Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Was the ancient Indian village of Humati located where Ellis Landing is today in Wilcox County, Alabama?

Was the ancient Indian village of Humati located where Ellis Landing is today?

This was the question I asked myself the other day as I stood at the Ellis Landing boat launch and looked in the direction of the Alabama River. It was a Friday afternoon, and the weather was picture perfect. Only a few whisps of clouds could be seen in the sky, and mild temperatures reminded me that spring was right around the corner.

For those of you unfamiliar with Ellis Landing, it’s located off Ellis Island Road, less than five road miles from the courthouse square in downtown Camden. On the day of my visit, there were about a dozen unoccupied trucks with empty boat trailers parked in the parking lot, a sure sign that I wasn’t the only person enjoying the fine weather. Off in the distance, I watched a truck travel across the causeway that leads to the island north of the landing.

It was then that I remembered several people telling me that a large Indian village was once located near Ellis Landing. Research revealed that this was likely the ancient Indian village of Humati, which was among a number of old, historic Indian sites that could once be found within the borders of Wilcox County. Not surprisingly, Humati is mentioned in a number of books about ancient Indian villages in Alabama.

According to “Dead Towns of Alabama” by W. Stuart Harris, Humati was located on the bank of the Alabama River, just north of Camden. The name means “Turkey Gobbler,” and was possibly the name of the chieftain there in 1540 rather than the name of the village. According to Harris, the famous Spanish explorer Hernando DeSoto passed through Humati on Oct. 7, 1540.

According to “Historic Indian Towns in Alabama, 1540-1838” by Amos J. Wright Jr., DeSoto camped at Humati for one night. Wright also notes that Humati was located alongside a river, one day’s march below Caxa, which was the boundary between Talasi and Tascaluca. Both Harris and Wright say that some scholars believe that Humati may have been located in Dallas County or Coosa County.

Historical maps also indicate that the old Ellis Ferry was once in this area, but I have been unable to determine exactly where the ferry site was located. I presume that Ellis Ferry was named after its original operator, and one is left to wonder who this person was. In early Alabama history, ferry operators were often given permits or licenses to operate their ferry as a reward for military service or other assistance to the government.

As I stood there, I was also reminded that I was near the place where witnesses claim to see a ghostly light that rises to the surface of the Alabama River. Witnesses say that this light grows up to 60 feet in diameter, and some say that it may have something to do with a plane that crashed in the area decades ago. Other say it’s the ghostly remnants of someone who drowned while others say it has to do with a riverboat disaster.

In the end, please let me hear from you if you know any additional details about Humati, Ellis Ferry or Ellis Landing. I’m especially interested in any old ghost stories, local legends or Indian tales associated with this area. Also, please let me know if you have any information about how Ellis Ferry got its name.

2 comments:

  1. The location of Humati would be a valuable clue toward identifying the site of Mauvila, or Mabila, where deSoto fought Chief Tuscaloosa. According to the record of Rodrigo Rangel, deSoto's personal secretary, the army spent the night of October 7, 1540 on a riverbank and "Humati was on the other side". At this point the expedition was nearing Mauvila, arriving there on the morning of October 18. Most theories of deSoto's route suggest Mauvila was on the Alabama River around Clark County, but having studied this subject as an amateur historian for the past 3 decades, I am of the opinion that Humati, along with Casiste, Caxa, Uxipita and all the other towns between Talisi and Mauvila were much farther north in 1540. If so, then the site of Mauvila is also much farther north than it is commonly believed to be. I am not a professional, but this is simply the conclusion which the evidence has pointed me to.

    Sincerely,
    Murray Segrest

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete