There is a tradition that when the Creek people incorporated tribes of other nations into their confederacy, these tribes never kept up their own customs and peculiarities for any length of time, but were subdued in such a manner as to conform with the dominant race. As a confirmation of this, it is asserted that the Creeks annihilated the Yámassi Indians completely, so that they disappeared entirely among their number; that the Tukabatchi, Taskígi and other tribes of foreign descent abandoned their paternal language to adopt that of the dominant Creeks.
But there are facts which tend to attenuate or disprove this tradition. The Yuchi, as well as the Naktche tribe and the tribes of Alibamu descent[86] have retained their language and peculiar habits up to the present time, notwithstanding their long incorporation into the Creek community. The Hitchiti, Apalatchúkla and Sawokli tribes, with their branch villages, have also retained their language to this day, notwithstanding their membership in the extensive confederacy, a membership which must have lasted for centuries; and in fact we cannot see how the retention of vernacular speech could hurt the interests of the community even in the slightest way. There were tribes among the Maskoki proper, which were said to have given up not only their own language, but also their customs, at a time which fell within the remembrance of the living generation. Among their number was the Taskígi tribe,[87] on the confluence of Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers, whose earlier language was probably Cheroki. But, on the other side, a body of Chicasa Indians lived near Kasíχta in historic times, which during their stay certainly preserved their language as well as their traditional customs. From Em. Bowen's map it appears that Chicasa Indians also lived on Savannah river (above the Yuchi) for some time, and many Cheroki must have lived within the boundaries of the consolidated Creek confederacy. The more there were of them, and the nearer they were to their own country, the more it becomes probable that they preserved their own language and paternal customs. The existence of Cheroki local names amid the Creek settlements strongly militates in favor of this; we have Etowa, Okóni, Chiaha, Tamá`li, Átasi, Taskígi, Amakalli.
In the minds of many of our readers it will ever remain doubtful that the Creek tribes immigrated into the territories of the Eastern Gulf States by crossing the Lower Mississippi river. But there is at least one fact which goes to show that the settling of the Creeks proceeded from west to east and southeast. The oldest immigration to Chatahuchi river is that of the Kasíχta and Kawíta tribes, both of whom, as our legend shows, found the Kúsa and the Apalatchúkla with their connections, in situ, probably the Ábiχka also. If there is any truth in the Hitchiti tradition, the tribes of this division came from the seashore, an indication which seems to point to the coast tracts afterwards claimed by the Cha'hta. All the other settlements on Chatahuchi river seem younger than Kasíχta and Kawíta, and therefore the Creek immigration to those parts came from Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers. At one time the northern or Cheroki-Creek boundary of the Coosa river settlements was Talatígi, now written Talladega, for the name of this town has to be interpreted by "Village at the End," itálua atígi. If the name of Tallapoosa river, in Hitchiti Talepúsi, can be derived from Creek talepú`la stranger, this would furnish another indication for a former allophylic population in that valley; but `l rarely, if ever, changes into s. The Cheroki local names in these parts, and east from there, show conclusively who these "strangers" may have been.
It appears from old charts, that Creek towns, or at least towns having Creek names, also existed west of Coosa river, as on Canoe creek: Litafatcha, and on Cahawba river: Tálua hádsho, "Crazy Town," together with ruins of other villages above this.
THE CREEK SETTLEMENTS.
The towns and villages of the Creeks were in the eighteenth century built along the banks of rivers and their smaller tributaries, often in places subject to inundation during large freshets, which occurred once in about fifteen years. The smallest of them contained from twenty to thirty cabins, some of the larger ones up to two hundred, and in 1832 Tukabatchi, then the largest of all the Creek settlements, harbored 386 families. Many towns appeared rather compactly built, although they were composed of irregular clusters of four to eight houses standing together; each of these clusters contained a gens ("clan or family of relations," C. Swan), eating and living in common. The huts and cabins of the Lower Creeks resembled, from a distance, clusters of newly-burned brick kilns, from the high color of the clay.[88]
It will be found appropriate to distinguish between Creek towns and villages. By towns is indicated the settlements which had a public square, by villages those which had none. The square occupied the central part of the town, and was reserved for the celebration of festivals, especially the annual busk or fast (púskita), for the meetings of chiefs, headmen and "beloved men," and for the performance of daily dances. Upon this central area stood the "great house," tchúka `láko, the council-house, and attached to it was a play-ground, called by traders the "chunkey-yard." Descriptions of these places will be given below.
Another thoroughgoing distinction in the settlements of the Creek nation was that of the red or war towns and the white or peace towns.
The red or kipáya towns, to which C. Swan in 1791 refers as being already a thing of the past, were governed by warriors only. The term red refers to the warlike disposition of these towns, but does not correspond to our adjective bloody; it depicts the wrath or anger animating the warriors when out on the war-path. The posts of their cabin in the public square were painted red on one side.
The present Creeks still keep up formally this ancient distinction between the towns, and count the following among the kipáya towns: