Edwards Plateau. The chief told Bollaert that he would soon move his camp to the coast so that he could see the ocean and hunt mustangs and deer. (Ibid., p. 189.)

The following day Bollaert visited Bastrop on the Colorado River and in present-day Bastrop County. He noted:

There is only one store for dry goods in the town, and this was full of Tonkeways, bartering their buffalo robes, deer skins, moccasins, etc., for powder, cotton stuffs, beads, and such like finery for their squaws, and an occasional bottle of wiskey from the tippling shop. This last is against executive orders. (Ibid., p. 190.)

Seven years after his visit to Texas, William Bollaert presented a paper entitled “Indian Tribes in Texas” before the Ethnological Society of London. In this paper he expanded some of his early observations on the Tonkawa. He begins by stating that “Toncahuas (Tonkawa), appear to have descended from die Comanches.” (Bollaert, 1850, p. 275.) Aside from this rather faltering start, his narrative about the Tonkawa of the 1840s is of some interest.

Their present chief is named Campo, having some 100 warriors under his command. They roam about the white settlements for protection, and have suffered much from the Comanches. They are very active in fight and “to take to a bush like a Toncahua,” is a common expression. In 1840, they assisted the Texans against the Comanches in fight on Plum Creek, and in an account of this affair, it is stated, that 80 Comanches fell, and that after the affray the Toncahuas busied themselves in cutting up the Comanches, roasting and eating part of their flesh. In another account, headed “The question settled,” particulars are given of a Comanche having been killed by the Toncahuas on the Brushy River, his hands, arms, and thick parts of the thighs were cut off and carried to their camp as a feast for the women and children. The Toncahuas say that all the wild Indian tribes will eat of the flesh of their enemies. The Lipan Indians call the Toncahuas “Man-eaters.” (Bollaert, 1850, p. 275.)

Bollaert’s account points out two problems that would cause the Tonkawa trouble for the next fifty years. The first, and of more immediate consequence, was their need to stay near white settlements for protection and trade. On 14 December 1844, Cambridge Green, agent to the Lipan and Tonkawa, wrote to Thomas G. Western, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, telling him that he. Green, had in February 1844, told the Tonkawa encamped on Cedar Creek to stay out of white settlements. Green had been instructed by Houston to give these orders. (Winfrey, 1966, vol 2, p. 150.)

Two months later, on 12 February 1845, Robert S. Neighbors was given the oath of office as the new agent for the Lipan and Tonkawa. In his letter of instruction to the new agent, Superintendent Western emphasized that “it is absolutely necessary that these Indians (Tonkawa and Lipan) should be removed out of the settlements, as fast as practicable, to this end you will select a Suitable place for their Camps on the St. Marks (San Marcos) Either above or below the San Antonio, ….” (Ibid., p. 159.) After five months in office Neighbors was still receiving letters from Western instructing him to keep the Tonkawa away from white settlements. This situation eventually led to the removal of the Tonkawa from their traditional range to a reservation on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River.

The second problem and of most lasting effect was the Tonkawa appetite for human flesh. This cannibalistic trait seems to have had little effect on whites associated with the Tonkawa. In fact, official reports are unusually silent about it. The Indians on which the Tonkawa fed, usually Comanches, had an entirely different view of it and eventually settled the score by decimating over half the Tonkawa population in 1862.

One Texan who witnessed the Tonkawa eating a Comanche in the 1840s recorded the incident as follows:

The only one I ever witnessed was in Webber’s prairie, the occasion being the killing of a Comanche, one of a party that had been on a horse stealing trip down into Bastrop. They were hotly pursued, and, reasoning about horses as the Chinaman does about boots—that the biggest must naturally be the best—they mounted a warrior on Manlove’s big horse, which was part of the booty, and left him behind as rear guard, while the balance hurried the stolen horses away. The Tonkawas joined in the pursuit and when the pursuers came in sight of the lone rear guardsman three of the most expert Tonks were mounted on the three fleetest horses and sent to dispatch him. This they soon accomplished, his steed being a slow one. After killing and scalping him they refused to continue the chase, saying they must return home to celebrate the event, which accordingly did by a feast and scalp dance. Having fleeced off the flesh of the dead Comanche, they borrowed a big wash kettle from Puss Webber, into which they put the Comanche meat, together with a lot of corn and potatoes—the most revolting mess my eyes ever rested on. When the stew was sufficiently cooked and cooled to allow of its being ladled out with the hands the whole tribe gathered round, dipping it up with their hands and eating it as greedily as hogs. Having gorged themselves on this delectable feast they lay down and slept till night, when the entertainment was conducted with the scalp dance. (Smithwick, 1900, p. 245.)

Anthropophagy or cannibalism was not solely a trait of the Tonkawa in the Western Hemisphere or even in North America. The word cannibal is derived from the corruption of the name of the Carib Indians, who were the scourge of the Antilles when the Spanish first arrived in the New World. In the Eastern United States and Canada the eating of human flesh was associated with war ceremonies. The Miami had a cannibal society in which the members were obligated to eat captives delivered to them. (Mooney, 1901, p. 550.) On the plains the Cheyenne and the Kiowas practiced eating human flesh. In a Cheyenne ceremony the owners of certain shields could lift a taboo by eating the heart of an enemy. The heart was sliced and dried, then pounded into a fine powder. (Grinnell, 1923, pp. 199-200.) Also the Kiowa had a secret brotherhood whose members were pledged to eat the heart of the first enemy they killed in battle. (Mooney, 1901, p. 551.)

The Texas coast and back country seem to have been a stronghold of cannibalistic activity. The Attakapa, Wichita, Lipan, and the Karankawa, as well as the Tonkawa, consumed human flesh. The French captives from La Salle’s expedition witnessed a Karankawa feast. At the San Antonio Mission in 1760, the priests added to the catechism the question “Have you eaten human flesh?” (Ibid., p. 551.)

Why then, if cannibalism was fairly widespread, were the Tonkawa so severely dealt with by their neighbors? One answer is probably that they were not secretive about their practice, and there did not seem to be much ceremonialism surrounding the act. As Smithwick’s description indicates, everyone in the tribe participated—men, women, and children. Also other tribes displeased with the Tonkawas’ cooperation with whites, may have used their cannibalism as an excuse for revenge. The fault with this logic is that Indians often made war on each other without having to excuse it because of the strange habits of their enemies. The issue therefore is cannibalism itself Apparently this had a real and lasting effect on the Plains tribes. Even in recent years in discussing the Tonkawa at the Museum of the Southern Plains Indian at Anadarko, Oklahoma, Indians have expressed a general dislike for them. One woman called them “witches.”

In 1847, three years after Bollaert’s travels through Texas, Colonel Pierce M. Butler and Major M. G. Lewis presented a report on the Indians of Texas and the southwestern prairies to the United States House of Representatives. On 12 September 1845, four months before Texas was admitted to the union, these men had been ordered to negotiate a treaty with Texas Indians. A treaty with seven tribes was signed at Council Springs in Robertson County near the Brazos River on 15 May 1846. (U.S. House Document 76, 1847, p. 2; and Winfrey, 1966, vol. 3, p. 53.) The Tonkawa were then living between the San Marcos and San Antonio Rivers and were under close observation by Agent Neighbors. On 4 February 1846, he noted in a letter to Superintendent Western that the Tonkawa were staying out of white settlements and were traveling to the treaty council called by Butler and Lewis. (Winfrey, 1966, vol. 3, p. 13–14.)

In the Butler-Lewis report to the House of Representatives of their observation in Texas, they describe the Tonkawa as follows:

… the Ton-que-was and Lipans: the first number about seven hundred souls, the latter about one hundred and twenty-five. They reside near San Antonio, in Texas, and have been uniformly the friend and allies of Texans. They rely upon game alone for subsistance; they do not cultivate the soil, or have any stationary place of abode. They are extremely depraved in their habits (this might mean cannibalism); great drunkards, and fond of gambling. Most of them speak the Spanish language with great fluency. The vice of drinking ardent spirits is common only to those two tribes and the lonies, An no dar coes, and Caddos. (U.S. House Document 76, 1847, p. 7.)

Agent Neighbors’ interest in his wards led him into contact with Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, noted ethnohistorian. Through Neighbors, David G. Burnet, ex-President of Texas, began writing to Schoolcraft, On 20 August 1847, Burnet sent him a paper entitled “The Comanche and Other Tribes of Texas and the Policy to be Pursued Respecting Them.” Burnet includes in this paper a brief description of the Tonkawa. He stated that the Tonkawa

… are a separate tribe, having no traceable affinity to any other band of Indians in the country. They are erratic—live on game, and are quite indolent—and often in extremity of suffering. They have generally been friendly to the whites, though often suspected of having stolen horses from the frontier. A few of these accompanied our small army in the campaign against the Cherokees in 1839, and rendered good service. There are about 150 warriors of this tribe—they have usually warred within the limits of our settlements. (Schoolcraft, 1851, vol. 1, p. 239.)

Two years later serious problems began to arise between the Texans and the Tonkawas. In January 1849, it was determined that the Tonkawas had been stealing horses and mules and had killed several citizens, all depredations that had previously been blamed on the “wild Indians.” White officials demanded that all property be restored and that individuals responsible for the thefts and killings be surrendered to white law enforcement officers. Instead of complying, the tribe’s 130 warriors gathered the population, over 650 people, and moved to the upper Brazos. (Catlett, 1850, p. 31.)

During the next five years the Tonkawa remained relatively peaceful, especially when compared to other Plains tribes who were marauding the Texas frontier. In the spring of 1854 the Tonkawa again became a problem. Believing that they were reformed, the Texas governor, E. M. Pease, answering a petition from the citizens of Burnet, Bell, McLennan, and Williamson Counties, acknowledged that the Tonkawa had misused their trusted position and would be removed from white settled areas. Pease advised that if a difficulty arose before the government resettled the Indians, that the Texans should move “… promptly to turn out and punish them (Tonkawas) without waiting for a call from the executive.” (Winfrey, 1866, vol. 3, p. 184–85.)

As part of Pease’s Indian program, Captain R. B. Marcey, United States Army, and R. S. Neighbors, who in 1853 had become supervising agent for all Texas Indians, were sent to the upper Brazos River to survey two Indian reservations. The one chosen for the Tonkawa consisted of 35,424 acres and was located in present Young County. The Tonkawa shared this land with the Caddo, Anadarko, Ioni, and other small tribes. By 1856 there were about 1,000 Indians on the Tonkawa Reserve. (Ibid., vol. 3, p. 193-209 and Hasskarl, 1962, p. 224.)

Between 1856 and the summer of 1859 the Tonkawas on numerous occasions aided Texas Rangers and Federal troops in actions against the Comanches and other hostile tribes. In December 1857, fifteen or twenty Tonkawas accompanied a detachment of the 7th United States Infantry on a scouting expedition through land occupied by Kickapoos. In April of the following year Chief Placido led a hundred Tonkawa and Shawnee scouts for a company of Texas Rangers moving against Comanches on the Canadian River. The Comanche, under Iron Jacket, were overtaken on 12 May 1858, and were defeated in an attack led by the Tonkawa. Iron Jacket was killed in this action. Later the same year the Tonkawa helped the Second Cavalry and Fifth Infantry to locate a Comanche village near present Rush Springs, Oklahoma. During this period the Tonkawa became the hated enemies of the Comanche, Wichita, and Caddo. (Ibid., vol. 3, p. 269.)

FIGURE 1.—Assistant Surgeon Henry McElderry, United States Army. Collector of the Tonkawa material described in this paper. (United States Signal Corps, Photo no. 11-SC-83650 in the National Archives.)

FIGURE 2.—Tonkawa quiver, bow, and arrows.

FIGURE 3.—Tonkawa arrow. (Peabody Museum at Salem, Massachusetts.)

FIGURE 4.—Top, Tonkawa bow; middle, rattle or “haw-whootes”; bottom, girdle.

FIGURE 5.—Tonkawa bow and five arrows. (USNM neg. no. 2053-H.)

FIGURE 6.—Tonkawa trade tomahawk. (USNM neg. no. 2053-D.)

FIGURE 7.—Tonkawa trade tomahawk, detail of head. (USNM neg. no. 2053-E.)

FIGURE 8.—Tinder pouch and striker. (USNM neg. no. 2051-A.)

FIGURE 9.—Tonkawa wooden scraper handle. (USNM neg. no. 2052-F.)

FIGURE 10.—Tonkawa war drum and drum sticks. (USNM neg. no. 2053-F.)

FIGURE 11.—Tonkawa otter skin girdle. (Courtesy of Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.)

FIGURE 12.—Top, Tonkawa head ornament; bottom, head ornament. (USNM neg. no. 2053-B.)

FIGURE 13.—Tonkawa head ornament. (USNM neg. no. 6053-A.)

FIGURE 14.—Tonkawa dolls, front view. Note long breechcloth on doll on the right. (USNM neg. no. 2050-D.)

FIGURE 15.—Tonkawa dolls, back view. (USNM neg. no. 2050-C.)

FIGURE 16.—Tonkawa George Miles, an old army scout and the last Chief of the Tonkawa, died in 1925. Note hair decorations hanging down the left side of his face and the long breechcloth hanging down to his feet. (Courtesy of Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, neg. no. 15272.)

FIGURE 17.—Tonkawa woman, Ocoya, wife of Standing Buffalo. (Courtesy of Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, neg. no. 15247.)

FIGURE 18.—Tonkawa shelter, Ponca Agency, Oklahoma, 1901. (Courtesy of Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, neg. no. 15205.)

FIGURE 19.—-Tonkawa Lamar Richard’s house, Ponca Agency, 1901. (Courtesy of Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, neg. no. 15213.)

MAP 1.—Historic Locations of the Tonkawa Indians.

MAP 2.—Albert Gatschet’s sketch map of the location of the Tonkawa Massacre in 1862. (Smithsonian Office of Anthropology Archives.

MAP 3.—Fort Griffin Reserve, Texas, in 1871, showing the location of the Tonkawa Indian Village near the fort. (Courtesy of The National Archives.)

Because of the increasing hostility between Indians and whites, in August of 1859 Neighbors and agents Samuel A. Blain, S. R. Ross, and Mathew Leeper began removing the Texas tribes across the Red River into Indian Territory. The Tonkawa were sent to the Wichita Reserve near Fort Cobb on the north side of the Washita River. Neighbors appointed Blain to take charge of the consolidated Wichita, Caddo, Tonkawa, and Penateka Comanche agencies. With Leeper and Ross, Neighbors returned to Belknap. Shortly after their arrival Neighbors was murdered allegedly because of his partisanship to the Indians. (Nye, 1943, p. 28.)

In 1860 the Tonkawa continued to scout for Federal troops and Texas Rangers. In the summer of that year, along with a group of Caddos and Wichitas, they accompanied a detachment of Texas Rangers operating from Camp Radziminski in southern Indian Territory. The combined Indian and Ranger force attacked a Kiowa and Comanche camp on the Canadian River in the Oklahoma Panhandle. According to Ranger James Pike, as soon as the fight ended the Tonkawa began roasting and eating some of the slain Comanches. (Ibid., p. 28.)

When the Civil War broke out the Union troops withdrew from Fort Cobb and the Wichita Reservation, but this did not end either the fort or the reserve. Mathew Leeper, Blain’s successor, remained at the agency working for the new government in Richmond. To strengthen the Confederate position among the Plains tribes living in the Leased District, General Albert Pike was sent to arrange a treaty with these people.² By December 1861, he had negotiated two treaties. The Tonkawa seem to have been completely won over to the Southern cause and, even during the final years, remained loyal. (Abel, 1915, vol. 1, p. 199–202.)

² The Wichita agency was located on land leased from the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes.

The year 1862 was the darkest one in the history of the Tonkawa tribe. It began quietly. In January Agent Leeper reported to Superintendent of Indian Affairs Elias Rector that “the Tonkawa have warm comfortable houses made of poles and grass such as they had in Texas. And for the chief I built a good double log house with Chimneys to each room and a hall or passage in the center, in which he now lives.” (Ibid., p. 340.) During the summer friction developed between Leeper and his wards when Indians sympathizing with the North began arriving at the agency. Fearing trouble Leeper moved his family from Indian Territory.

Years of animosity toward the Tonkawa finally came to a head on 23 October 1862. A combined force of Shawnees, Delawares, Kickapoos, Caddos, Comanches, and Kiowas attacked the agency and Tonkawa camp on the south side of the Washita River. The immediate causes of the attacks were apparently the return of Agent Leeper to the agency and the killing of two Shawnees by the Tonkawa.³ (Mooney, 1901, p. 552.)

³ There is some disagreement as to whom the Tonkawa had killed. Nye states that it was a Caddo boy, and Albert S. Gatschet, referring to a statement by R. W. Dunlap, a local trader, says that several hogs belonging to a Shawnee, had been stolen and killed. (Gatschet, 1884, and Nye, 1943, p. 30.)

The attackers fell first on the agency. Its clerk and his two assistants were killed as they sat around a fire inside the main building. Hearing the shots, Horace P. Jones, agency interpreter, who had been sleeping in a nearby house, sprang to a horse and rode to warn Agent Leeper of the danger. A companion of Jones was killed, but Jones rode on toward Texas. Leeper hid in the bushes near his home until the next morning when he was found by friendly Comanches. After killing the four men, the attackers plundered the store and commissary and then burned the buildings to the ground.⁴ (Mooney, 1901, p. 552.)

⁴ Some accounts have Leeper killed during this engagement, see Abel: 184 and Hasskarl: 225, but both Nye and Mooney state that Leeper escaped and in 1875 was corresponding with Colonel R. S Mackenzie at Fort Sill.

Having dealt with the agency, the attackers turned toward the Tonkawa. The 306 Tonkawa under Chief Placido were camping across the Washita River. A few of the young men had left the village to hunt buffalo and had apparently taken most of the arms. The combined force was mounted and carried rifles of the “newest pattern”; they divided their force, and part of them came in from below the camp. At the first hint of daylight they attacked the Tonkawa. When the battle was over 137 men, women, and children lay dead in the ruins of the village, and a number of children had been taken captive. Six years later the Quaker teacher, Thomas Battey, noted that bones and skulls were still visible in the timber around the old camp.⁵ (See Map 2.) (Mooney, 1901, p. 553 and Battey, 1968, p. 58–59.)

⁵ Nye says that the noise from the attack on the agency aroused the Tonkawa, and they began to flee to the east. Thinking they had reached safety they stopped, but the Shawnee and Delaware followed and fell on them. Gatschez also indicates on a crude map in his journal that the massacre did not take place in the Tonkawa camp but a short distance to the east. See Map 2. (Nye, 1943, p. 31 and Gatschez, 1884, p. 156.)

After the massacre the Tonkawa limped south, first to Fort Arbuckle and then to Fort Belknap. They remained at Fort Belknap until shortly after the Civil War. Following the Civil War the results of five years of federal inactivity on the frontier were immediately felt. To aid in solving the growing problems created by the interaction between whites and Plains tribes, the federal government established a chain of forts from Montana to Texas. The founding of Fort Griffin on the Clear Fork of the Brazos in Shackelford County, Texas, was part of this program. On 29 July 1867, a detachment of the Sixth Cavalry, Companies I, K, and L, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Davis Sturgis established Camp Wilson, later to be renamed Fort Griffin. The Tonkawa followed the Army to this new post. (Rister, 1956, p. 59–77.)

On 13 April 1867, four months prior to the establishment of Fort Griffin, the commanding officer of the Post of Jacksborro, an outpost of Fort Belknap, was ordered to take control of the Tonkawa. There were 150 Tonkawa living near Jacksborro who were “suffering for the want of proper attention and supplies.” Although Texas had been given money by the federal government to supply rations to them, the Texans were no longer to be responsible for the Indians and were to return the money to the Army. The order also provided that if the post of Jacksborro were abandoned the Tonkawa were to be moved to Fort Belknap for protection. (Taylor, 1867, Record Group 98, National Archives.)

At the time the 6th Cavalry left Fort Belknap in July 1867, Tonkawas were acting as scouts. They and the rest of the tribe soon moved near Fort Griffin. The fort was located on a hill overlooking the Clear Fork of the Brazos River, while the Indian village lay below the hill on the banks of the river. (See Map 3.) Also accompanying the troops on the move to the new post was Assistant Surgeon D. Henry McElderry, the collector of the Tonkawa ethnological material described later in this paper. (McElderry, 1867, Record Group 94, National Archives.) (See fig. 1.)

At Fort Griffin the Tonkawa continued acting as scouts. Their enthusiasm is pointed out in a letter by their commander.

I have the honor to inform you, that the term of enlistment of the Tonkawa Indian Scouts, expires on the 21st day of January next and respectfully request authority to re-enlist a sufficient number. Owing to the fact that these Indians are always anxious to accompany scouting parties, they are almost as serviceable without being enlisted and I deem fourteen a sufficient number for the wants of this Post. (Whiting, 1870, Record Group 98, National Archives.)

While their men were scouting for the army, the Tonkawa women were finding limited employment at the post and later in the “wild town” below Government Hill. (Rister, 1956, p. 72.)

Events leading up to McElderry’s collecting the Tonkawa ethnological material began in Washington, D.C. on 15 January 1868. George A. Otis, curator of the Army Medical Museum, in an effort to increase the volume of Indian objects in the medical museum, sent the following request to the chief medical officer for the District of Texas.

The Surgeon General has desired me to use every endeavor to augment our collection of Indian Crania, and also of Indian Weapons and implements. I have written to most of the Medical officers in the Indian Country inviting their cooperation in accomplishing this object. I am now writing to the Chief Medical Officers of Districts to urge the matter on their attention, and to request them to command it to the Acting Assistant Surgeons and others, with whom they may come in contact, who would be likely to aid in making such collections.

Besides Crania, Bows & Arrows, War clubs & spears, implements of the chase, etc., we want stone arrowheads, axes & such like memorials of the extinct or fast disappearing tribes. (Otis, 15 January 1868b, p. 167.)

On the same day Otis wrote to Spencer F. Baird, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to request a dozen copies of George Gibbs’ Instructions for Research Relative to the Ethnology and Philology of America, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, No. 160. These, Otis wrote Baird, would be distributed “among the medical officers at the western posts.” (Otis, 15 January 1868b, p. 108.) From the events of the next few months it is reasonable to assume that McElderry received orders from either Otis or Webster regarding making collections of Indian objects in his area. There is also the possibility that he was a recipient of one of the twelve copies of Gibbs’ book.

On 8 June 1868, Otis wrote McElderry acknowledging the receipt of a letter from him advising the Army Medical Museum as to the contents of two boxes of specimens being sent from Fort Griffin. On 13 August Otis wrote McElderry to thank him for the material and to list all items received. Besides the Tonkawa material McElderry included several Comanche items captured at Paint Creek, Texas, in a fight between a band of Kwahari Comanche and a detachment of the Sixth Cavalry. (Otis, 8 June 1868c, p. 327 and Otis, 13 August 1868d, 373.)

Less than six months after the Tonkawa material arrived in Washington, Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, began negotiating to have this collection along with several others made in the west, transferred to the Smithsonian. On 21 January 1869, the surgeon general of the Army approved the transfer of 309 specimens “illustrative of the manners and customs of the Indian of North America and of Indian archaeology,” in the Army Medical Museum in exchange for an undetermined number of specimens “illustrative of human anatomy in the Smithsonian Collection.” (Otis, 21 January 1869, p. 563.) This material was cataloged as part of the Smithsonian collection on 18 February 1869.

McElderry sent the Army Medical Museum a total of sixty-eight items, among which were thirty-seven arrows. Four objects were of zoological interest and were turned over to Bvt. Lieutenant Colonel J. J. Woodward in the comparative anatomy section of the museum. McElderry indicated that a Tonkawa warpipe was sent, but it was not found in the material that arrived in Washington. (Otis, 13 August 1868d, p. 373.)

When the collection was transferred to the Smithsonian, two objects were not included—a buffalo hide that had been dressed and painted and some berries called “Owwah-cholic” by the Tonkawa. These berries were supposed to be the fruit of the Mountain Laurel and were used as medicine and to produce “an exhilaration” during dances. A search for these items was made at the Army Medical Museum in January 1968, but they were not located. Both would have augmented the Tonkawa collection.

Object Description

The following abbreviations are used within this section: NMNH, National Museum of Natural History and MAIC, Museum of the American Indian Catalog.

QUIVER, BOW CASE, BOW, & ARROWS, NMNH-Ethn. 8448 (fig. 2).—The quiver is 68.5 cm in length and is made of mottled cowhide. It is decorated with a fringe at the bottom and top and has seven feathers tied to the top. These feathers are: three flicker (Colaptes auratus), two golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and two wild turkey (Melegagris [pts] qallopave silvestris).⁶ Also at the top are a small (3.5 cm diameter) crudely scalloped concho and a leather thong decorated with red, blue, and yellow beads. Inside the quiver was placed a pouch to protect the bottom of the quiver from the metal arrow points. This pouch is attached to a stick that could be an unfinished arrow. It has three shaft grooves running its length, similar to the other Tonkawa arrows. The stick is notched near the end so that the pouch could be tied to it.

⁶ Feathers identified by Mrs. Roxie G. Laybourne, Zoologist, Bird and Mammal Laboratory, Division of Wild Life Research, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild Life, Department of the Interior.

The bow case is 115 cm long and is made of the same material as the quiver. It is fringed at the top and bottom. The quiver and the bow case are sewed together, and a carrying strap of the same material is sewn between them.

The bow is 114.5 cm long and is made of Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera [raf.] shn.) ⁷ Osage Orange was a preferred wood for bows throughout the Plains, and because of its limited habitat it became an important trade item. (Carlson and Jones, 1939, p. 534.) The bow is a single curve, with a nearly square section. It tapers slightly toward the horns, is single notched on alternate sides, and is strung with four strands of twisted sinew.

⁷ Wood identified by Dr. Richard N. Jorgensen, Principal Wood Technologist, Forest Product Utilization, Research Branch of the Forest Products and Engineering Division, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Three arrows were in the quiver. They are described top to bottom in the figure. The top arrow is 67.2 cm long and .73 cm in diameter. Its metal head is 4.45 cm long and has a serrated shank. The arrowhead is lashed to the shaft with sinew. Three shaft grooves run from the head to the proximal end of the feathers. The feathers are turkey (Meleagris pt. gallopavo silvestris) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura septentrionalis). The shaft is decorated with a narrow blue band and a broad red band. The nock is spreading and the notch is angular.

The middle arrow is 62.9 cm long and averages .67 cm in diameter. The metal head is 4.3 cm long and has a plain shank. The head is tied to the shaft with sinew. Five shaft grooves run from the head to the proximal end of the turkey vulture feathers. The nock is damaged, and the notch seems to be angular. The arrow is completely covered with a blue pigment.

The bottom arrow is 66.4 cm long and averages .67 cm in diameter The metal head is 3.59 cm long and plain shanked. The arrowhead is attached to the shaft with sinew. Three shaft grooves run from the head to proximal end of the feathers. The feathers are turkey vulture and are attached to the shank with sinew and glue. The nock is spreading and the notch is angular. This arrow is also completely covered with a blue pigment.⁸

⁸ In May 1886 an arrow from this accession was given to the Peabody Museum at Salem, Massachusetts. This arrow is pictured in figure 3.

Bow, NMNH-Ethn. 8459 (fig. 4).—The bow was described by McElderry as a “boys bow.” It is made of Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera [raf.] shn.) and is 96.1 cm long. The bow is a single curve. Its section is square and is single notched in alternate sides.

RATTLE OR “HAH-WHOOTHES,” NMNH-Ethn. 8449 (fig. 4).—The rattle with tail is 95 cm long. It is made from one piece of cow’s tail. The rattle end was made by turning the hide inside out and stitching it with sinew. It is decorated with nine blue spots. A short thong, attached to the base of the rattle, probably was used to tie it to the user’s wrist. The Army Medical Museum accession records state that the rattle was employed in “the war dance.” (Army Medical Museum, Indian Curiosities, Item 149.)

GIRDLE, NMNH-Ethn. 8450 (fig. 4).—The girdle is 156 cm long; its width ranges from 2.5 to 3 cm. A fringe 35 cm long is on each end of the girdle, and a small band of red flannel, ornamented with small dark blue and white beads, is at the point where the fringe begins. The girdle is made of three sections of hide tied together with sinew. According to Army Medical Museum accession records the material this girdle is made of is “tanned skin of Comanche Indian.” (Ibid., Item 150.) An analysis of the hide made by Dr. Elson B. Helwig of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology could not conclusively determine the source of the hide, but it does exhibit characteristics of human skin. Pertinent sections of Dr. Helwig’s report are included in footnote below.⁹

⁹ Sections prepared from the specimen which you forwarded, your number 8450/A and AFIP 1268516, can be identified as skin but not as being definitely human. The tissue is altered as seen in a desiccated or tanned specimen. The epithelial cells can be recognized but cell detail is obscured. The epidermis is present in scattered areas and the cells and neclei are shrunken. A keratinized layer is absent and the rete ridges are effaced. No papillary layer is identifiable and irregular bands of fragmented acidophilic staining collagen without recognizable nuclei are present in the corium. A few hair follicles are present that are consistent with those seen in human skin, but the hairs cannot be identified positively as those of the American Indian.

An occasional structure is consistent with that of a shrunken eccrine sweat gland.

Desiccation of a specimen does not prevent species identification by means of a precipitin test but any process leading to coagulation of protein interferes with such a test. The AFIP does not run precipitin tests.

On the basis of the histologic appearance, the skin cannot be recognized as animal skin and is consistent with that of humans.

BOW AND FIVE ARROWS, NMNH-Ethn. 8461 (fig. 5).—The bow is 133.8 cm long and made from Osage Orange. It is a recurve with a section nearly square, is single nocked on alternate sides, and tapers slightly toward the horns. Above one nock is a circular extension 2 cm long. This extension is apparently decorative. It is covered with a tuft of grass. The bow string is of twisted sinew. The five arrows are identical. They are 69.5 cm long and average .72 cm in diameter. They are mounted with metal heads that are 6 cm. long, and the head is tied to the arrow with sinew. The arrowheads have serrated shanks. The arrows all have three shaft grooves that run from the head to the proximal end of the feathering. Each arrow has three feathers which are wild turkey and turkey vulture. The shaftments are decorated with narrow red bands, broad blue bands, and narrow yellow bands. The nock is spread and whipped with sinew, and the notch is angular.

TOMAHAWK, NMNH-Ethn. 8454 (figs. 6 and 7).—The overall length of the tomahawk is 51.3 cm. The height, referring to the vertical dimension of the head, is 15 cm, and the width, the widest point on the blade, is 6.5 cm. The head is a simple or belt axe. (Peterson, 1965, p. 18–21.) It is stamped “SHEFFIELDWORK J. English & H. & P. Huber.” The use of the name Sheffieldwork seems to be an attempt by American cutlery manufacturers to benefit from the high regard for steel made in Sheffield, England. Both Huber and English were producing knives in Philadelphia in the late 1830s and 1840s. (Peterson, 1958, p. 160, 162, and 167.) The poll of the head is perforated and threaded. It was apparently made to be used on a pipe-tomahawk. The head is attached to the haft with two square nails, one driven in the eye and the other through the threaded perforation in the poll. The haft is highly decorated. It is wrapped with alternating bands of red broadcloth and gold velvet. The beading midway in the haft is made up of eight rows of blue and clear beads. A similar design is repeated at the butt with larger beads. The streamer attached to the butt of the haft is made up of one feather from an adult Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetis) and a strip of red broadcloth 49 cm long and 14 cm wide. This fabric is folded once and to it are attached six locks of hair, which are not human. A hand tie has been attached near the butt of the haft.

TINDER POUCH, NMNH-Ethn. 8448 (fig. 8).—This tinder pouch was once attached to the above described quiver and bow case. In 1893 Otis Tufton Mason used this item to illustrate an article in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution and his illustration shows the tinder pouch tied between the quiver and bow case. (Mason, 1894, plate 86.) The pouch is made from processed leather and is 11 cm high and 8 cm wide. It is decorated with fringe around the bottom and white beads around the outer edge. The strap over the top of the pouch is slit to enable it to fit over a small German Silver concho on the front. The pouch contains a steel “strike-a-light” and according to Mason it also contained a flint in 1893.

WOODEN SCRAPER HANDLE, NMNH-Ethn. 8460 (fig. 9).—The overall length of the scraper is 64.9 cm. It is L-shaped and the scraper leg of the L is 27.5 cm and the handle leg is 37.4 cm. The maximum diameter is 5.48 cm and from this maximum the handle tapers down to 1.33 cm. The wood it is made from is Hard Elm (Ulmus species), and according to Dr. Richard Jorgensen, wood technologist from the Forest Service, the L shape was achieved by bending the wood. He bases this conclusion on the fact that the wood shows signs of compression failure in the bend. McElderry indicated to Otis that the Tonkawa called this type of scraper “Wharts-how” and that it was used in dressing the hides of deer and buffalo.

WAR DRUM AND DRUM STICK, NMNH-Ethn. 8453 (fig. 10).—The drum is 10 cm in height and 46 cm in diameter. The shell is a bent hoop of wood. It has two rawhide heads that are stretched over the hoop and stitched together with sinew. The obverse side of the drum, side seen in the figure, is decorated with a green border around the edge of the head. Circling the inner edge of this border are sixteen red dots; connecting these dots is a series of small black dots. Extending in from the top and bottom of the drum head are two parallel rows of large black dots. There are four black dots in each line with two lines at the bottom and two at the top. The reverse side has a green band running through the center of the head. This band is wider on the two edges than in the middle. A twisted thong is attached to the shell forming a loop handle. The drum stick is now broken, but when the piece was collected the handle was 27.4 cm long and had a head of stuffed deer skin. The handle of the drum stick is wrapped with deer hide and decorated with pin heads.

GIRDLE, MAIC images (fig. 11).—The girdle is made of otter skin and is 244 cm long and 1.7 cm wide. There are bead decorations 30.5 cm in from each end of the girdle. The beads are strung over a piece of red flannel and are white and dark blue. This item and an arrow described earlier were given to the Peabody Museum at Salem, Massachusetts, in May of 1886. The girdle was later transferred to the Museum of the American Indian in New York City.

HEAD ORNAMENT, NMNH-Ethn. 8446 (fig. 12), overall length 88 cm.—This head ornament is of twisted and braided hair and on one end has two strands of beads which are dark blue and white, alternating every fourth bead. On the other end is a cloth tie. The braided hair is decorated by small metal clasps. This type of head decoration was tied in the hair on the top of the head and allowed to hang down the side of the face.

HEAD ORNAMENT, NMNH-Ethn. 8447 (fig. 12), length 23.5 cm (tie and decorated bob not included).— The head ornament is a leather strip to which are attached 16 German Silver conchos. The conchos range in size from 1.04 cm to 1.91 cm and are arranged in a size progression. Each concho has two perforations through which sinew is passed and then stitched to the leather backing. At one end of the ornament is a small beaded rosette or bob made of blue, white, and transparent beads. On the opposite end is a small fluff of blue feathers and a short leather thong. The thong was used to tie the ornament in the hair similar to the above item.

HEAD ORNAMENT, NMNH-Ethn. 8456 (fig. 13).— The ornament is the leg of a young Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus). There is evidence of a red pigment on the talons of the foot.

DOLL, NMNH-Ethn. 8444 (figs. 14 and 15), 9 cm high.—The doll is apparently a male. It has leather leggings that are fringed along the outside seam. Blue, white, pink, red, and green beads cover the front of the leggings. There is a suggestion of a hatch design in the beading, but this is not clear. The breechclout is of printed cloth and hangs longer than the length of the doll’s legs.¹⁰ Around the waist is a maroon sash that hangs down as long as the breechclout. The shirt is brown broadcloth decorated with white beads which are arranged in a series of short lines, running up the arms of the shirt and across the front yoke. Around the doll’s neck is a necklace of blue and white beads. The head is featureless except for a prominent nose. The eyes are two short lines marked on each side of the nose. At the point of the ears is a set of bead earrings with small metal amulets at the tips. The hair and scalp of the doll were found to be Mongoloid. According to the information sent with material by McElderry, the hair is Comanche.

¹⁰ Long breechclouts were typical of the Tonkawa. See figure 16; also Sjorberg, 1953, p. 288; and Newcomb, 1961, p. 137.

DOLL, NMNH-Ethn. 8445 (figs. 14 and 15), 10 cm high.—This doll apparently is also male. It has red flannel leggings that are tight around the legs and flare out along the outside seam. The leggings are decorated with rows of white beads running around the front of the legs. The breechclout is printed fabric and hangs down longer that the legs. The doll’s shirt is brown broadcloth. Its only decoration is a metal band around the upper part of the left arm. Circling the neck is a two strand necklace of blue and white beads. The ear decoration is of the same beads. Only one ear still has a bead decoration hanging from it, but the string for beading is attached to the other ear. The only feature of the face is a large pointed nose. The hair hangs in two braids down each side of the face. These braids are decorated with white string and red flannel. The hair is Mongoloid, On the top of the head is a string of four white beads topped with a strip of red flannel.

Conclusions

Because of their geographical location in historic times (between the Great Plains and the Gulf Coast) and because of the relative paucity of ethnological data on this tribe, the Tonkawa have been differently classified by various scholars. George P. Murdock has grouped the Tonkawa with the Atakapa, Karankawa, Coahuilteco, and Tamaulipeco tribes (living along the Gulf of Mexico from southwestern Louisiana to northeastern Mexico, and inland) and therefore in a Gulf Culture. (Murdock, 1960, p. 295, and map opp. p. 293.) Doubtless he was influenced by Alfred L. Kroeber’s earlier grouping of these same tribes under a classification of South Texas: Northwest Gulf Coast. (Kroeber, 1939, pp. 70–73.) Kroeber, however, evidenced considerable uncertainty about his own classification of the Tonkawa. In his description of the Southern Plains tribes he stated “the Tonkawa may have belonged here rather than in the South Texas area, at some time in their career.” (Ibid., p. 79.)

More recently William W. Newcomb, Jr., influenced by the concise summary of cultural data on the Tonkawa compiled by Sjoberg (1953), as well as his understanding of the archeology and cultural history of the central Texas region, has classed the Tonkawa as a Plains Indian tribe. (Newcomb, 1961, p. 134.)

The data presented in the preceding pages of this paper appear to support the classification of Sjoberg and Newcomb and the second thoughts of Kroeber, rather than Murdock’s grouping of the historic Tonkawa with the tribes of the Gulf Coast.

De Mezieres’ classic statement of the importance of the buffalo to the Tonkawa in the third quarter of the 18th century, as well as the tribe’s early acquisition of horses and their apparent use of them in warfare and hunting, certainly ally the Tonkawa economically with the nomadic tribes of the Southern Plains to the northwest of them. On the other hand, there is no indication that the Tonkawa employed watercraft or depended upon the resources of the sea as did the Karankawans to the south. Nor were the Tonkawa compelled to utilize the sparse animal and vegetable resources of the desert as were the Coahuiltecan tribes who lived to the southwest and remained footmen. If the Tonkawa depended upon deer to a much greater extent than did the Southern Plains tribes during the early nineteenth century, this probably was due to the historic contraction of the buffalo range, the expansion southeastward of the Comanche, and Tonkawa fear of meeting numerically superior Comanche parties on hunting excursions to the northwest, rather than to any decrease in Tonkawa desire for buffalo. This desire had to be tempered by the realities of their unfavorable military position vis-a-vis the aggressive Comanche. Certainly, also, the American settlers’ invasion of Tonkawa territory as early as the 1820s was disruptive of traditional Tonkawa culture as well as conducive to the decline both in numbers and in importance of this relatively small tribe.

My study of the small collection of Tonkawa artifacts collected in 1868 appears to support the argument for Tonkawa inclusion with the tribes of the Southern Plains in cultured classifications. Significantly, the Osage orange bows of the Tonkawa in this collection are identical in material and similar in length and in details of manufacture to a Comanche bow in the U.S. National Museum, which is known to have been captured from a Comanche camp by the U.S. Army in that same year of 1868. (Jones, 1968, p. 44.) These are the short bows of an equestrian people. They contrast sharply with the long red cedar bows of the Karankawan footmen described by Gatschet as extending from the feet to the chins or eyes of the physically taller Karankawa warriors. (Gatschet, 1891, 12.)

The narrow bands of beadwork appearing on some of the Tonkawa specimens appear to ally this woman’s craft with that of the Comanche and Kiowa to the north. And the large double-headed drum is of a type found among Plains Indians in the late historic period.

Nevertheless, other articles in this collection appear to be Tonkawan variants of typical Plains Indian artifacts or to be, so far as is known, rather uniquely Tonkawan. The long-armed wooden skin dressing tool differs from the L-shaped, adze-like scraper of wood or antler employed by Plains Indians from Texas to Alberta. The men’s decorations attached to the hair at the top of the head and hanging down the cheek appear to be Tonkawan variants of Southern Plains accessories to costume. The long breechclout reaching virtually to the ground (pictured in the photograph of the dolls as well as in the portrait of George Miles, taken four decades after the dolls were collected, figures 14, 15, and 16), seems to have been both a peculiar and a persistent Tonkawan trait. Whether it was worn only on ceremonial or dress occasions, we do not know. But this lengthy garment would appear to be an impediment to an active hunter or warrior in the field.

Finally, the probable use of human skin for making a girdle seems to add support to the unsavory reputation of the Tonkawa for cruel treatment of their enemies, a reputation which was based primarily upon their practice of cannibalism. As I have indicated, however, the Tonkawa were not unique among the tribes of Texas for this trait. Neighboring tribes of the Southern Plains, as well as the coastal Karankawans, and the Caddo of the Louisiana-Texas frontier also ate their enemies, or selected portions of them, though perhaps less openly than did the Tonkawa.

It appears most proper to classify these longtime residents of Texas, whose survivors now reside in Oklahoma, as a marginal Plains Indian tribe. This study of a collection of Tonkawa artifacts, as well as a review of the ethnohistorical record of the tribe, contribute to the conclusion.

Literature Cited

ABEL, ANNIE HELOISE

1915. The American Indian as slaveholder and secessionist. Cleveland.

BARKER, EUGENE

1922a. The Austin Papers. American Historical Association Annual Report, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 702.

1922b. The Austin Papers. American Historical Association Annual Report, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 1607.

BATTEY, THOMAS C.

1968. The life and adventure of a Quaker among the Indians. Norman, Oklahoma.

BOLLAERT, WILLIAM

1850. Observations on the Indian tribes in Texas. Ethnological Society of London Transactions. London.

BOLTON, HERBERT EUGENE

1914a. Athanase de Mézières and the Louisiana-Texas frontier, 1768–1780. Cleveland.

1914b. The founding of the missions on the San Gabriel River, 1745–1749. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 323–378.

CARLSON, GUSTAV G., and JONES, VOLNEY H.

1939. Some notes on uses of plants by the Comanche Indians. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, vol. 25, pp. 517–542.

CATLETT, CAPTAIN H. G.

1850. Annual Report of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1849–1850. Washington.

DAVENPORT, SAMUEL

1809. Numero premero noticia de los Nacienes Indios de la Proviacia de Texas. Copied from Provincia Interna, vol. 201, pp. 203–205 in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

DUNN, WILLIAM EDWARD

1914. The Apache mission on the San Saba River: Its founding and failure. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 379–414.

GATSCHET, ALBERT SAMUEL

1884. Tonkawa, Ms. no. 8001, Smithsonian Office of Anthropology, Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

1891. The Karankawa Indians, the coast people of Texas. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD

1923. The Cheyenne Indians, their history and ways of life. New Haven.

HASSKARL, ROBERT A.

1962. The culture and history of the Tonkawa Indians. Plains Anthropologist, vol. 7, no. 18, pp. 217–231.

HEITMAN, FRANCIS B.

1903. Historical register and dictionary of the United States Army. Washington.

HODGE, FREDERICK WEBB

1910. Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico, vol. 2. Washington.

HOIJER, HARRY

1949. An analytical dictionary of the Tonkawa language. University of California Publication in Linguistics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–74.

HOLLON, W. EUGENE, and BULTER, RUTH LAPHAM

1956. William Bollaert’s Texas. Norman, Oklahoma.

JACKSON, DONALD

1966. The journals of Zebulon Montgomery Pike, with letters and related documents. Norman, Oklahoma.

JELKS, EDWARD B.

1962. The Kyle site: A stratified central Texas aspect site in Hill County, Texas. Archeology Series no. 5, Austin, Texas.

JONES, WILLIAM K.

1968. Three Kwahari Comanche weapons captured by the Army at Paint Creek, Texas, March 6, 1868. Great Plains Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31–47.

KROEBER, ALFRED LOUIS

1939. Cultural and natural areas of native North America. University of California Press, Berkeley.

LEWIS, ANNA

1924. La Harpe’s first expedition in Oklahoma. Chronicles of Oklahoma, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 331-349.

MCELDERRY HENRY

1967. Henry McElderry, assistant surgeon. Fort Griffin, Texas, to brevet major general J. K. Barnes, surgeon general U.S. Army, July 31, 1867, personal receipts, letters, and orders pp. 482–83, Record Group 94, National Archives.

MASON, OTIS TUFTON

1894. North American bows, arrows, and quivers. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, July 1893. Washington.

MOONEY, JAMES

1901. Our last Cannibal tribe. Harper’s Monthly Magazine, vol. 103, pp. 550–555.

1928. The aboriginal population of America north of Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, vol. 80, no. 7.

MURDOCK, GEORGE PETER

1960. Ethnographic bibliography of North America. New Haven.

NEWCOMB, WILLLAM W.

1961. The Indians of Texas: from prehistoric to modern times. Austin.

NYE, WILBUR STURTEVANT

1942. Carbine and lance: The story of old Fort Sill. Norman, Oklahoma.

OTIS, GEORGE A.

1868a. George A. Otis, curator Army Medical Museum, to Spencer F. Braird, assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, January 15, 1868, official correspondence Spencer F. Braird, vol. 37, p. 108, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington.

1868b. George A. Otis, curator Army Medical Museum, to Warren Webster, chief medical officer. District of Texas, Galveston, Texas, January 15, 1868, Letter Book no. 3, p. 167, surgeon general’s office, Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Archives, Washington.

1868c. George A. Otis, curator Army Medical Museum, to Henry McElderry, assistant surgeon. Fort Griffin, Texas, June 8, 1868, Letter Book no. 3, p. 327, surgeon general’s office. Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Archives, Washington.

1868d. George A. Otis, curator Army Medical Museum, to Henry McElderry, assistant surgeon, Fort Griffin, Texas, August 13, 1868, Letter Book no. 3, p. 373, Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Archives, Washington.

1869 George A. Otis, curator Army Medical Museum, to Joseph Henry, secretary of Smithsonian Institution, January 21, 1869, Letter Book no. 3, p. 563, Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Archives, Washington.

PADILLA, JUAN ANTONIO

1919. Texas in 1820. Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 56–57.

PETERSON, HAROLD L.

1958. American Knives: The first history and collectors guide. New York.

1965. American Indian tomahawks. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. New York.

RISTER, CARL COKE

1956. Fort Griffin on the Texas frontier. Norman, Oklahoma.

SÁNCHEZ, JOSÉ MARIA

1926. A trip to Texas in 1828. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 249–288.

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY ROWE

1851. Historical and statistical information respecting the history, condition, and prospects of the Indian tribes of the United States. Philadelphia.

SIBLEY, JOHN

1832. Historical sketches, communication of 1805 in American State Papers, vol. 1, p. 723.

1922. A report from Natchitoches in 1807. Indian Notes and Monographs. New York.

SJOBERG, ANDREE F.

1953. The culture of the Tonkawa: A Texas Indian tribe. Texas Journal of Science, vol. 5, pp. 280–304.

SMITH, CAPTAIN BRUCE H.

1968. Captain Bruce H. Smith, director of Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, to William K. Jones, April 30, 1968, personal correspondence.

SMITH, RALPH A.

1959. Account of the journey of Bernard de la Harpe discovery made by him of several nations situated in the West. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 375–76.

SMITHWICK, NOAH

1900. The evolution of a state or recollections of old Texas days. Austin.

SWANTON, JOHN REED

1952. The Indian tribes of North America. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145, Washington.

TAYLOR, A. H. M.

1867. A.H.M. Taylor, second lieutenant, headquarters. District of Texas, Galveston, Texas, to commanding officer, post of Jacksboro, Texas, April 13, 1867, Records of United States Army Commands, Record Group 98, National Archives, Washington.

UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL MUSEUM

—— Indian curiosities, catalog, section 6, Medical Museum of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Archives, Washington.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1847. Texas Indians—Report of Messrs. Butler and Lewis, no. 76, 29th Congress, 2d session, Washington.

UNITED STATES TERRITORIAL PAPERS

1820. Arkansas Territorial Archives, vol. 19, p. 198.

WHITING, CHARLES J.

1870. Charles J. Whiting, headquarters, Fort Griffin, Texas, to assistant adjutant general, Department of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, November 29, 1870. Records of United States Army Commands, Record Group 98, National Archives, Washington.

WINFREY, DORMAN H., and DAY, JAMES M.

1966. The Indian papers of Texas and the Southwest: 1825–1916. Austin.