Update this timeline entry

De Soto's Ocute were probably Hitchiti

Source: Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors #121

Project ID

Chapter

Timeline title

Start date

End date

Filename received

Filename assigned

Content

The first appearance of the Hitchiti tribe in written history is in the De Soto chronicles, under the name Ocute1 or Ocuti.2 That the Ocute were identical with the later Hitchiti is strongly indicated, if not proved, by the following line of argument. The name Ocute appears in a few of the earlier Spanish authorities only, but much later there is mention of a Lower Creek tribe, called on the De Crenay map Aequito,2 and in the French census of 1760, Aeykite.4 There is every reason to believe that we have here the Ocute of De Soto; certainly no name recorded from the region approximates it as closely.

Now, the De Crenay map was drawn in 1733, shortly after the Yamasee war, and the data it contains would apply to the period immediately following that war. Although apparently located on the Flint, the position of Aequite is farther downstream than any of the other Creek towns on the map. Turning to the English maps of the same epoch we find that, with the exception of the Apalachicola, who were for a time at the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint, Hitchiti was at that period the southernmost town of all. This by itself is not conclusive, because the arrangement of towns on this particular part of the De Crenay map (pl. 5) seems unreliable. Turning to the census of 1760, however, we find the Lower Creek towns laid out in regular order from north to south, the distance of each from Fort Toulouse being marked in leagues. Now, when we compare this list with the later arrangement of towns exhibited by the Early map of 1818 (pl. 9) [Note: In this I have omitted the Okfuskee settlements higher up the stream, which are not considered by the French enumerators.] we obtain the following result:

CENSUS OF 1760 vs. EARLY MAP (1818)
Kaouitas - Cowetau, Cowetau Tal-la-has-see.
Chaouakle - 
Kachetae - Kussetau.
Ouyoutchis - Uehee.
Ouchoutchis - Osachees.
Tchiahas - Che-au-choo-chee.
Aeykite - Hitch-e-tee.
Apalatchikolis - Pal-la-choo-chee.
Okonis - Oconee.
Omolquet
Choothlo - Sau-woo-ga-loo-chee.
Choothlotchy - Sau-woo-ga-loo-chee.
Youfalas - Eu-ta-lau (properly Eu-fa-lau).
Tchoualas - 
Oeyakbe - Oke-te-yo-con-ne.

The correspondences between the two, it will be noted, are very marked. They become still closer when we supplement the Early map with other authorities. Che-au-choo-chee is laid down on the Early map just opposite Hitchiti town, but for some reason or other the town of Chiaha itself was overlooked, and Hawkins describes it exactly where the French census places it, just below Osochi (Ouchoutchis). Instead of the first Sau-woo-ga-loo-chee he also has Sau-wooge-lo, for which Choothlo is certainly intended. Tchoualas is also probably intended for Sawokli or Sawoklo, and in position it corresponds to a town called Kawaigi, said to be a Sawokli offshoot.

Oeyakbe means "water (or river) fork" in Muskogee and Oke-te-yocon-ne, " zigzag stream land," in Hitchiti. The same town is probably intended by them. In only three cases, Chaouakle, Omolquet, and Tchoualas, does the census of 1760 contain names not represented on the Early map, and in only one case, Cowetau Tal-la-has-see, does the Early map contain a name not represented in the census of 1760. As this last was an outvillage of Cowetau its omission is readily explained. Aeykite, like Hitch-e-tee, is placed between Chiaha and Apalachicola, and with the exception of Che-au-choo-chee, which was of course only an outsettlement of Chiaha, and the Westo town, which disappeared at an early date, no town is laid down on any other map known to me between the two aforesaid places. In fact, the distance between them is not great. If Aeykite is not identical with Hitch-e-tee we must not only assume a distinct town of the name not otherwise explained, but we must assume that Hitchiti is the only important town omitted from the French census, a rather unlikely happening. To the writer the conclusion seems quite overwhelming that Aeykite refers to the Hitchiti town, and if that be the case Ocute probably does also. The latest use of this particular term seems to be by Manuel Garcia (1800) when it appears in the form "Oakjote."' The Spanish census of 1738 has an intermediate form "Ayjichiti."1 
Assuming, then, that Ocute and Aeykite are synonyms for Hitchiti, we will now proceed to trace the history of this tribe...
(Swanton)