Donald E. Sheppard’s DeSoto Trail Theory Debunked
By Dan Murff ã 2007 All Rights Reserved
Introduction
When I first encountered
Mr. Sheppard’s website, years ago, I was primarily indifferent to the apparent inconsistencies and errors of his version,
believing it to be harmless. Recently, however, my opinion changed, given the expansion of the site to include the focus on
educating children and teens, and its seemingly popular acceptance. The site has even been recognized as a Lycos Top 5%, receiving
a 90 out of 100 for content. I find it hard to believe that Lycos has done a sufficient investigation of the content to speak
to its accuracy and integrity.
I now find it imperative
that the shortcomings of his hypothesis be addressed. False and distorted history serves no proper purpose.
First, I would like
to express my respect for Mr. Sheppard for his hard work and dedication to this important historical subject. He has created
a website full of sources of information for the study of the early history of the Southeastern United States.
Regrettably, after all of his toil, Sheppard’s account of the de Soto Trail through northwest Alabama, western
Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, is simply and completely, not true! When one glances at the web pages
of www.floridahistory.com and its companion sites, following the links without question, it may appear on the surface that
he has uncovered and presented the true and accurate account of de Soto’s explorations.
Not so fast.
A cursory examination
of the “facts” supporting his conclusions immediately raises questions, which, investigated further, show the
complete and utter failure of his hypothesis regarding this portion of the “trail.” (I have not thoroughly analyzed
the route prior to Mavila as presented by Sheppard)
It must be said that
the evidence available is far too imprecise to “precisely” set forth de Soto’s trail from southern Alabama
on. What follows will not seek to do so, but will endeavor to refute the claimed specificity of the Sheppard theory, along
the way citing more plausible alternatives.
Mr. Sheppard states
in his epilogue:
“As for other DeSoto Trail Theories put forth over the years, one might simply note their want of precision. Desoto
simply traveled roads which are highways today, between places which are cities today, and timed his movements to take advantage
of various moon phases. Not one other DeSoto Trail Theory approaches the detail of this report. In fact, since the publication
of this thesis in 1994, not one scholar has publicly challenged any part of it.”
I submit that each
scholar who supports the only other published conclusion - that de Soto’s army traversed and wintered in Mississippi,
and found the Mississippi River at or south of Memphis - is tacitly challenging the Sheppard route.
Though I have never
been referred to as a scholar, I will attempt to expose some of the deficiencies of Mr. Sheppard’s Theory.
The Hierarchy Of Evidence
The definitive evidence we have of de Soto’s expedition is the contemporaneous writings of those men who were
actually part of the expedition. The Inca narrative, however, is less reliable mainly because of its hearsay nature, but
also due to the poetic and epic nature of his writings. Inca’s information was garnered from post-entrada interviews
apparently based solely upon the memories of some members. Upon comparing his work to other chroniclers, it is obviously embellished.
Portions of it, however, smack of accuracy, and much of it can be used to bolster the other narratives.
Second in order of importance is the topography of the land and rivers, and the topographical maps. The next level
of evidence is a hodgepodge of archaeology, Native American history, de Soto’s state of mind, historical maps and a
variety of other evidentiary categories.
Since all evidence is not equal, we must evaluate that available with this hierarchy in mind.
Additionally, none of the above is of much value unless we analyze it with a dispassionate, critical mind, unclouded
with preconceptions and agendas.
And above all, unsupported speculation has no place in this type of analysis unless it is clearly disclosed.
Form Over Substance
One should not allow
the “bells and whistles” of Sheppard’s websites to overshadow the lack of factual and conclusive substance
required of a scholarly historical account. Especially in today’s cyber world, we must avoid being too hasty in accepting
as fact information that would not hold up under thoughtful scrutiny.
Purported Tennessee River Crossing
Sheppard claims that de Soto rode 40 miles on horseback at night under a near full moon, after crossing the Tennessee
River, to David Crockett State Park, as the 30 Lancers had done in Florida. This is highly improbable. The lancers did it
over trails they had become familiar with, whereas DeSoto had never seen this route. Any Indian guides he may have had with
him would have had to ride double with one of the horsemen, or become accomplished equestrians. This is unlikely in the amount
of time available, and there is no evidence Indians were trained as horsemen. At the time of first European contact, this
land was covered with near impenatrable forest. The natives had carved out trails on foot which would not have cleared enought
space vertically for horse and rider. Riding along such paths with limbs and vines clotheslineing the horses and riders would
have been reckless at best. Moreover, even during a full moon, the canopy in most areas would have obliterated the light and
made movement virtually impossible.
Mr. Sheppard dismisses the Tombigbee River as not big enough to be the river of the Chickasaws as described by the
chronicles. (This, by the way, is the only geographical evidence Sheppard uses to continue the expedition northward to Tennessee,
but it is based on unreliable information.) Rangel states the river was “overflowing its bed.” Biedma and Elvas
are silent. Inca, in his fashion, creates an epic description of the river and the battle to cross, completely contrary to
Rangel, thus rendering his account useless. He describes the river with high banks, which contradicts Rangel’s description
of it having overflowed its bed. If the river were of any real consequence, the other three most likely would have informed.
Sheppard overly relies on the discredited Inca account in order to support his northbound route hypothesis.
By Sheppard’s proposed route the Tennessee River would have been the largest river the army had seen to that
time, and according to USGS data, the third largest river encountered on the entire route! I have seen the Tennessee River at the location claimed by Sheppard, and if it had been
encountered, the chroniclers would have described it with greater detail, most likely comparing its size with some
large European river.
Mr. Sheppard places
the caveat “not over its banks” in his account, as if limiting the meaning of the phrase “overflowing its
bed.” Frankly, that distinction is lost on me. I know of only one meaning of the word overflowing, with regards to a
river: That is, flowing over its banks and into the surrounding countryside.
According to Ranjel,
Biedma and Elvas, the craftsmen made only one vessel to cross. This indicates a relatively narrow river -- not needing to
build multiple boats as would have been required for the larger Tennessee. When they crossed the “Great River”,
they made four vessels for fewer men, animals and equipment.
Some horsemen were
dispatched upstream to swim the river (Rangel). The Tennessee River, if flooded, would have been virtually impossible for
a horse and rider to swim successfully.
Maps give
clues to the question. The 16th century map attributed to Alonso de Santa Cruz shows many of the towns and
villages visited by the expedition, spaced relative to the description in the chronicles, AND showing the rivers. Published
not too long after the expedition, the map indicates the Chickasaw villages to be about where they were in the 18th
and 19th centuries. [Note the C’s on this map resemble lowercase R’s]
Here the Mississippi
river appears to turn eastward, and what may be the Tennessee joins her, both flowing east/west. Another interesting note
is some of the towns described by the chroniclers while in eastern Tennessee are on the map between those rivers. That would
indicate DeSoto learned from the Indians that rivers there drained west and fed the Mississippi. He was probably on the upper
reaches of the Tennessee when he encountered those villages.
The most important
point to this inquiry, however, is that the Chickasaw towns are not shown where Sheppard claims they were located.
Some things very crucial
to Mr. Sheppard’s northern route hypothesis, missing on this map, are lake Michigan, the Ohio River, the Wabash River,
and any other geographical indication that the expedition reached any place north of the 36th degree of latitude.
Why would the maker
of a map so apparently complete disregard such a large part of the terrain? It is quite safe to presume they were never there,
so were unaware of its features! Moreover, notwithstanding early cartographer’s propensity to place known features on
maps quickly, Lake Michigan would not be depicted on maps until the late 17th century.
Location of the Chickasaws and Chakchiumas
The Chickasaws
Sheppard further speculates that the Chickasaw
Indians moved south and west from the Lawrenceburg, Tennessee area along with a general movement of Native American Tribes
displaced by white encroachment. This is how he rationalizes the later European explorers' finding them at their northeast,
Mississippi location.
As early as 1650, Chickasaws were living at villages just north and west of present-day Tupelo, Mississippi, at the headwaters of the
Tombigbee. This is where every mapmaker who placed the tribe, until its removal in the 19th century, located them.
There is a migration
legend of the Chickasaw, prior to their encounter with de Soto, which stated the tribe moved with their cousins the Choctaw
to the east across the Mississippi River, into what is now Alabama, and then immediately moved back to what is now Mississippi.
Old Town near Tupelo, was the location where Chickasaw legend recorded the "pole stood erect, & there they pitched their town and home."
The web page
of the McClung Museum of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville has this to say. “The Chickasaw controlled western Tennessee, but there is no archaeological or historical evidence that they used the
area for more than hunting.”
The following is an
excerpt of the Conference of U.S. representatives, and Chickasaw and Choctaw chiefs at Nashville, August 1792. The speaker
is the war chief Piomingo.
Piamongo. --- I will describe
the boundaries of our lands: It begins on the Ohio, at the ridge which divides the waters of Tennessee and Cumberland, and
extends with that ridge, eastwardly, as far as the most eastern waters of Elk river; thence to the Tennessee, at an old field,
where part of the Chickasaws formerly lived...
This “old field” can be found
just south of Huntsville, Ala., as an island on the Tennessee River. The fact that only a small portion of the Chickasaws
lived there supports the conclusion that the main tribe was always in northeast Mississippi. This could have been the place
where the legend indicated they stopped on their eastern journey before moving back to northeast Mississippi.
Sheppard speculates that the army marched 80 miles in 5 days from Tuscaloosa to Muscle Shoals, and then de Soto rode
on horseback 40 miles after crossing the river (arriving late that night, 4 nights after the full moon).
Elvas describes the
land as “very well peopled, the population being spread out as was that of Mavila. It was fertile and abounding in Maize…”
not sitting on a narrow hill, flanked by ravines, like David Crockett Park. By contrast, the Chickasaw’s historical
location around present-day Tupelo, Mississippi has dozens of sites that fit the chronicler’s description.
Further speculation
by Sheppard supposes that the Chicaca’s were masters of an Alibamo tribe of Nashville and Nicalasa’s tribe in
Huntsville. There is absolutely no evidence cited for this theory. We simply do not know where these chiefs were located.
Sheppard’s
blatantly unfounded statement, “Today we know that the "Chicasa" lived due
north of Tuscaloosa near Chickasaw Old Fields, in Southern Tennessee…” is the height of irresponsibility, and devoid of any independent supporting evidence.
The Chakchiumas
In his rambling and largely unsubstantiated “The Final Report Of The Official Commission,” Sheppard speculates,
but offers no evidence, that the "Sacchuma Tribe" was in Northeast Mississippi. All historical accounts indicate this tribe,
commonly referred to as Chakchiuma, were in central Mississippi, on the Yazoo River, between the Chickasaw and the Choctaw.
As with the Chickasaw and the “Alabamo” tribes, Sheppard contends the "Sacchuma" moved south and west after the
16th century.
Live Oaks? Ash Trees?
A very interesting
point in Sheppard’s story is the evidence he used to locate the 1540-41 winter camp specifically at David Crockett State
Park. He takes the Inca account in its entirety, including the description of the north/south orientation of the hill and
the presence of live oaks near the site.
Live oaks do not grow,
and it is unlikely they have ever grown, in Tennessee. The conditions are not right. The live oak, quercus virginiana, is a beautiful evergreen oak tree, which grows well in sandy soil
in southern coastal areas. Therefore this description was misplaced. I believe this was most likely a description of a village in the Mavila area, a place
in which the conditions for the growth of live oaks was favorable.
Sheppard uses as evidence
ash timbers found in an old mill to support his Crockett location, since Rangel cites good ash trees in the area, but ash
trees are indigenous to virtually the entire eastern half of the United States. Being comprised of good, strong wood, ash
trees were often used in such a capacity.
Exiting Chicaca Country
Mr. Sheppard would
like the reader to believe de Soto traveled to the North upon leaving Chicaca, but Biedma points them Northwest.
Sheppard furthermore claims the Alimamu Indians were from Nashville. This is pure speculation, contrary to the clear
statements of the historians. Two chroniclers identify the Indians at Alimamu as being Chicaca warriors. Inca makes much of
it, as is his way, but this is confirmed by Elvas. The following is quoted from the Elvas narrative. “The cacique (of
Chicaca) came to offer himself to him (de Soto), together with his person, land and vassals. He said that he would cause two
caciques to come in peace. A few days afterward, they came to him accompanied by their Indians, one being named Alimamu and
the other Nicalasa.” Alimamu was one of the Chickasaw chiefs or a vassal!
Further quoting Elvas, “On April 25th, he left Chicaca and went to sleep at small village called Alimamu.”
The village was very close to Chicaca and could not have been part of a purported tribe living at present day Nashville.
Upon leaving Alimamu,
the Elvas account states they traveled seven days crossing MANY swamps, several by swimming, and through thick woods. This
matches the terrain from present day Tupelo, Mississippi, westward over the hills, and then through the low-lying delta, to
the Mississippi River, as it was prior to English settlement. It does not match the terrain north from Lawrenceburg to the
Ohio River.
The last, but perhaps
not the least, point supporting the theory that the Alimamu were part of Chickasaws is their spirit. They stood up to the
conquistadors as they were leaving the country, merely to test themselves against them. This is classic historical Chickasaw
bravery. During historic times, no tribe east of the Mississippi was more feared or more successful against opponents of greater
number. They also caused de Soto’s men more loss with fewer casualties than any other tribe, while never acceding to
the army’s demands.
Purported Ohio River crossing
Both Rangel and Biedma recounted that the Great River was almost a league (2.6 miles) wide. This could be somewhat
exaggerated, given that Elvas considered it about half a league, however these accounts indicate its vastness. Regardless,
it was unlikely to be the Ohio, but almost certainly the Mississippi. The Ohio River at the point where Mr. Sheppard places
the crossing is less than half a mile wide. There is no indication that the river was flooded, which would be required for
the Ohio to reach anywhere near the proportion described by three chroniclers.
Sheppard relies heavily on a statement by the Inca that de Soto went always to the north from Mavila, ignoring Biedma’s
claim that they turned northwest when leaving Chicaca. These statements taken together indicate the army went generally to
the north, not necessarily straight north for the entire way. He further ignores Inca’s statement that the river crossed
at Chisca (Quizqui) was “a large river, which because it was the greatest of all those that our Spaniards saw in La
Florida they called Rio Grande, without giving it any other name.” He continued, “…and below we shall describe
its grandeur at more length, for it was a wonderful thing.” These specific statements irrefutably describe the mighty Mississippi, not its tributary,
the Ohio.
On Mr. Sheppard’s
Indian Trails page, he indicates the army went eastward after crossing the river. Actually, there is no directional statement
in any of the narratives, except that “The Governor” traveled about 4 miles to a town near the river, which was
upstream. Elvas stated they had to turn away from the river at times “to get around arms which thrust out of the river.”
From Sheppard’s claimed crossing, upriver to Angel Mounds, there are no arms jutting out of the river.
Biedma’s account states that the river was 19 or 20 fathoms deep with a strong current! A fathom was measured
by the outstretched arms of the man doing the sounding, and was approximately 6 feet. That would have been 114 to 120 feet
deep. Hardly describing the Ohio. One source states the Ohio River bed at that location has remained fairly stable for a thousand
years.
Furthermore, Angel Mounds is a Mississippian Culture site which archeologist say was abandoned by 1450 C.E, 90 years
before de Soto’s trek through the Southeast. http://www.angelmounds.org/.
“Leaving Aquixo, they continued upstream toward that province of Pacaha…which was by the river upward.”
(Biedma)
Upstream from Angel
Mounds on the Ohio means to the EAST, not the north, nevertheless Sheppard directs the army northward to, and then up, a different
river, the Wabash River.
Elvas later adds clarity
by stating, “That river which flowed through Nilco…emptied into the large river which flowed through Pacaha and
Aquixo...” Clearly saying that both towns were on the same river (the Mississippi). This statement implies that Casqui
was not on the same river as Pacaha! This is contrary to Sheppard’s theory, which has Casqui and Pacaha on the same
river (Wabash) and Aquixo on a different one (Ohio).
When crossing the Great
River, they were said to have landed on an area of hard sand. The Mississippi is replete with sand bars (evident on satellite
images), where the Ohio River has only the occasional sandy spots. There is no sand bar at Sheppard’s Evansville crossing
site. Was there ever one? Possibly.
De Soto’s Search For A Northern Sea
The core theme of this portion of Sheppard’s trail theory is that de Soto was searching for the route up the
‘Great River’ to China. This may have been so, but it does not support a direct northerly route far east of the
Mississippi. The most import aspect of this concept is not the exact direction, but that it was up the ‘Great River,’
the Mississippi. Mr. Sheppard's claimed route does not even support his own conceptual theme.
From Mavila, de Soto
went quite directly to the Mississippi River and after crossing, moved up the river. His movements in that direction meet
both the directional and the waterway evidentiary requirements of that concept. I speculate that de Soto, learning during
his stay with Pacaha that there was no known route to the sea (and possibly no known sea), he abandoned the idea. The narratives
state that he sent several sorties out from there. His movements from then on were to the west and south, and appeared to
be wandering.
The chronicles, our
best evidence, are devoid of any reference to the Spanish having seen, or even heard of, any of the Great Lakes. The only
sortie described was one to the Northwest to some mountains for salt and “gold.”
As stated previously
Lake Michigan would not find its way on maps until the late 1600’s.
Live By The Map, Die By The Map
Unbelievably, Sheppard misinterprets Antonio de Arredondo’s map to support his Ohio River crossing theory. The
map was not made in 1670 as Sheppard indicates. It is a copy of his map of 1742. The image on the Sheppard's website is only
a portion of the actual map, cropping off the top and right sides. When one views the full map, it is apparent that the river crossed first is the MISSISSIPPI river, and then the Arkansas
River. (Also See Fig. 1 below for comparison to current map with state boundaries.)
On Arredondo’s
map, the northernmost extent of the western route of de Soto is drawn south of the 35th parallel (see right margin
of map for latitude indication), far south of the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Viewing the map, one can see
that the Tennessee river is virtually overlooked, which is an indication the later Spanish may not have been aware of the
river except from the vantage of its mouth at the Ohio. The map fairly accurately tracks the Tombigbee, the Sipsey and the
Alabama rivers. The Arkansas River is skewed too far to the northwest, but otherwise the rivers closely match.
What this map DOES SHOW, is that the trail of de Soto encounters the Chickasaw villages at the head of the Tombigbee,
turns west, and finds the Mississippi river at approximately the 34th parallel! Memphis is just north of the 35th
latitude.
The map was drawn by
a Spaniard whose primary purpose was to maximize Spanish claims to North America! Had de Soto traveled farther north, Arredondo
would surely have recorded this!
This may be the best
example of how Mr. Sheppard, in his zeal to place the route around, and not through, Mississippi, has misinterpreted, confused,
and tortured the facts to fit his version.
Another early map, published in 1562 by Diego Gutierrez, a Spanish cartographer who presumably had available
to him the reports and claims of the de Soto expedition, does not represent any features of north central America. The map
is curious in that it depicts very little which is recognizable from the de Soto narratives.
