ROBERT MANNING STROZIER
BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
INDIANS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DOCKET NO. 73
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE SEMINOLE NATION,
DOCKET NO. 151
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Charles H. .airbanks, Ph. D.
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology
FLORIDA SATE UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . .. . . .. 1
Chapter I. Derivation of the Term Seminole . 4
Chapter II. Aboriginal Inhabitants of Florida. 7
Conclusions. . . . . . 11
European Settlement of Florida .12
Conclusions. . . .
Timucua . .
List of Mission
South Florida T
Ais . . .
Jeaga . . .
Tekestd . .
Calusa' . .
Choctaw . .
Tribes of Northwes
Amacano . .
Chine . .
Caparaz . .
Tawasa. . .
Chatot.. .. .
Osochi. . .
Sawokli . .
. . .22
* . .
* . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
* . .
. . .
. . .
* . *
* . .
. . .
. . .
Table 1. Apalachee Missions,
1659-1680 . . . .
Chapter III. Destruction of the Missions
the Carolinians .
Summary . . . . .
Chapter IV. The Repopulation of Florida.
Mission List of 1717. .
Cowkeeper's Alachua .
Settlement . . .
Summary . .. . . .
Chapter V. The Seminole During the British
Dominion . . . . . 137
Conference at St. Marks, 1764 146
Treaty of Picolata . . 149
2nd Conference at Picolata,
1767 . . . . . 157
Pitman's Survey of St. Marks 160
The Bartram's in Florida 165
Spanish Interest in the
Seminole . . . . 173
Conclusions ... .. . 180
Chapter VI. The Seminoles During the
Second Spanish Dominion . .. 182
Treaty of Pensacola, 1784. 188
William Augustus Bowles. . 194
Forbes Purchase. .... . 205
Hawkins List of Seminole
Towns. . .... . 208
First Seminole War . .. 211
Seminole & Arbuthnot . . 221
Young's Topographic Memoire. 232
Chapter VII. Seminole During American
Dominion . . . .. . 242
Neamathla List of Seminole .
Towns. . . ... 245
Bell's Addition to Neamathla
List .. . . 246
Treaty of Moultrie Creek 251
List of Chiefs Signing the
Treaty . . . . .. 253
Divisions of the Seminole. 259
Spanish Indians. . . 265
Chapter VIII. Conclusions . . . ... .268
Bibliography. . . . . . . . 273
1. Articles published
of Coiled Pottery in New York Sta
ty, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 178-179. (
Site" The Missouri Archaeologist,
"Classification Problems of Sout
Relation to VWork in the Tennesse
Society for Georgia Archaeology,
"The Lamar Pa
eastern Archaeology in
e Valley" Proceedings,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 31-38.
lisade" Proceedings, Society for Georgia
vol. 3, no. 1, unpaged. (19407
Pans' from the Southeast" American Antiquity,
no. 1, pp. 65-67. (1940)
History No. 4,
national Park Service,
"Hunting 500 Years Age" Regional Review, National Park
Service, Region One, vol. 6, nos. 1 & 2, pp. 3-6. (1941)
"Palisaded Town" Regional Review, National Park
Region One, vol. 6, nos. 5 & 6, pp. 2-8. (1941)
"The Taxonomic Position of
"The Kolomiki Mound
, no. 3, pp
American Antiquity, vol. 11, no.
. 223-231. (1942)
4, pp. 258-260.
"The Leake Mounds, Bartow County, Georgia"
Antiquity, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 126. (1946)
"The Macon Earthlodge" American Antiquity,
no. 2, pp. 94-108. (1946)
rica National Monument" Emory Universit
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 8-14. (1948)
"A Preliminary Segregation
Lamar" American Antiquity,
Southeastern Prehistory" in The
.s Neighbors, pp. 55-76. Winter
of Etowah, Savannah, and
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 142-151.
"Creek-and Pre-Creek" in Archeology of Eastern United
States, James B. Griffin, ed. pp. 285-300. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago. (1952)
Review of "Excavations at Kolomiki I 1948 and II-
1950" American Antiquity, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 81-83.
"The Protohistoric Creek of Georgia" Southeastern
Archeological Conference, News Letter, vol. 13, no. 3,
pp. 21-22. (1953)
"1953 Excavations at Site 9 H1 64, Buford Reservoir,
Georgia" Florida State Studies, No. 16, pp. 1-26. (1954)
Review of "Archeology of the Bynum Mounds, Mississippi"
by John L. Cotter and John M. Corbett. Southern Indian
Studies, vol. 5, pp. 27-29. (1953)
Review of "Space and Time Perspective in Northern St.
Johns Archaeology, Florida" by John M. Goggin. Florida
Historical Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 304-8. (1953)
Review of "Space and Time Perspective in Northern St.
Johns Archaeology, Florida" by John M. Goggin. American
Antiquity, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 415-6. (1954)
Review of "Excavations at Kolomiki, Season III and IV,
Mound D" by William H. Sears. American Antiquity, vol. 20,
no. 3, pp. 289-91 (1955)
"The Abercrombie Mound, Russell County, Alabama" Early
Georgia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13-19. (1955)
Review of "The Southern Indians: The Story of the Civilized
Tribes Before Removal" by T. S. Cotterill. Florida His-
torical Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 66-70.- 19557
"The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davidson Houses, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia"
Ga. Hist. Quart., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 213-29. (1956)
"Archeology of the Funeral Mound Ocmulgee National Monu-
ment, Georgia" National Park Service, Archeological
Research Series, No. 3, Washington. (1956)
Review of "Indians of the Southern Colonial Frontier,
The Edmund Atkin Report and Plan of 1755. Wilbur R.
Jacobs, ed. Fla. Hist. Quart., vol. 34, no. 4, pp.
of the Shinholsters
at Ft. Caroline
Some Problems in the
at 5th International
of the Funeral
Origin of Creek Pottery. Presented
Congress of Ethnological & Anthro-
Review of "Excavations at Kolomiki
Final Report" by
William H. Sears. In Press: American Anthropologist.
This enthnohistorical report on the Florida Indians
was undertaken at the request of the United States Depart-
ment of Justice. The request was initiated by the follow-
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Washington, D. C.
November 16, 1956
Dr. Charles H. Fairbanks
Department of Anthropology and Archeology
Florida State University
Dear Dr. Fairbanks:
Re: The Seminole Indians of Florida v.
Docket No. 73
The Seminole Nation v. United States
Docket No. 151
By Treaty dated February 22, 1819 (8 Stat.
252) Spain ceded Florida to the United States
"in full property and sovereignty."
By Treaty dated September 18, 1823 (7 Stat.
224, 2 Kappler 203) the Florida tribes of Indians,
by Article I, ceded and relinquished Florida ex-
cepting the area containing approximately 4 mil-
lion acres which was set aside to them as a reser-
vation by Article II.
By Treaties dated May 9, 1832 (7 Stat. 368,
2 Kappler 344) and March 28, 1833 (7 Stat. 423,
2 Kappler 394) the Seminole Indians ceded to the
United States the area which had been reserved
to them by the 1823 treaty and agreed to remove
to a substitute reservation established in the
Indian territory, now Oklahoma.
By 1843 almost all of the Florida Indians
had removed to the new reservation. There remain-
ed in Florida only a negligable few (about 200)
who had taken refuge in the inaccessible swamp-
lands of the Everglades and refused to move west
with the Seminole Nation.
The Seminole Nation (Oklahoma) has instituted
suit before the Indian Claims Commission asserting
that at the time of the 1823 treaty, its ancestors
had from time immemorial exclusively occupied the
entire Florida peninsula, that the treaty considera-
tion for the ceded lands was unconscionably low and
seeks additional compensation.
A separate suit predicated upon the same basis
has also been instituted by the Seminole Indians of
These two actions have been consolidated for
trial by the Commission.
We are desirous (a) of obtaining an ethno-"
graphic report showing what portion, if any, of the
approximately 30 million acres which were relin-
quished to the United States by the 1823 treaty,
had been in the actual and exclusive occupancy of
the Florida Indians from time immemorial to the
treaty date and (b) of having the author of that
report testify before the Indian Claims Commission
as an expert witness respecting the results of his
PERRY W. MORTON
Assistant Attorney General
By: /S/ Ralph A. Barney
Ralph A. Barney
Chief, Indian Claims Section
The objective of the following report is:
(a) to summarize the recorded history of the Indians
(b) to show the origin of the Seminole Indians,
(c) to show the occupation and use of the lands
(d) to show the form of political organization and
government pertaining to the Seminole Indians.
This will concern a discussion of the early history
of the Florida Indians as well as the history of the occu-
pation of the area by various European nations.
France, Spain, England, and the United States held
dominion in Florida at various times. Each treated the
Indian in different ways. Each left characteristic rec-
ords of the Indian situation during its dominion. The
effect of each ruling power was slightly different on the
Indian inhabitants of the area. The result of these vari-
ous elements was the situation at the time lof the Treaty
of Moultrie Creek in 1823.
DERIVATION OF THE TERM SEMINOLE
The term Seminole or Seminolie has been applied to the
later Indian residents of Florida since at least 1771. It
is evidently derived from the Spanish term "Cimarron."
This word "cimarron" was in general use by the Spaniards to
apply to marooned sailors. Gradually it was applied to any
wild form, especially escaped domestic animals that had gone
wild. It was also applied in the American West to the Big
Horn Sheep, because of the characteristic "wildness" of that
animal. The meanings of "separatists," "runaways," "renegades"
have been offered as meanings or translations of the term
Seminole. The present Seminole prefer the meaning of "wild."
The earliest use of the word Seminole that I have been
able to find is contained in a letter written by the Indian
Agent Stuart to General Gage from Mobile, December 14, 1771.
"Esimistiseguo acquainted me that the Semi-
nolies or East Florida Creeks had frequent
intercourse with Spaniards at the Havannah
by means of Fishing vessels which frequent
the Bays of the western side of the Penin-
1 / John R. Swanton, The Indian Tribes of North America.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bull. 145. (1952). p. 139.
Hereafter cited as: "Swanton, (1952)."
2 / Wilfred T. Neill, Florida's Seminole Indians. Revised
edition, (1956), p. 5. Def. Ex. 43.
3 / Stuart to Gage, December 14, 1771, Thomas Gage Co'
election, Clements Library, University of Michigan. Her
cited as "Gage Papers." Def. Ex. 10.
The same letter mentioned that the Seminole had engaged
in "insults and depredations" against the inhabitants of
The etymology is based on the fact that the Musk-
hogean languages spoken by all these tribes contain no
sound equivalent to English "ro." Thus Creek speakers
would substitute another liquid, "1" or an aspirate "hl."
There is a similar instance of sound change in the term
Wakulla, a place-name associated with the large spring,
river, county, and town in northwestern Florida. The name
was originally Guacara, applied to the Suwannee. It was
Timucuan in origin. The Spanish form "Gu" represented the
sound usually represented in English orthography by "W."
A Creek-speaker hearing "Wacara" would speak it as "Wakulla."
The Coweta-born Seminole chief Tunape visited Havanna
in 1777. In discussing the Indian attitudes to the American
Revolution he said that:
"He has news that although some Cimarronesll
L/.e. Seminoles7, which for their misdeeds
had fled from the Uchises, had been persuaded
by the English of St. Augustine to make war,
as they did, against the English of Savannah,
4 / Mark F. Boyd & Jose' Navarro LaTorre, Spanish Inter-
est in British Florida, and in the progress of the American
Revolution. I. Relations with the Spanish Faction of the
Creek Indians. Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2,
(1953), p. 113. The superscript "11" and brackets are Boyd's.
Hereafter referred to as "Boyd & Latorre, (1953)," Def. Ex.
In this case a Seminole chief referred to the Seminole
bands in Florida by the term "Cimarrones." The Spanish used
the term in that form. The English used the form "Seminole"
that they heard the Indians using.
Beginning about 1715 the wildest, most intransigient
Indians of the Southeast moved into Florida to become the
Seminole. In the Seminole wars it was again the wilder, less
tameable element that remained in Florida. By 1771 they were
being referred to by a distinctive term, Seminole.
ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF FLORIDA
Prehistoric Period: Indian groups inhabited Florida
for a considerable period before the arrival of Europeans.
This occupation has largely been discovered by archeological
techniques. The available information indicates the time-
depth of Indian occupation.
The Florida Peninsula was a refuge area for land mammals
during the Pleistocene or Glacial Epoch. The Vero and Mel-
bourne finds suggest that man did follow the large herbivores
into Florida at something like 10,000 years ago.
This hypothetical occupation was followed by increasing
evidence of a rather widespread occupation of partly sedentary
hunters and collectors, grouped under the Archaic Tradition.
It is especially well represented along the St. Johns River in
northeastern Florida but is also found in northwest Florida.
No very conclusive dates are known for the Florida area, but
from evidence in Georgia and Alabama, it is certain that this
Archaic occupation extends back into the period of about
5 / T. Dale Stewart, A reexamination of the fossil
human skeletal remains from Melbourne, Florida. Smith-
sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 106, no. 10 (1946).
6 / John M. Goggin, Cultural Traditions in Florida
Pre-history. In The-Florida Indian and his neighbors, ed.
by John W. Griffin. (1949). Hereafter cited as "Goggin,
2,000 B. C. Basically similar occupations in the Georgia
coastal area have been dated by radiocarbon methods at 1,800
B. C. We assume a similar antiquity for the Florida sites.
As this Archaic occupation continued, it began to receive
influences from areas to the north and northwest. In the fol-
lowing period Florida cultures began to regionalize. The
St. Johns Basin, the sub-tropical Everglades, and the north-
west Gulf Coast each became distinctive archeological pro-
vinces during this time. The inauguration of this region-
alization seems to have taken place around the beginning of
the present era, A. D. 1.
The causes of the development were basically the need
to adapt to different ecological situations in the various
areas plus different cultural diffusions affecting the re-
spective areas. The Everglades Area culture remained essen-
tially hunting-fishing-gathering in basic economy. In the
rich coastal milieu of south Florida this simple way of life
offered great rewards so that a quite elaborate way of life
resulted. The St. Johns Basin, although subject to influences
from several sources, remained perhaps the most isolated of
7/ John M. Goggin, Space and Time Perspective in North-
ern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Yale Univ. Publ. in Anthro-
pology, No. 47. Hereafter referred to as "Goggin, (1952)."
Irving Rouse, A Survey of Indian River Archeology,
Florida. Yale Univ. Publ. in Anthropology, No. 44. Hereafter
referred to as "Rouse, (1951)."
John W. Griffin, The Florida Indian and His Neighbors,
(1949). Hereafter referred to as "Griffin, (1949)."
the northern areas. There seems to have been an essential
continuity of culture in this area down to the historic
period. The Gulf Coastal area from Tampa to Pensacola seems
to have been most affected by outside influences and it is
in this area that the most cultural diversity, in time, re-
sults. Influences from Georgia, especially in pottery styles,
were early felt. At about the same time a characteristic
style of pottery decoration spread along the Gulf Coast from
Florida to Louisiana. This distinctive spread of culture
continued strong for about a thousand years.
In the 13th or 14th centuries, a different cultural dif-
fusion began to enter Florida from the north and northwest.
This was somewhat similar to influences entering Georgia at
about the same time. It is probable that some movement
of new peoples occurred at this same time. The inhabitants
of Florida from about 1400 until the historic period were in
communication with people in Georgia and Alabama.
Archeologically the historic period in Florida is char-
acterized by three principal complexes of related facts.
These, not necessarily in the order of their importance, are:
8 / James A. Ford, Measurements of Some Prehistoric
Design Developments in the Southeastern States. Anthrop.
Papers of the Amer. Mus. of Nat. Hist., vol. 44, pt. 3.
9 / Charles H. Fairbanks, The Excavation of the
Funeral Mound, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia.
National Park Service, Archeological Series, no. 3.
1. The rapid disappearance of the aboriginal popu-
lation, evidenced by the paucity of sites and
the smallness of the sites that do exist. Part
of this is due to the shortness of the period,
only about a century and a half, as compared with
the much longer prehistoric periods. However,
there does seem to be archeological evidence of
the destruction of the aboriginal population at
a rather rapid rate.
2. Evidence of the blending of European and Indian
ceramic elements or settlement patterns into new
3. The introduction of fresh cultural traits from
Georgia into various Floridan complexes.
(a) In the St. Johns-St. Augustine area this is
due to the migration of Guale Indians from the
central Georgia Coast to the vicinity of St.
Augustine about 1688.
(b) In the Apalachee area of northwest Florida
this intrusion of Georgia elements seems to come
from the central Georgia, or Lower, Creeks.
10/ Goggin, (1952), pp. 58-61.
11/ Goggin, (1952), pp. 71-74.
John R. Swanton, The early history of the Creek In-
dians and their neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bull. 73, (1922). Hereafter cited as "Swanton, (1922)."
12/ Fairbanks, (1956), op. cit.
It appears to have coincided with the establish-
ment of Spanish Missions in the area. This is
indicated mostly by the appearance of certain
central Georgia pottery types that had not pre-
viously appeared in northern Florida.
Very little is known about Seminole archeology. Goggin
has collected what is known at present about Seminole pot-
tery types from archeological contexts, and a beginning has
been made on identification and excavation of known Seminole
sites. Probably the chief hindrance to an understanding
of Seminole archeology is the fact that the Seminole in the
late 18th and early 19th centuries had largely accepted the
material culture of the Georgians and for this reason their
sites are hard to identify.
Conclusions: Human habitation of Florida extends back
to at least 2,000 B. C. and possibly as far back as 8,000
B. C. During the last 2,000 years there has been a regionali-
zation of Florida cultures, roughly corresponding to the larg-
er ecologic areas of the peninsula. In late times, immediately
before and during European settlement, there was a considerable
amount of diffusion, perhaps accompanied by population move-
ments, into the area from the immediate north and northwest
(the present states of Alabama and Georgia). The European
settlement was followed by a rapid decline of the aboriginal
13/ John M. Goggin, MS. Seminole Pottery Types. In
press inm Pottery of the Eastern U. S., Univ. of Michigan.
European Settlement of Florida: Early in the 16th
century Florida had been discovered and mapped with rea-
sonable accuracy as indicated by Harrissee. Little
was actually known about the interior of the peninsula
even after the explorations of Ponce de Leon in 1512 or
1513. This explorer gave the land the name, Florida. On
his second expedition he explored the western coast, per-
haps as far as Apalachee. Bay. Landing, he was defeated
and wounded by the Indians and returned to Cuba to die.
Francisco do Garay in 1519 and Verrazano in 1524 coasted
along the shores of Florida but do not seem to have landed.
The first expedition to explore the interior was led
by Panfilo de Narvaez who landed in the vicinity of Tampa
Bay and traveled inland until he reached the Apalachee coun-
try to the northwest. Little information of ethnological
value can be gleaned from the various accounts of the Narvaez
The De Soto expedition landed in the vicinity of Tampa
Bay and progressed northward through the central parts
14/ Henry Harrisse, The Discovery of North America (1892)
15/ Ibid., pp. 142-53.
16/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 112-115.
17/ Ad. F. Bandelier, ed., The Journey of Alvar Cabeza
de Vaca. (1905).
18/ U. S. Congress. Final Report of the United States
De Soto Expedition Commission. 76th Congress, 1st Session,
House of Representatives, House Document 71. (1939). Here-
after cited as "Te Sobo Rept. (1939)."
of the state turning northwestard to traverse the Apalachee
country. Winteringin 1539-1540 in the vicinity of the
present Tallahassee, it proceeded northward into Georgia
and did not again enter the state. The De Soto chronicles
are of particular use to us in providing a picture of the
Indians living in the western part of the peninsula, al-
though the amount of data is very uneven.
The eastern part of the peninsula was not penetrated
until 1562. In effect, Spain was not interested in La
Florida. The expeditions of Narvaez and De Soto had in-
dicated no gold or any dense population that could be ex-
ploited as Middle America was being used. The French
Huguenots, however, developed an interest in what is now
the southern United States. In 1562 an expedition under
Jean Ribaut landed near the present site of St. Augustine
and dealt briefly with the natives, but no settlement was
made. The expedition continued northward and established
a temporary settlement somewhere in the area of present
South Carolina. This Carolina settlement was short-
lived but led directly to the establishment by another
French Huguenot, Rene Laudonniere, on the St. Johns River
19/ Stefan Lorant, The New World; the first pictures
of America, (1946).
Fort Caroline was a fortified settlement of some
size from which the French immediately began explorations
in all directions and had various dealings with the Indians.
The second French expedition contained, as one of its mem*-
bers, the artist Jacques Le Moyne whose drawings of the
Indians contain a greater amount of ethnological informa-
tion on the Florida Indians than is found in the preserved
documents from the entire Spanish period. Spanish sources
contain considerably more about the Timucuan language than
the French accounts, but surprisingly little about the cul-
ture aside from language.
The French settlement at Fort Caroline inaugurated a
series of reactions from the Spanish that all the explora-
tions of previous decades had not entailed. Spain was grow-
ing fat on the gold, and other products, of her settlements
in Mexico and Middle America. These products were returned
to Spain by the Flota whose best route was northward through
the Florida Channel and the Gulf Stream. Spain could not
countenance control of the flanks of this route by another
power, especially by heretic Huguenots. She replied by
sending Pedro Menendez d'Aviles to establish a post and
destroy the French. The first of these charges Menendez
accomplished by founding St. Augustine, the second by the
slaughter of the French at Matazas and Ft. Caroline.
The French reaction to this seems to have been rather
in the spirit of revenge than re-settlement. In 1567
Dominique de Gourgues attacked and killed a number of
Spaniards at the former settlement of Ft. Caroline but
was unable to drive out the new settlers. Spanish set-
tlement was thereafter concentrated in and around St.
Augustine for a century or more, with a minimum of ex-
ploration and settlement in more outlying parts of the
Spain found in Florida neither the treasure or the
highly developed feudal civilizations she had learned to
exploit in Middle America. Florida was settled as a de-
fense of the treasure fleet route back to Spain and re-
mained an outpost dependent on Mexico for funds, men, and
often even for food. In Florida the Spaniards found rela-
tively simple cultures without the elaborate social system
of 'Middle America. They could not simply substitute their
own overlords and exploit a continuing economic system.
In place of the encomienda system, they introduced, as every-
where in the New World where they encountered sub-feudal
cultures, the mission system. This seems to have had two
objectives, between which it is difficult to choose the
more important. One objective was certainly to save human
souls by their conversion to the Holy Catholic Faith. For
many, especially the priests, this was probably the para-
mount objective. Another end to be gained by the mission
system was the control and partial exploitation of cultures
whose economic base was simple agriculture. It was also
attempted where they found hunting-catching-gathering
peoples but with very indifferent success because these
peoples were too nomadic for the system.
That control of the population was one objective of
the chain of Florida missions, is indicated by their dis-
tributi.on. At first these were located mainly along the
Atlantic coast, mostly north of St. Augustine. Later,
when France again threatened Florida, this time from her
bases in Louisiana, her missions and forts were extended
to the vicinity of Pensacola and Apalachee. In all of
these missions there was, besides the attempt at conversion,
a program of stabilizing settlements, introducing European
crops and agricultural methods, and a certain amount of
utilization of native labor on public works. Because of
the Indian slash-and-burn agricultural system, these Spanish
re-settlement programs were not highly successful with the
majority of southeastern tribes. They were generally un-
successful with the hunting tribes of south Florida.
Chatelain gives a comprehensive discussion of the mission
system and its relationship to the Spanish Crown.
His chapter is an admirable outline, perhaps somewhat over-
weighted with administrative details. The garrison, at times,
at St. Augustine took part in local Indian wars in order to
20/ Verne E. Chatelain, The Defenses of Spanish Florida,
1565-1763. Carnegie Inst. of Wash., Publ. No. 511 (1941),
secure the friendship of tribes they considered important
to their position. The Spanish never seem to have engaged
in a systematic military destruction of the Indians or any
systematic capture of Indians as slaves in Florida.
The mission system at first appeared to be fairly
successful in Florida, with the royal governors report-
ing steady conversions. Revolts, however, broke out in
1584 among the Potano, in Guale in 1597, about the same
time among the Surruque at Cape Canaveral, as well as
numerous smaller revolts and disturbances. It is evident
that revolts, soon after first conversion, became a regular
feature of Spanish-Indian relations. One feature of
the conversion process seems to have been a development of
conflicting groups, Christians and infidels, within many
tribes or villages. The revolt in Guale of 1597 was largely
carried out by a band of dissident infidels who roved through
,the province killing Christians wherever possible. This
development of factions within tribes during the period of
rapid acculturation has been observed as a more or less
regular feature of most colonial systenV. When it began
[among the Creeks north of Apalachee it became one of the
primary sources of the development of the Seminole nation.
21/ Swanton, (1922), p. 336.
Ignacio Omaechevarria, IMartires Franciscanos de
22/ Omaechevarria, ibid.
Perhaps the most extensive revolt in Florida was that which
broke out in 1656 among the Timucua, spreading as far as
Apalachee. These rebellions inevitably led to Spanish mili-
tary subjection of the tribes involved and a consequent reduc-
tion in population. In Southern Florida revolts speedily
brought about the abandonment of the Missions.
SA further cause of population reduction was the advent
of European diseases among the Indians. As early as 1617
pestilence had broken out among both Spanish and Indians in
Florida. European diseases had a special virulence for
the Indians who had never developed any resistances to them.
It is also possible that the efforts of the friars to form
more permanent settlements contributed to unsanitary condi-
tions which were originally rather bad by modern standards.
The major event in the history of Spanish Florida was
certainly the establishment of the South'Carolina colony in
Ij7O. This began a series of contests for control of the
southeast by Spain and England, with France serving a sort
of occasional participant. Direct military actions between
South Carolinians and Spanish were relatively rare, although
occasional brushes did occur in the Lower Creek country just
north of Apalachee. The new English colony was an irritant,
or worse, to the Spanish for a number of reasons. It occu-
pied territory, by heretics at that, long claimed by the
23/ Swanton, (1922), p. 338.
Spanish. It threatened the control of the Florida Channel
by both direct attack and harassment of pirates. Most
important, it served as a base for commercial operations by
the British into territory claimed and actually controlled by
This activity was of two kinds. Most widespread and
earliest was the British trade activity with the Indians.
The Spanish had never developed an extensive trade with
their Indian wards, but the various native groups soon de-
veloped real desires for European products. This was satis-
fied by the English through a wide variety of tools, cloth-
ing, and ornaments. Not least of the items offered by the
British traders were guns, which the Spanish had refrained
from supplying to the Indians. The second part of English
trade was for slaves, purchased from Indian captors. Carolina
often attempted to control this activity but made no attempt
to stop it.
SThis resulted in two sorts of slave-catching activi-
ties, both extremely destructive of the Florida Indian popu-
lation. First was the encouragement by the British of inter-
tribal warfare by their Indian allies, Creek, Cherokee,
Yamasee, etc. for the purposing of supplying additional
captives. Second were actual raids into Spanish territory,
24/ W. L. McDowell, ed. Journals of the Commissioners of
Indian Trade 1710-1718. The Colonial Records of South Carolina,
vol. 1, (1955).
Verner W. Crane, The Southern Frontier; 1670-1732.
(1928), reissued 1956. Hereafter referred to as Crane (1928).
generally led by a small core of Carolinians but largely
staffed by Indian allies, usually Lower Creeks or Yamasee.
The raid led by Col. Moore almost completely destroyed the
Apalachee missions in 1704. Various raids, often led by
Thomas Nairne penetrated deep into peninsular Florida in
the following years. The Spanish Governor of Florida,
Dionisio de la Vega, in 1728 reported that all the Indian
villages had been destroyed by the Carolinian raids and that
the remnants of the tribes had sought refuge under the walls
of the Castillo de San Marcos at St. Augustine. This
slaving activity of the Carolinians can only be compared to
the "black-birding" of the southwest Pacific or African
coasts as a systematic procurement of labor forces. It was
a major blow at the purpose and very existence of Spanish
Florida. Coupled with disease and Spanish military action
against rebels it soon depopulated Florida.
Founding of the Colony of Georgia in 1732 offered
another threat to Florida. Spain seems to have realized
finally what had been the English program of gradual ex-
pansion southward at the expense of the Spanish. They
25/ B. R. Carroll, (ed.), Historical Collections of
South-Carolina. (1836), pp. 570-576.
26/ /Thomas Nairne/ A letter from South Carolina. (1710).
Swanton, (1922), pp. 121-123.
Nairne insert on Moll Map of 1720.
27/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 339-340.
reacted violently to the settlement of Georgia and a
period of sporadic border warfare ensued. This culmi-
nated in the War of Jenkins Ear with Oglethrope's attack
on St. Augustine and the Spanish counterattack on St.
Simons,-the English base on the Georgia Coast. In spite
of the decisive defeat of the Spanish at Bloody Marsh,
Spain managed to hold on to Florida until 1763. The
English settlement in Georgia is important because of the
- shift that now occurred in English-Spanish relations.
Before the founding of Georgia there had been frontier
raids, slaving, piracy and commercial penetration on the
part of the English. Subsequently, it became a matter of
fairly constant armed hostility between the two powers.
Another effect was stepped up British penetration into
the Georgia hinterland. This was a major factor in the
movement of Creek towns, families, and individuals into
the Florida area. Thiss~k-he-period when the Seminole
as a more or less separate entity began to emerge.
Florida was ceded to Britain in 1763 and remained a
British colony for twenty years. During this period we
find an increased activity by the new rulers in relation
to the Indians and our first recorded instance of the term
"Seminole." During the American Revolution Florida re-
mained loyal to the crown and served as a refuge area for
loyalists from the southern Atlantic seaboard. This
dichotomy, between loyal Florida and rebel Georgia and the
Carolinas, perhaps served to crystalize the separation of
the Florida Creeks from their Georgia brothers.
Vhen Spain left Florida in 1763 most of the Spanish
inhabitants, few though they were, left with her. Many
of the few remaining Indians were part of this exodus.
With the return of the Spanish in 1783-4 Florida became
a refuge zone for renigades, white and Indian, from many
sources. Spain seems not to have very firmly established
her authority in much of the peninsula. Large parts of it
were completely deserted except for bands of Seminole.
r The borders, especially, were the haunt of desparadoes
from the American frontier. Piracy, slave running, smug-
gling, as well as trading activities of all kinds went on
at a merry rate. As the pressure of settlers increased on
the Creek settlements along the Chattahoochee River in
Georgia more Creeks migrated to Florida. With the Creek
war of 1813 in Alabama and Georgia, another large influx
occurred, this time chiefly of Upper Creeks. By the time
of Jackson's raids into Florida in 1818 the Seminole nation
had assumed its full stature, and we are dealing with an
historically identifiable tribe, the Seminole.
Conclusions: Throughout the history of French, Spanish,
and English occupations of the peninsula there was a steady
and fairly rapid decline in Indian populations. This oc-
curred as a result of: 1) direct military action, mainly
in retaliation for Indian revolts; 2) epidemic diseases
introduced by Europeans; and 3) slaving raids by Carolinians.
This left a demographic void in Florida which was filled by
remnants of the aboriginal tribes plus new migrants from the
Lower and Upper Creek towns to the north and northwest.-
This process will be detailed in the section to follow.
Tim ;ua: The most important early group in Florida
was that large aggregate of towns or tribes known collec-
tively as the Timucua. At the time of French settlement
and Spanish conquest of Florida they occupied all the area
east of the Atlantic from just north of the present Georgia-
Florida border south to a line running from the vicinity of
Cape Canaveral to just south of Tampa Bay. Westward they
controlled the peninsula to the gulf as far as the Aucilla
River. An isolated group of Indians that are probably
to be lumped with the Timucua were the Tawasa who at one time
were found near the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee
Rivers in Apalachee territory. Little is known about this
group and Swanton places them in the Alabama Group, Southern
Division of the Muskhogean Stock on the basis of place names
found in the account of Lamhatty, a Tawasa Indian. Gran-
berry gives them separate status as a dialect of the Western
Division of the Timucua. This isolated position of the
28/ Goggin, (1952).
John M. GoLgin, An Introductory Outline of Timucua
29/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 11, 13, & 137-141.
David I. Bushnell, Jr., The Account of Lamhatty, Amer.
Anthropologist, vol. 10, no. 4, (1908), pp. 568-574.
30/ Julian Granberry, Timucua I: Prosodies and Phonemics
of the Mocama Dialect. Internat. Jour. Amer. Linguistics, Vol.
22, no. 2, (1956), p. 99.
Tawasa would seem to suggest that the Timucua were early
inhabitants of Florida and that the Tawasa were pushed aside
by the Apalachee, who archeologically and linguistically
seem to have connections with the Georgia-Alabama region.
The following table taken from Granberry, shows the
correlation between the political divisions and the various
Timucuan dialects as he has been able to establish them.
The amount of dialectical variation between these various
dialects is not indicated by Granberry but apparently was
not great. Towns or "provinces" speaking each dialect are
given in parenthesis.
A. Eastern Division
1. Yufera ? (Yufera)
2. Tucururu (Icafui, Yui, Tacatacuru)
3. Mocama (Saturiba, Mayaca, Mayaguaca,
B. Western Division
1. Tawasa ? (Tawasa)
2. Utina (Yustaga ?, Onatheaqua, Timucua)
3. Potano (Potano)
C. Southern Division
1. Acuera ? (Acuera, Ocale)
2. Tocobaga (Tacobaga, Mococo, Ocita or Pohoy)
31/ Granberry, ibid., p. 99, fig. 1
The Mayaca and Mayaguaca were often called the Fresh-
Water, Agua Fresca, or Agua Dulce, Indians. Surruque and
Urubia seems to have been called the Agua Salada, or Salt
Goggin summarizes the known archeological complexes
that can be identified with these groups. He finds
that the Eastern Timucua belong in the Northern St. Johns
Archeological Area with variously St. Johns IIc or St.
Augustine archeological complexes. The Uestern Division
and the Acuera dialect Group of the Southern Division be-
long to the Central Florida archeological area. The Toco-
baga dialect group seem to belong to the Central Gulf Coast
area and may hate had a material culture classified as Safety
Harbor complex. He concludes that the basic material culture
was not changed by Spanish influences and that the basic sub-
sistence remained unchanged. Timucua archeology, then, is
a fairly old complex is each sub-area.
List of Missions: The Timucua area was farily populous
as its basic subsistence was agriculture. Lists of missions
are available from a number of sources, often including num-
bers of persons in the towns. In the following paragraph
32/ Rouse, (1951), pp. 36-39.
33/ Goggin, (1953), op. cit.
the lists of missions
the basic material
from ideal.3 /
, (1941), p. 122
(1935), pp. 79-81
(1935), pp. 239-40
Geiger, (1957), pp. 171-7
Geiger, (1937), p. 186
Geiger, (1937), pp. 195-9
Geiger, (1937), p:
Geiger, (1937), p:
Geiger, (1937), p:
Diaz de la Calle;
(1922), pp. 322-3
pp. 132-3; Swanton
(1941), pp. 122-3
Boyd, (1941), pp. 182-3
(1941), pp. 123-4; Swanton,
1935), p. 198
(1922), p. 105
into a coherent
have been collected
In 1602 various sources report, for the whole Timuca
area more than forty-two towns with at least 6,000 Indians.
Some lists give only the number of Christians, those ready
for baptism, or those being catechised. Other letters
give simply a number of "Indians." For these reasons no
regular census is possible. In 1606 the number of
Christian Indians is stated to beaver 6,000. In the
following year various claims of up to 4,000 conversions
Swanton lists epidemics in the years 1613-1617, 1649-
1650~ -670, 1672, with consequent decreases in the numbers
of Indians. In 1617, for instance, the Spaniards report
that about half the Indians had died in the preceding four
years but that 8,000 Christian Indians remained. The
rebellion of 1656 was participated in by eleven towns ex-
tending from at least the mouth of the St. Johns to San
Francisco de Potano in central Florida. This situation is
reflected in further lists. The mission list of 1655 gives
21 missions but does not show the population. One
list for 1675 gives, at most, fourteen missions in Timucua
territory with around a thousand persons, some of them
35/ Swanton, (1922), p. 337.
36/ Swanton, (1922), p. 337.
7/ Swanton, (1922), p. 338.
38/ Swanton, (1922), p. 338.
39/ Swanton, (1922), p. 322.
recently migrant Yamasees from Georgia. The Bishop of
Cuba made a visit to the Florida mission field in 1675 and
gives another list of only eleven missions in the Timucua
area. In 1680, the number of missions given is 15 for
the Timucua territory, with no indication of the number of
persons. The losses reflected in the above lists had
been mainly by revolt, disease, and only incidentally by
the agency of slave-raiding Carolinians. In 1702, with the
onset of Queen Anne's War, Carolina launched the most ex-
tensive attacks, and the Spanish mission Indians were doomed.
Carolinian activity in Florida was but a part of the
larger scheme by England to gain control of the great in-
terior area of America. It is to be doubted if Floridans,
Spanish and Indian, appreciated being something of a side
issue to larger plans. At the head of a company of 500
Carolinians and about 300 Indians Col. James Moore, Sr.;
planter, trader, slave-dealer, expansionist, governor, and
raider; set out from Port Royal intent on plundering the
Spanish. The Guale missions were soon swept away, and the
little army invested St. Augustine. After capturing, and
looting, the town, Moore laid seige to the Castillo for
40/ Mark F. Boyd, Enumeration of Florida Spanish Missions
in 1676. Fla. Hist. Quart., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 181-88 (1948).
Hereafter cited as "Boyd, (1948),"
41/ Lucy L. Wenhold, A 17th century letter of Gabriel
Diaz Vara Calderon, Bishop of Cuba, describing the Indians
and Indian Iissions of Florida. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol.
95, no. 16, (1936). Hereafter cited as "Yenhold, (1936)."
42/ Swanton, (1922), p. 322.
43/ Crane, (1928), pp. 71-107.
eight weeks until relief arrived from Cuba. The avail-
able documents say little enough about the destruction
of Timucuan missions in the vicinity of St. Augustine
but it must have been considerable. Two years later
Col. Moore shifted his attention to western Florida with
another vicious attack against Apalachee. This will be
considered in a later connection.
A royal officer, Juan de Pueyo, writing in November
10, 1707, said that Florida was being rapidly depopulated
by English raids. He states that 32 settlements of Indians
had been destroyed, presumably in the last few years.
In April, 1717, a mission list and census indicates only
nine missions containing some 823 persons, many of them
new Indians from other places. These new migrants
represented partly refugees from settlements destroyed j
by'the English raids and partly refugees from the Yamasee
War in the Carolinas. It is not at all clear whether this
is the complete-list of missions in existence in 1717. It
is probably not the complete list. It does, however, in-
dicate the extent of the destruction carried out.
44/ Crane, Ibid.
Herbert E. Bolton & Mary Ross, The Debatable Land,
in: Arredondo's historical proof of Spain's title to Georgia.
(1925), p. 60, note: for a summary of the printed sources.
Hereafter cited as "Bolton & Ross, (1925)."
Verner W. Crane, The Southern Frontier in Queen
Anne's War. Amer. Hist. Rev., vol. 24, no. 3, (1918), pp.
379-95, also summarizes the printed sources, p. 386.
45/ Swanton, (1922), p. 339.
46/ AI 58-1-30/64, Spanish Documents at North Carolina
Dept. of Archives, Raleigh.
For 1728, Swanton gives a Spanish account of the last
of the mission towns, and it is probable that few non-mission
towns had escaped, although a few existed in Western Timucua.
These were huddled under the walls of St. Augustine in the
vain hope of protection. The number of persons listed is
not more than 334, a sorry remnant of the more than 8,000
in Timucua a century before.
The arrival of Georgia and South Carolina Indians seek-
ing the protection of St. Augustine is illustrated in most
of the above accounts. Guale and Yamasee elements are strong
in all the accounts during these troubled years. Archeo-
logical confirmation is secure in the rather sudden appear-
ance of the pottery types belonging to the San Marcos group
in and around St. Augustine at this time. This is nearly
identical with the Indian pottery found on Spanish mission
sites in the vicinity of Darien, Georgia (excavations by
Shiela K. Caldwell and Louis H. Larson, Jr. for the Georgia
Historical Commission, largely unpublished). San Marcos
Stamped introduces into the North Florida area a complicated
stamped pottery foreign to the area until this time, around
In 1728 Col. John Palmer made a sudden raid into the
very vicinity of St. Augustine in order to attack the
Yamasee living there, restore Lnglish prestige among the
Creeks, and aggravate the Spanish. He found the Yamasee
in the Mission of Nombre de Dios (containing the shrine of
47/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 339-341.
Nuestra Senora de la Leche). About thirty Yamasee were
killed and fifteen taken prisoner, the rest fleeing to the
inside of the Castillo de San Marcos. Palmer delayed a
few days but did not attack the fort, town of St. Augustine,
or the Indian town of Pocotalaco under the walls of the
fort. This indicates the depopulation of the original
and more accessible missions and the presence of refugees,
largely Yamasee and Guale in the St. Augustine area.
With the founding of the Colony of Georgia, Oglethorpe
first turned his attention to securing his flank by treaties
with the back-country Creeks along the Chattahoochee. His
string of forts from St. Simons to Cumberland staked out
England's claim to the area of former Spanish missions
along the Guale coast and even penetrated into the border
of the former Timucuan province. Raids against the few re-
maining Indian settlements in Florida continued with the
Spanish objecting, and often the Enulish promising to re-
turn captives and punish the raiders. The focus of these
attacks and raids was the St. Augustine district, but some
were made deep into Florida and into the fertile central
district of the state. In 1732, Benavides wrote to the King
from the fort of San Marcos de Apalache concerning the
48/ Crane, (1928), pp. 249-51.
Swanton, (1922), p. 341.
Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South
Carolina, March 23, 1728.
Timucua settlements that still existed along the road from
Apalachee to St. Augustine.
"The nine settlements of Timuquan Indians
located on the Royal Road which goes from
'La Florida' fSt. Augustine7 to the limits
of the before mentioned province /Apalachee7
are distant one from the other 28, 8, 2, 6,
1, and 5 leagues. They are La Florida,
Santa Fe, San Franco, Santa Catalina, Ajuica, 49/
San Juan del Rio, San Pedro, Machaba and Asile."
This list is important because, along with the few mission
settlements mentioned in the vicinity of St. Augustine, it
indicates the paucity of Timucua settlements at the time of
the founding of Georgia. These names continue to be shown
on maps long after the actual settlements had ceased to
exist, evidently they became fixed as place names.
After consolidating his position by treaties with the
Creeks, Oglethorpe began encouraging raids against Spanish
With the outbreak of the Var of Jenkins Ear, Oglethorpe
launched his main attack on St. Augustine in 1740. His force
of about 900 soldiers and militiamen with 1,000 Indian allies
was fairly successful in destroying the outlying settlements
from St. Augustine. The fort itself was not captured, and
the expedition was rather inconclusive. From the various
accounts of this expedition we get a picture of the large
numbers and usefullness of the Indian allies with Oglethorpe
as well as the few Indians at the disposal of the Spanish
commander Horcasitas. Oglethorpe not only attacked outlying
posts but also the Negro settlement of Mose or Musa near
49/ Buckingham Smith Collection, Robertson No. 1945.
St. Augustine. This had been established by the Spaniards
as a town for runaway slaves from the Carolinas. It would
seem that the Spaniards tried to replace their dwindling
Indian allies by these runaway Negro slaves.
Oglethorpe's expedition is interesting for another reason
in relation to the Seminole problem. Malatchee, son of Old
Brim the emporer of Coweta, accompanied Oglethorpe, and we
see the development of interest by one Creek faction in the
Florida area. In the years following 1740, we find the
defendants of Old Brim (Secoffee, Malathcee, Tugulki) as well
as his brother Chislacasliche, developing a strong interest
in, and affection for, the Spaniards. This interest seems
to have led to Lower Creek settlements in the old Apalachee
territory, which will be considered later. Alden says, with-
out giving further references, that Cowkeeper, often with Mary
1'iusgrove, niece of Brim, had accompanied Oglethorpe to Florida.
If so it goes a long way toward explaining the Oconee settle-
ment at Alachua in central Florida. This whole matter will
bo discussed below under the sections on the various Lower
Creek tribes (pp. 126-134).
After all these troubles, the few remnants of the Timucua
from around St. Augustine seem to have partly emigrated to
50/ Colonial Records of Georgia, IV. pp. 565-66.
51/ John R. Alden, John Stuart and the Southern Colonial
FrontTl-e, A Study of Indian Relations, War, Trade, and Land
Problems in the Southern Wilderness, 1754-1775. (1944).
southern Florida where they were absorbed into the local
groups and partly emigrated to the vicinity of Mosquito
Lagoon and Halifax River in Volusia County where they main-
tained a village for a short time and have left their name
on the Tomoka River. Ultimately these, with the Yamasee
remnants, must have been absorbed by the Seminole. It is
clear, however, that very few were surviving by 1750 and that
even fewer did survive into the English period when the Semi-
nole emerge as an identifiable ethnic unit.
South Florida Tribes. South of the Timucua the cultural
picture changed radically. The Timucua were agricultural and
fairly sedentary. The southern tribes were non-agricultural
hunters, fishers, and gatherers. The grouping
are: Calusa, Tekesta, Jeaga, and Ais. Their languages are
far from well known but seem rather closely related to Musk-
Actually, this linguistic relationship rests
on very scanty evidence and cannot be relied upon for much
in the way of conclusions. The Spanish, in contrast to their
behavior in the Timucuan and Apalachee areas, paid scant atten-
tion to the southern groups. This was probably because of the
greater "wildness" and the unsettled character of these groups
as well as their geographical position. Until the Timucua
52/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 341-42.
53/ John R. Swanton. The Indians of the Southeastern
United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bull. 137,
(1946). Table 1. Hereafter cited as "Swanton, (1946)."
area was invaded in the 18th century, the English did not
come in contact with the South Florida tribes. Thus there
was not the need, in Spanish eyes, to establish the mission
barrier among these Indians.
Ais: The boundaries of the Ais province extended from
immediately north of Cape Canaveral south throughout the
Indian River area to the St. Lucie inlet. Inland they seem
to have controlled the territory for twenty to thirty miles
from the coast. Their settlements, however, all seem to have
been along the coast and the Indian River lagoon. They were
definitely a coastal group. At the southern end, their terri-
tory extended inland to the shores of Lake Okeechobee.
The Ais proper seem to have occupied the central coastal
section of this area with the Ulumay and Perucho chieftains
at the north next to the Timucuan Surruque and Mayaca. At
the South, the sub-triblet of Guacata was found in the vicinity
of St. Lucie Inlet. At first the Guacata seem to have been
subject to the Ais but during Spanish time, at least tempo-
rarily, they became somewhat independent. The total popula-
tion of the area was less than 1,000 persons. Swanton lists
some eleven towns that would be assigned to the Ais area.
The locations of Ais villages are shown on the Mexia Map in
Rouse. Villages were moved seasonally and even in case of
storms or other simil T events.
54/ Rouse, (1951), p. 40.
55/ Swanton, (1922), p. 333.
56/ Rouse, (1951), fig. 15, p. 256.
The Ais may have been the first Indians encountered by
the Spanish on the Floridan Peninsula as Ponce de Leon may
have anchored off their village in 1513. By 1550, or
thereabouts, the Ais were beginning to come into contact with
shipwrecked sailors on their coasts. The first extended con-
tact with the Ais was Menendez after his defeat of the French.
Finding them at first friendly, Menendez established part of
his force there, but this soon led to trouble. This inaugu-
rated a period of hostility between the Ais and the Spanish
lasting until about 1603. This first fort was abandoned
due to Indian attacks and another established a little farther
south. Indian attacks let to the abandonment of this fort.
During the years 1566 and 1567 blockhouses were built
along the southern coasts of Florida as a protection from
pirates and to control the now generally hostile Indians. Mis-
sions do not seem to have been established in the Ais country,
although Chatelain shows four in this area. The Ais re-
mained generally hostile to the Spanish and acquired an ugly
57/ T. Frederick Davis, History of Ponce de Leonts Voy-
ages to Florida. Fla. Hist. Quart., vol. 14, no. 1, (1935),
58/ Andres G. Carbillado y Zuniga Barcia, Essayo
cronoligico para la historic general de la Florida, 1512-
1722, por Gabriel do Cardenas Z. Cano (pseud.). (1723).
Reissued as "Barcia's History of Florida, (1951), pp. 98-
99. Hereafter cited as "Barcia, (1951)."
59/ Rouse, (1951), p. 57.
60/ Chatelain, (1941), op. cit., Map 21.
reputation as looters of wrecks and murderers of shipwrecked
sailors. Menendez advised that they be enslaved because he
felt that nothing constructive could be done about them.
This was vetoed at higher levels and the Ais were left to
shift for themselves. Occasionally expeditions of Spanish
soldiers went to the Ais country carrying gifts in an effort
to rescue sailors or merely to pacify the Indians. Finally
the chief was enticed to St. Augustine, where he was con-
verted to Christianity.
In 1603, there began a general period in which the Ais
were friendly to the Spanish, turning over shipwrecked mariners
upon payment of moderate ransoms., They also assisted by act-
ing in a hostile manner to English, Dutch, or French pirates
in the area. The actual number of conversions, however, seems
to have been very small. They remained little affected by
Spanish culture. In 1696, the Dickinson family was shipwrecked
just south of Ais in Jeaga territory and described the Ais as
relatively unacculturated. Their journal shows no missions
in Ais country, no colonization, no military control, and vir-
tually no evidence of Spanish occupation.
Shortly after 1700 the Ais, like the Timucua to the
north, began to feel the effect of Carolinian-instigated
61/ Jonathan Dickinson, Jonathan Dickinson's Journal.
slave raids from the north.
decline in Ais culture that continued until their extinc-
In 1743, the Jesuits started a fort and mission in the
area, apparently prompted by evidence of cultural decline-
disease, rum, and the raids from the north had reduced the
Ais to a sorry state indeed. At the time this mission was
established, the Yamasee had begun to have actual settle-
ments in the area, according to Roberts.
gration continued apace and by 1760 there seem to have been
no Indians in the area. The only inhabitants of this area
were a few Cuban fishermen,
: lucni. "
one of whom was killed by
If any Ais did survive this period of decline
62/ George R. Fairbanks, History of Florida from its
Discovery by Ponce de Leon, in 1512, to the Close of the
Florida War, in 1842. (1871), p. 179.
James Adair, History of the American Indians, ed.
by Samuel Cole Villiams, (1930), p. 489. Hereafter cited
as "Adair, (1930)."
John Tate Lanning, The Spanish Missions of Georgia.
(1935), pp. 215-225.
Swanton, (1946), pp. 341-42.
63/ William Robe:ts, An Account of the First Discovery
and Natural History of Florida, etc. (1763), p. 22.
64/ Bernard Romans, A Concise Natural History of East
and Vest Florida; etc. (1775), p. 186. Hereafter cited as
_/ Luis M. Perez, Guide to the Materials from American
History in Cuban Archives. (1907), p. 79.
This began a serious
they probably moved south to be absorbed by the Calusa,
in which case theft emigrated to Cuba in 1763.
Following the extinction of the Als the Seminole took
over the area with at least one recognized village and prob-
ably some others.
As an alternate end of the Ais to
that quoted above, the "Costa" mission reported in 1726 near
St. Augustine may have been composed of these people.
In 1726 there were 88 Indians, in 1728 only 52 "Coast"
Indians, probably not all Ais.
Jeaga: This small group just south of the Ais belongs
with the rest of the South Florida tribes. It is also known
as the Hobe tribe being found in the area of Hobe Sound. No
separate enumeration is possible. It certainly followed about
the same-course as the Ais to the north and was extinct or
absorbed into Calusa remnants by 1750.
Tekesta: The Tekesta tribe or group lived south of the
Jeaga along the coast in the vicinity of the present Miami.
They seem to have occupied most of Dade County and as far
north as Pompano in Broward County where their territory
touched the Jeaga.
To the south they apparently extended
66/ Swanton, (1946), p. 84.
67/ Swanton, (1922), p. 412, plate 12.
Rouse, (1951), p. 62.
68/ Swanton, (1952), p. 121.
69/ Swanton, (1952), pp. 132-133.
John M, Goggin, The Tekesta Indians of Southern
Fla. Hist. Quart., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 274-284,
nearly to Cape Sable where the Calusa lands began. -The
Calusa also bordered themon the west and southwest.
They were largely independent of the Calusa. However,
there was some intermarriage and cooperation. They were
encountered by Ponce de Leon in 1513, but no intimate
knowledge of them was gained for another fifty years.
Menendez, on his return from founding St. Augustine,
stopped in the area.
In 1568, Menendez established a
blockhouse in Tekesta territory, left some priests, and
took the chief to Spain. Tekesta remained practically
unaffected by the Spanish settlements. After the rela-
tions with the Indians became unfriendly, the area was
In 1673, Bishop Calderon referred to 13 tribes of hea-
then Indians in the area, naming one as the "Vicaynos," the
ancestor of the modern term "Biscayne."
The 1743 mission
.of the Jesuits mentioned in the discussion of the Ais was
placed on the Rio Ratones in the Tekesta area. Rio Ratones
was evidently the present Little River.
was the last to make mention of the Tekesta and they probably
71/ Goggin, ibid., p. 274.
72/ Woodbury Lowery, The Spanish settlements within the
present limits of the United States: Florida, 1562-1574.
(1905), p. 260.
73/ Venhold, (1936), pp. 11-12.
74/ Goggin, (1940), op. cit., p. 277.
suffered the same fate as the Ais and Jeaga. Adair said
that the final 80 families of South Florida Indians re-
moved to Cuba wi-h the Spanish in 1763. The area was
evidently completely depopulated. Romans in the 1770's
described only deserted villages.
The Ais, Jeaga, and Tekesta together seem to have had
only about 1,000 members. This probably represents a
valid estimate as none of the Spanish documents describe
very large villages, although some do say large numbers
attacked at various times. The excessive estimations of
attacking forces are, of course, in the interest of present-
ing the defeat in the best possible light. As all these
tribes were hunters and fishers the population could never
have been very large. Of all of them, the Tekesta were
probably the most populous.
Calusa; West of the Tekesta was a large tribe or con-
federation of tribes occupying a considerable portion of
the western part of the southern portion of the peninsula.
An alternate name, often appearing in various documents is
Calos for the area and tribe. Two areas of confusion,
or lack of information exist: 1) to what tribal group did
75/ Adair, (1930), pp. 142 & 489.
76/ Romans, (1775).
77/ James Mooney, The aboriginal population of American
north of Mexico. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. vol. 80, no. 7. (1928).
S78/ John I. Gogein & Prank H. Sommer, III, Excavations on
Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale Univ. Publ. in Anthropology,
no. 41. (1949), p. 21.
the Indians of the Keys belong, and 2) who occupied the
area between Chaklotte Harbor and Tampa Bay? In respect
to the first,of these Goggin reviews the evidence for the
first question in the following statement.
"It -seems probable that since the Matecumbe
and other peoples of the Keys were relative-
ly small groups, they were subject to either
the Calusa or the Tekesta, who were much
more powerful. But the relative power of
the two tribes apparently fluctuated so it
is likely that contr/ over the Keys may
have changed often."'--
For the above reasons, the occupants of the Keys will here
be considered to belong with the Calusa.
The area between Charlotte Harbor and Tampa is not
indicated on the maps of Swanton or Rouse as
occupied by any group up to the presence of Seminole in
the middle of the 18th century. In Swanton's "Indians
of the Southeastern United States" Map 1 indicates Calusa
in the above area, but no definite boundaries are shown.
This agrees fairly well with the numerous mentions of the
Tampa Bay general area in the hands of Calusa. The actual
shores of Tampa Bay were in the hands of the Timucua (Ocita,
Tocobabaga, and Mococo). From immediately south of Tampa
Bay to Cape Sable, and even beyond in the Keys, was the
homeland of the Calusa.
79/ Goggin & Sommer, ibid., p. 22.
80/ Swanton, (1922), plate 1.
81/ Rouse, (1951), Map. fig. 4, p. 35.
82/ Swanton, (1922), plate 1.
Just north of Lake Okeechobee two small groups are I
indicated: The 1iayaimi, and Sarrope. The first of these
is mentioned in Fontenada and belonged to the Calusa
group. Sarrpe is mentioned on an interior lake by the
French expedition, and is so loosely identified as not
to merit discussion. The Calusa, or tribes allied with
them, occupied the area from just south of Tampa Bay to
and including the Keys. From the western coast of Florida
they evidently controlled the area inland to Lake Okeechobee.
East of Lake Okeechobee they came in contact with the Ais,
Tekesta, and Jeaga. This eastern boundary was a fluctuating
one as the relative power of the various tribes changed from
time to time.
Archeologically the area is almost all with Goggin's
Glades area. In the long persistence of this cultural
tradition there is a strong evidence of a population resi-
dent in that area for a very long period. Host of the
changes were the result of internal evolution.
Ponce de Leon and most of the other early Spanish ex-
plorers touched the Calusa territory but left little infor-
mation about the people. Menendez tried to establish missions
83/ Hernando de Escalante Fontenada, Memoire of Do.
d' escalante Fontenada respecting Florida. Reprinted with
revisions. (1944). p. 51.
84/ Rene de Laudonniere, A Notable Histoire containing
Foure Voyages, etc. (1810). p. 406.
85/ Goggin, (1949), pp. 13-44.
and outposts among the Calusa as he had among the Ais,
Jeaga, and Tekesta. The posts among the Calusa were even
less successful tian the others. Like their neighbors to
the east, the Calusa began to diminish during the 17th
and early (1thcenturies due to disease and attacks by
the Spanish. Swanton lists 56 villages or towns, with
no indication as to whether these are to be considered
contemporaneous. Mooney estimated Calusa population as
around 3,000 for 1650. The Calusa increasingly resort-
ed to Havana for trade.' The last of the Calusa went to
Cuba with the Spanish evacuation of 1763. It is prob-
able that in such an inaccessible area as the southern
tip of\Florida some Indians would have remained hidden
from casual eyes. This is especially true of hunting-
fishing groups such as the Calusa.
In preparing a report on the jurisdiction of the
Florida Keys, Eligio de la Puente makes several inter-
esting statements. De la Puente was a native of St. Augus-
tine who was the leading authority on Indians for the Span-
ish in the last half of the 18th century. He said that at
the end of 1761 Ochize (Creek) raids, penetrating to the
keys, had destroyed the "Costa" Indian towns and forced
these groups to Cuba. There they died of neglect. On a
86/ Swanton, (1952), pp. 125-126.
87/ Mooney, (1928), op. cit.
88/ Adair, (1930), op. cit.
trip from Florida to Cuba in 1762, Eligio and eight dom-
panions were attacked by 48 Uchizes (Creeks) with one
Spaniard killed. Eligio was engaged in setting the
foundation of 'a diplomatic trap by which the English would
acknowledge that the keys were still Spanish after 1763.
In spite of the diplomatic special interest of the report
as a whole, there seems to be no reason to doubt Eligio's
statements. The report shows Calusa remnants moving to
Cuba even before 1763. Further, it shows the Creeks pene-
trated just about all of Florida by 1761.
The scattered references to Spanish fishing activities
in the\vicinity of Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor during
the British Dominion in Florida do not mention any Indians
in that area except Lower Creeks. It is true, however,
that these Creeks were actively seeking out the Spanish
fishing masters for transportation to Cuba. The Spanish
as a result of established policy, on the other hand, were
attempting to avoid Indians seeking free trips to Havana.
The subject of possible remnants of the Calusa after 1763
brings up two other subjects: the Florida Choctaw and the
Spanish Indians of the Tampa Bay Charlotte Harbor area.
Choctaw: The presence of Choctaw in southern Florida
at a relative late date (1821) is discussed by Swanton at
89/ Charles W. Arnade, The Florida Keys: English or
Spanish in 1763? Tekesta, no. 15, (1955), pp. 48-49,
Def. Ex. 15.
some length. He concludes that this indicates a relation-
ship between the Galuse and Choctaw of the present state
of Mississippi. Later Choctaw appear in the census of
1847. These last Choctaw could conceivably have been
the descendants of scouts brought to Florida by the Ameri-
can army. Recently the presence of a definite body of
Choctaw in Florida has been demonstrated and we must dis-
card Swanton's rather summary dismissal of them. Neill
calls attention to their presence and suggests that more
investigation is needed. This opinion is repeated by
Sturtevant in a recent paper. There evidently has been
a body of Choctaw in Florida since the early years of the
19th century and they should not be confused with either
the Calusa or Seminole. Recently the leader of this Choc-
taw band, Horace Ridaught, has published a history of his
group. Ridaught garbles some Florida history and does
not settle all the questions that remain. The Choctaw
90/ Swanton, (1922), pp. 28-31.
91/ Henry R. Schoolcraft, Historical and Statistical
Information, respecting the history, etc., of the Indian
tribes of the U. S., (1851-1857), vol. I, p. 522.
92/ Uilfred T. Neill, The Identity of Florida's
"Spanish Indians." Fla. Anthropologist, vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 49-50. (1955).
93/ Willian C. Sturtevant, Present State of Ethnology
of Florida. Ms. in press: Fla. Anthropologist.
94/ Horace Ridaught, Hell's Branch Office. (1957).
band does exist and has been in Florida for more than
a century-.-Considerabl work is necessary to clear up
Small the evidence.
Spanish Indians: The problem of the "Spanish Indians"
is a slightly different matter. Sturtevant summarizes the
references from 1763 down to the 1840's when they were in-
evolved in the attack on Dr. Perine at Inaian Key. A
number of these references refer to this group by names
suggesting that they were Calusa. Thus they presum-
ably are Calusa remnants left behind in the exodus of
1763. Most of the identifiable names in the 1820's and
1830's are Creek and thus conform with the Seminole lin-
guistic pattern. Neill goes further and presents evidence
from a number of sources to show that these "Spanish In-
dians" spoke Seminole dialects and that the American of-
ficials in the area considered them Seminoles. As is
so often the case, different persons had different axes
to grind. The Seminoles in the 1830's did not want to
acknowledge any extra claimants to share their govern-
mental allotments. The Americans in Florida wanted to
herd all Indians onto the newly created reserve or ship
95/ William C. Sturtevant, Chakaika and the "Spanish
Indians": etc. Tequesta, no. 13, pp. 35-74. (1953).
96/ William Bartram, Travels in Georgia and Florida,
1773-74; etc. Annotated by Francis Harper. Trans. Amer.
Phil. Soc. vol. 33, pt. 2, (1943). p. 171.
Romans, (1775), p. 289.
97/ Neill, op. cit., (1955).
or ship them to Oklahoma. The fact that these Indians
spoke Creek (Seminole) does not mean that they were exactly
the same as the group now formally known as Seminole. They
certainly intermarried with the Seminole and had considerable
contact with them. It is evident that the few Calusa
(and other aboriginal tribes) who managed to survive Creek
raids, disease, and other events, either went to Cuba with
the Spani"s in 1763, or remained hidden in the Everglades
and Big Cypress. In 1784 some may have returned, either
from Cuba or hiding, and were gradually absorbed into the
Seminole bands. What the documents cited by Neill do show
is this process of absorption.
Northwestern Florida Tribes: The Timucuan peoples of
northeastern Florida appear to have extended westward to
the Aucilla River, with one exception. This was the Tawasa
mentioned above. West of the Aucilla were a series of
smaller groups all speaking Muskhogean languages with the
exception of the Yuchi. They were probably all basically
similar in culture or acquired the basic culture of the
southeast in this period. The tribes were:
98/ Ibid., pp. 44-46.
Each of these tribes will be discussed in order. The Ana-
lachee will be treated last as the most important in the
area and because the destruction of their towns is the
special subject of Chapter III. The Apalachee territory
is especially important because, with the Alachua prairie
in central Florida, it was the principal area in which the
Seminole N-aion formed as a recognizable unit.
Amacano: This group was small and its affiliation is
far from clear. In 1639, Gov. Castro Pardo concluded peace
with the "Chacatos, Apalachocolos y Amacanos." In one
list of 1575 the mission of Asuncion de Neustra Senora is
described as being on the road to the sea from San Luis
(pr~soxt 'aliahassee) and having been established in 1764.
In the letter of Bishop Calderon the same mission is called
Assunpcion del Peurto and the good bishop claims to have
fouidsd the mission on February 2, 1675. Evidently
the sar3 mission is meant as both references note that is
contained Chines, Caparaz, and Amacanos. Boyd's list in-
cludes the additional information that the mission contained,
99/ Manuel Serrano y Sanz, ed., Documentos Historicos
de la Florida y la Luisiana. Siglos XVI al XVIII. (1913),
pp. 198-99. Hereafter cited as "Serrano y Sanz (1913)."
100/ Boyd, op. cit. (1948), p. 185.
101/ -Venhold, op. cit. (1936), p. 9.
in all, 300 persons. Swanton, in his notes on the
Calderon letter, suggested a parallel between Amacano and
Yamacraw. Elsewhere he suggests that the Amacanos
were Yamasee. Of the two possibilities, that of link-
ing Amacano as a variant of Yamacraw is the more likely,
especially in view of the lack of the "ra" sound in the
Muskhogean dialects. The presence of this band, along with
two other new bands, suggests that in 1674-75 refugees from
the north were already arriving in Florida. It is best not
to regard the Amacano as early inhabitants of Florida. They
do not appear in the later records of Apalachee.
Chine: This group was associated with the Amacano and
Caparaz in the Mission of Asuncion de Nuestra Senora noted
above. Swanton suggests that it is the name of a chief but
does not further identify the people. In another place
he identifies the Chines with a band of the Chatot Nation,
on what basis is not clear. In a mission list of 1680 there
is mentioned San Pedro de los Chines, which presumably refers
to the same group, although it is still listed as a new
conversion. All three of these small groups probably suffered
102/ Boyd, op. cit., (1948), p. 185.
103/ Wenhold, (1936), p. 4.
104/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 95 & 119.
105/ Swanton, (1946), op. cit., p. 217.
106/ Swanton, (1946), op. cit., p. 119.
107/ Chatelain, (1941), op. cit., p. 124.
the fate of the Apalachee in 1704. The Chine are not men-
tioned in the documents concerning the destruction of Apa-
lachee in 1704.
Caparaz: This is the third group in the mission of
Asuncion de Nuestra Senora referred to above. They may have
been the remnants of the Capachequi mentioned by De Soto in
1540. In view of the fact that the mission was a new
conversion in either 1674 or 1675, and that there is some
suggestion that the associated groups of Chines and Amacanos
were migrant groups, it is entirely possible that the Caparaz
were also refugees. They do not appear specifically at the
destruction of Apalachee.
Tawasa: This tribe was encountered by De Soto in the
Upper Creek country of central Alabama but moved down to
the coast some time before 1700. They were settled between
the Apalachicola and Choctawhachee Rivers. perhaps
near the junction of the Flint and Chattahaochee.
They could not have remained long in this area as the
Indian Lamhatty described their destruction by Tuscaroras
108/ Mark F. Boyd, Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin,
Here they once stood. (1951). Hereafter cited as "Boyd,
et al., (1951)." Def. Ex. 17.
109/ Swanton, (1946), op. cit., p. 102.
110/ Boyd, et al., (1951), op. cit.
ll/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 137.
112/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., p. 144.
- I I
in 1706. This is another indication of Carolinians
instigating slave raids. After the Tawasa town was broken,
the remnants fled to the vicinity of Mobile and the protec-
tion of the French. There they were settled in the neighbor-
hood of a refugee band of Apalachee who had moved there in
1704. In 1717 they moved to central Alabama where they
remained, with a few changes of location, until the Creek
removal to Oklahoma. Most of the Upper Creek towns were
active in the War of 1813, and later many of the Upper Creeks
fled to Florida where they joined the Seminole Nation. It
may be that some of the Tawasa town joined in this emigra-
tion. If so, they may have been attracted to an area in
which their ancestors had been residents.
Pawokti: This small group during most of their exist-
ence was associated with the Tawasa. They are mentioned in
the Lamhatty account under the name of Pauhka which is shown
as a village near Tawasa. They were located just west
of the Choctawhatchee River near the Gulf. After the Tusc-
arora raids mentioned by Lamhatty they seem to have moved
to the vicinity of Mobile. Later they were absorbed into
the Alabama tribe near the confluence of t..e Alabama and
113/ Bushnell, (1908), op. cit., pp. 568-74.
114/ Peter J. Iamilton, Colonial Mobile, Revised and
enlarged edition. (Republished in photo-offset, 1952).
(1910), pp. 112-13.
115/ Bushnell, (1908), op. cit.
Tombigbee Rivers. Like the Tawasa, they may have con-
tributed a few individuals to the Upper Creek movement into
Florida after the Creek War of 1813. These individuals,
however, must be considered as persons absorbed into the
Alabama Group, not as still constituting a separate tribal
Pensacola: The Pensacola tribe was encountered as
early as 1528 by the survivors of the Narvaez expedition.
It was not until 1677 that the tribe is mentioned by name.
Their name has been variously translated as "Bread People"
and as "Hair People." Whatever the meaning, close
linguistic relationships to the Choctaw are indicated. They
were agricultural, but of rather low population, only 40 men
in 1725. They were resident on Pensacola Bay in 1686.
When the Spanish post of Pensacola was established in 1698
the tribe is not mentioned but was evidently in the neighbor-
hood. Later they moved westward to the Pearl River where
116/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., p. 170.
117/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 144-146.
Bandelier, (1905), op. cit., pp. 41-90.
118/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., p. 197.
119/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 143.
120/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., p. 136.
121/ Jean Baptiste le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville. Journal
du voyage do M. de Bienville, etc. in: Miss. Provincial Arch.,
French Dom., vol. 3, pp. 499-539. (1932), p. 535.
122/ Irving A. Leonard, The Spanish re-exploration of the
Gulf Coast in 1606. Hiss. Valley, Hist. Rev., vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 547-557. (1936).
s 1 __
Bienville encountered them. Finally they were either ab-
sorbed by the Choctaw or moved to Louisiana with the other
tribal remnants which had settled around Mobile. The Pensa-
cola disappeared entirely from the Florida scene some time
Chatot: The Chatot were an important group in western
Florida from the earliest settlements until the British
Dominion in Florida. Their name has been variously ascribed
to the Apalachicola and Flint Rivers, apparently because
their early settlements were just west of the former.
The similarity of their name to that of the Choctaws, a
tribe or confederacy living in what is now Mississippi, has
led to considerable confusion at times. In 1639, the Span-
ish governor concluded a peace with the "Chacatos, Apalachl-
colos y Amacanos" who had been at war with the Apalachee.
He makes the further comment that the Chacatos had never
been at peace with anyone. The fact that Chacatos,
Apalachicolos, and Amacanos are linked at this early date
suggests that the Chines discussed earlier may be an al-
ternate name for the Chatot. This is argued against by the
feet that the mission lists of 1675 specifically mention
Chines and Chacatos in separate missions as shown below.
123/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 134-135.
124/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., pp. 198-99.
Bishop Caldern said in 1675 that:
"Nine leagues from Lncarnacion, on the north-
ern frontier, is another (village) named San
Nicolas, of about 30 inhabitants, and 3 leagues
further on is another, San Carlos, of some-
thing like 100 inhabitants. Both these are
of the Chacatos nation, which 14 years ago
requested baptism and had not their desire
fulfilled until the 21st of June of last
In the other mission list of 1675 the paragraph about the
Chatot is badly garbled, apparently by an early copiest.
From this list, however, we have higher estimates of popu-
lation, San Nicholas de Tolentino having 100, San Carlos 400
persons. The Calderon letter goes on to say that in the
vicinity of the Chatot were "more than 4,000 heather called
Chiscas" ( .: de quatro mil gentiles llamados Chiscas").
Swanton, in various works, identifies the Chiscas with the
Yuchi. This would seem to indicate that the Yuchi were al-
ready in the area.
In 1674, the Chatot missions were threatened by these
Yuchi and a relief expedition had to be sent from San Luis in
Apalachee. In 1675, the Chatot seem to have rebelled, in
the usual pattern, although incited by the Yuchi perhaps.
Soon after this, the Chatot, or part of them, withdrew east
of the Apalachicola and settled in the land of San Luis, the
125/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., p. 186.
126/ Wjenhold, (1936), op. cit., p. 9, plate 5.
127/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 135.
I II I I
mission center at the present Tallahassee. Thereafter
we hear of them repeatedly in the Apalachee area,
usually as residing in the various Apalachee towns. They
combined at this time into one mission of San Carlos de Los
Chacatos. We also hear of a Chatot woman who had married
an Apalachicola and removed with him to the Lower Chattahoo-
chee. This is not regarded as unusual, by the writer,
and we can assume that the Chatot were intermarrying with
Lower Creeks (Apalachicolas) and Apalachee. All three groups,
Chatot, Lower Creek, and Apalachee probably had a high degree
Beginning in 1695 the Apalachicolas (Lower Creeks) made
raids on the Chatot. In that year they raided San Carlos
and looted the church, carrying off 42 Chatots as prisoners.
Raids continued for some time. In 1706 and 1707 Chatot towns
were being destroyed. In 1705 or 1706 the remaining
Chatot removed, along with some Apalachee, to the vicinity of
Mobile. The names of Choctaw Point and Choctaw Swamp in
130/ Boyd, et al., (1951), op. cit., pp. 26, 31, 27, & 38,
Def. Lx. 17.
Boyd, (1953), op. cit., pp. 468, 471, & 472, Def.
131/ Chatelain, (1941), op. cit., p. 124.
132/ Boyd, (1953), op. cit., pp. 468-69, Def. Ex. 16.
133/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., p. 224.
Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 135.
134/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. '155-56.
Bushnell, (1908), op. cit., p. 569.
135/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 136.
vicinity of Mobile seem to record the residence of these
people in that area. Swanton traces them to Louisiana and
they finally are lost sight of in that area.
In view of the intimate association of the Chatot with
the Apalachee and their intermarriage with the Apalachicola
(Lower Creeks) during the period around 1700 it is probable
that many were absorbed into those tribes. Thus perhaps
some of them were removed to South Carolina and may even
have returned to Florida with the returnees from Carolina
and Mobile. They were later absorbed by the Seminole as
were these Apalachee remnants. After 1707 the Chatot are
not mentioned as being in the Florida area, in any documents
available, either as a town or as individuals. By that date,
as a tribal entity, they had ceased to exist.
Tamathli: With the Tamathli we find the first tribe
that surely contributed to the formation of the Seminole
bands in a major way. The Toa, Otoa, or Toalli mentioned
in the De Soto narratives can be referred to this group.
This would place the Tamathli just north of the present
Georgia-Florida border in the area between Albany, Georgia
and the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee. Later
136/ Jedidiah Morse, A report of the Secretary of War of
the United States, on Indian affairs, comprising a narrative
of a tour performed in the summer of 1820. (1822), p. 373,
under the name of Chatteau. Hereafter cited as: "Mlorse, (1822)."
137/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 181.
138/ De Soto Com., (1939), op. cit., p. 174.
Spanish documents locate a province of Tama which Swanton
identifies as identical with Tamathli. This province
of Tama extended from the western border of the Yufera and
related Timucuan tribes westward to about the Flint River,
thus comprising the southern tier of counties of the pre-
sent state of Georgia. The Spanish showed a considerable
interest in the area during the closing years of the 16th
century because of reports of mines in the province.
The mines proved ephemeral and the Spanish did little a-
bout the province until 1675.
In that year there was a newly established mission in
Apalachee called Nuestra Senora de la Candelaria de la Tama
or La Purification de Tama in Calderon's letter one
league or less from San Luis. In both these letters Yamasee
are mentioned in the mission. Also mentioned are natives of
"la Tama." Boyd's list said that they (Tama and Yamasee)
were one people. We must assume that, in 1675, either the
Tamathli were related to the Yamasee or that they had rec-
ently united. The fact that the Spanish, while saying that
they were one people, list both groups suggests that the case
is one of the union of separate but related people. Both
139/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 181.
140/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., pp. 138, 144-145,
141/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., p. 185.
142/ Wenhold, (1936), op. cit., pp. 8-9.
groups apparently spoke Muskhogean dialects most closely
related to Hitchiti. Similar relationships must have
existed between the Tamathli and Apalachee because of the
ease with which the Tamathli moved into Apalachee territory
and the closeness of their settlement to San Luis, the center
of Apalachee. That some of this was due to missionary activ-
ity is certain, the priests probably deciding where new groups
were to be settled in the area.
Candelaria is not specifically mentioned as having been
attacked by Moore in the January, 1704, raids, or by the
largely Indian raids of the following June and July. It
is probable that the raids, the destruction of many towns,
and the withdrawal of the Spanish from Apalachee led the
Tamathli to move northward into Georgia for protection of the
Lower Creeks. On the De Crennay Map of 1733, the tribe, under
the name Tamatle, appears as the lowest town on the west bank
of the Chattahoochee some little distance above the forks.
Swanton quotes a Spanish document, nor further identified,
in the Ayer Collection as locating two towns named Tamaxle
on the Chattahoochee in 1738. The northernmost Creek town
is given as "Tamaxle Nuevo," the southernmost Lower Creek
town as "Tamaxle el Viejo." It is evident that the
Tamathle had become part of the Creek Confederacy by this
143/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., pp. 113 & 115.
144/ Boyd, et al., (1951), op. cit., pp. 10-19 & 46-82,
Def. Ex. 17.
145/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 143 & 183.
period. Swanton suggests that this Tamaxle el Viejo may
have in reality been a Sawokli town but gives no evidence
in support of this assumption. The association of
Tamaxle el Viejo with Sawokli by Swanton may be because in
this general period Sawokli is often listed as among the
Lower Creek towns fartherest down the Chattahoochee.
As one of the lowest Creek towns with former connec-
tions in Florida, it was inevitable that the Tamathli would
become one of the constituent elements making up the Seminole.
Benjamin Hawkins lists the Tamathli as one of the tribes mak-
ing up the Seminoles about 1790. It appears as a Semi-
nole- town in Morse's Report of 1822 and is shown as
"Tomathli-Seminole" on the Melish Map of 1818-19. The Tamathli,
after an absence of a hundred years or so in Georgia, form an
identifiable element in the Seminole.
The Spanish Mission list of 1675 published by Boyd gives
300 persons for the Candelaria mission, but part of them are
listed as Yamasee. There are no other listings until those
quoted by Swanton for 1738 in which Old Tamathli has 12 men
and New Tamathli 26 men. This would give a population of
something like 135 men, women, and children for the two towns.
146/ Swanton, (1946), op. cit., p. 189.
147/ Benjamin Hawkins. A Sketch of the Creek Country in
1798 and 1799. Coll. Ga. History Soc., vol. 3, pt. 1. (1858)
Reprinted (1938), p. 26. Hereafter cited as: "Hawkins, (1938)."
148/ Morse, (1822), op. cit., p. 364.
In neither the 1675 or 1738 lists is there any assurance that
all of the Tamathli towns were listed. Younge's census in
hMorse gives 220 as the total population in 1820 for the Semi-
nole town of Tamathli. The population should not have shown
a natural increase during these troubled times. The town must
have grown by accretion. In the Seminole population of 1823
this would give the Tamathli town, whether or not it represents
only Tamathli, something like 41 per cent of the total Seminole
The Tamathli show, rather vividly, the process of forma-
tion of the Seminole. First there was a tribal group, resi-
dent in southern Ueorgia and northern Florida. It moved around
somewhat as it came in contact with Spanish and English. It
was under attack by the Carolinians and their Lower Creek allies
and moved rather definitely southward. After a period as a
refugee group it again appeared in Florida in about 1790 and
became incorporated in the Seminole. The Tamathli were ex-
ceptional only in that they can be traced by a single name
through the whole period. They retained something of their
identity down to the treaty date.
Osochi: The recent Creek of Oklahoma have considered
that the Osochi were a regular member of the Creek group.
Swanton, however, points to the Timucua area of Florida as
their original home. He states that they are to be identi-
fied with the "Assachile" of the De Soto in the area of the
Suwannee River in central Florida. Swanton also believes
149/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 24-26.
De Soto Com., (1939), op. cit., p. 155.
the Osochi took part in the Indian revolt of 1656 and were
the Timucua group described as fleeing to the woods northward
of their original homes. Later they were found in the
area of the Aplachicola River around 1700,
A Spanish map of the last half of the 18th century shows
a town "Apalache o Sachile in the junction of the Chattahoo-
chee and Flint Rivers. Evidently the "0" is not a con-
nective but part of the word Osachile, or Osochi. Adair said
that they were one of the groups that settled in the Lower
Creek area from outside. Osochi is shown on the De Crennay
Map of 1733 on the left bank of the Flint or east of the Flint
under the distorted form of "Cochoutehy." It appears in cen-
suses or traders lists in the years 1738, 1750, 1760,
1761, and 1774 in the general vicinity of the
lower Chattahoochee or Flint Rivers in company of Chiaha,
Okmulgee, Sawokli, and Eufaula. It was a conservative town,
150/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 165 & 338.
151/ Ibid., p. 26.
Bushnell, (1908), op. .it., p. 569.
152/ i.e tll) Ruidiaz y Caravia, La Florida su conquista y
colonizacion por Pedro Menendez de Aviles, 2 vol. (1894), vol.
I, p. XLV. Hereafter cited as: "Ruidiaz, (1894)."
153/ Adair, (1930), op. cit., p. 274.
154/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 166.
155/ Miss. Prov. Arch., Eng. Dom., I, p. 96.
156/ Col. Records of Ga. VIII, p. 522.
157/ Bartram, (1928), op. cit., p. 462 as "Hooseche."
or contained a strongly conservative element. Hawkins in
1804 said that they preferred the old bow and arrow to the
gun. Sometime before 1797 Osochi and Chiaha together
gave rise to a subsidiary town called Hotalgihuyana on the
Flint. This town was later listed as one of the Seminole
towns by Capt. Young. under the name of "Talle-whe-anas."
This is identified as Hotalgihuyana.
The Osochi, whether or not they were originally Timucua,
clearly became a part of the Lower Creeks and are most often
associated with the Hitchiti group in the confederacy. There
is evidence, from Hawkins, that they were a conservative ele-
ment.' They finally settled, late in the 1700's just above
the Forks and eventually gave rise to a definite Seminole
town, the Tallewheanas of the Young list. It is probable
that other Osochis moved into Florida as individuals and
that the 210 persons represented in the Tallewheana Town
are not the total of Osochi that were to be found among the
Sawokli: The Hitchiti Sawokli were found in Florida
west of the Apalachee. Bishop Calderon said there was estab-
lished on February 28, 1675, the mission of La Encarnacion de
Sabacola el minor. He also stated that the great chief of
158/ Benjamin Hawkins, Letters of Benjamin Hawkins, 1796-
1806. Col. Ga. Hist. Soc., vol. 9. (1916), p. 438. Hereafter
cited as: "Hawkins, (1916)."
159/ Morse, (1822), op. cit., p. 564.
160/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 409.
the Sabacola province had come from Sabacola el Grande to
become christianized. Calderon placed the mission of La
Lncarnacion 12 leagues (51 miles) from San Luis. This
would place Sabacola el I1inor somewhere between the Ockoloc-
kenee and Apalachicola, but the bishop said it was on the
latter river. By 1680 missionaries were fairly active in the
Sabacola area, with rather indifferent results. Part of
the Sawokli of Sabacola ranged in the Apalachicola lower
basin, perhaps as far as the coast. The Sawokli town of
Sabacola el Grande was further up the Chattahoochee and was
regarded by Bishop Calderon as an opening wedge in the con-
version,of the Lower Creeks. A mission was attempted in the
year 1679 without success. The attempt was renewed in 1681
with military support, again without success.
With the arrival of Dr. Henry Woodward on the Chattahoo-
chee in 1685, the Spanish realized the full danger of Carolin-
ian penetration among the Apalachicolas or Lower Creeks.
Antonio Matheos led two Spanish military expeditions into the
Apalachicola territory in 1685 in an attempt to apprehend
Woodward. 1silr.: this he burned four of the most intran-
sigent Creek villages: Coweta, Kasita, Tuskege, and Kolomi.
Some of the Sawokli may have joined the Creek hegira to the
Ocmulgee River following this Spanish attack. However, some
of them were on the lower Apalachicola, or the Gulf coast area
adjacent, in 1705.
161/ fVenhold, (1936), op. cit., p. 9.
162/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 141-42.
163/ Swanton, (1946), op. cit., p. 180,
164/ Barcia, (1951), op. cit., p. 353.
During the later years of Lhe 17th cenLury that Iart
of the Sawokli who were attracted to the Spanish withdrew
from the Chattahoochee area. They settled in the Forks of
the Flint and Chattahoochee. As indicated by Barcia's com-
ment, others were farther down in the Gulf coast area. In
1706 or 1707 they are mentioned in the Lamhatty account under
thle variant Snsoolla. Following the raids described in
the Lamhatty account they withdrew northward to the more
northern part of the group. After 1715 they were generally
shown on the Chattahoochee, or near the Ocmulgee.
Sawokli, often divided into two towns, appears in most
of the later lists after the American Revolution as located
on the Chattahoochee below the modern Columbus. They
were clearly on the Chattahoochee, and rather low down during
the last half of the 18th century. They are significant not
for their numbers, always small, but because of their former
connection with Florida. Various estimates of their popula-
tlon range up to a few hundred. There is no direct evi-
dence that they made up a part of the Seminole, but all the
165/ Bushnell, (1908), op. cit., p. 571.
166/ De Crennay Map, 1733.
167/ Moll Map, 1720, Def. Ex. 35.
168/ Bartram, (1943), op. cit., p. 367, Def. Ex. 13.
Schoolcraft, (1851), op. cit., I, p. 262.
Hawkins, (1938), op. cit., p. 25.
169/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., p. 171.
circumstantial evidence of their position close to Florida
and former residence in Florida, would indicate that they
probably did form a part of the emerging Seminole.
Apalachicola: This term has been used in three ways:
1) As a term for the province centering on the Apalachi-
cola River from the junction of the ilint and Chattahoochee
to thec Gulf.
2) As a general term for the Lower Creeks, including the
Coweta and Kasita. Properly it would seem that this should
have applied to the Hitchiti-speaking groups of the Lower
Creeks. This is the way in which the Spanish generally refer
to the Lower Creeks. In most of the documents dealing with
Apalachee and the destruction of the Apalachee towns, Apala-
chicolo or Apalachicoli is used to refer to the Lower Creeks.
Later, or by other Spanish authors, Uchizes is often used
for the same group.
3) As the name of a town or small group of towns inhabit-
in, the Apalachicola River.
In its larger sense, as a general name for the Lower Creeks
the term included: Hitchiti, Okiaulgee, Oconee, Sawokli, Tamathli,
MIikasuki, Chiaha, and possibly Osochi. Pallachicolas is
a general variant for the term and was mostly used to apply to
the specific town, less often to the whole Lower Creek group.
At this time we will consider the Apalachicola as the third
170/ Swanton, (1952), op. cit., p. 104.
designation: that of a single town or related towns on
the Apalachicola River.
The Apalachicola towns were located in 1675 west of
Apalachee along the river of Apalachicola. Attempts
were made to convert them during this period but with little
success. Their settlements were broken up in 1706 or 1707,
and they were removed to the Savannah River. There they
settled at a place known as Palachocolas or Parachocolas Fort.
They remained until the outbreak of the Yamssee War in 1715.
At that time they moved back to the junction of the Flint and
Chattahoochee where again their fortified town was called the
The leader of the band at that time was an Indian called
variously Cherokee Leechee or Chislascalichi (Chalaquilichi
or Chilacaliche) in the various accounts. It would seem that
this individual, under whatever spelling, is always the same
man, although in Creek his name is rather a title meaning
"Cherokee Killer." This chief, Chislascalichi, and his
town are very important in the history of western Florida.
He always rooms to have been friendly to the Spanish and was
largely the instrument through which the Spanish attempted
171/ Wenhold, (1936), op. cit., p. 9.
172/ Bushnell, (1908), op. cit.
173/ Svionton, (1922), op. cit., p. 131.
Boyd, (1940), op, cit., Def. Ex. 30.
- -- ---- --~---3=L -P
to entice Lower Creeks back into the depopulated Apalachee
territory after the Yamasee. War.
The Apalachicola, as a town, rather than as a general
designation, was important in the formation of the Seminole
Nation. The removal from the Savannah to the Forks by this
town came at a crucial time when the Spanish were attempting
to bolster their deserted frontier in the west. It also
occurred at a time when Emporer Brim of Coweta was engaged
in a three-way diplomatic balancing act with the French,
English, and Spanish. Thus the Apalachicola town became
crucial in the movement of Creeks down into former Apalachee
territory. In the period after 1715 Apalachicola remained a
vigorous town and gave rise to several offshoots as Apalachi-
cola and Chalaquiliche are mentioned separately. Many
Apalachicola went to Florida as small bands or as individuals
and apparently formed a significant element in the Seminole
Yuchi: The Yuchi were a non-Muskhogean group that later
became allied with the Creek Confederacy. In addition a body
of Yuchi came to Florida and joined the Seminole in the early
The Yuchi were not properly residents of Florida but
moved into the area at a relatively late date. A band of
174/ Boyd, (1949), op. cit., Def. Lx. 30.
Boyd, (1952), op. cit.
175/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 151 & 132-42.,
Yuchi settled in the vicinity of Choctawhatchee Bay about
1639. They were mentioned as barbarians and were
charged with attacking christian Indians. In 1677, they
were in a state of war with the Apalachee and related small
tribes in western Apalachee. r:.ll, rin, the destruction
of Apalachee there are several references to the Yuchi in
the area between Apalachee and Pensacola.
In the following years some of the Yuchi were among the
Tukabahchee in central Alabama. There are various references
in the middle of the 18th century to Yuchi on the middle
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, where Timothy Barnard had a
trading post among the Yuchi. With increasing Georgian pres-
sure these Yuchi consolidated on the Chattahoochee. Hawkins
described three villages of the Yuchi on the right bank of
the Chattahoochee at the end of the 18th century. The
Yuchi were also scattered over much of southern Georgia.
They were located in four spots in southern Georgia:
the head of the St. Johns, Forks of the St. Mary's, head of
the Cannuchee, and head of the Satilla. By the head of
the St. Johns, Imlay meant the headwaters of the Suwannee,
176/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 298-299.
177/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., pp. 207-216.
178/ Ibid., pp. 341-342.
179/ Hawkins, (1938), op. cit., pp. 61-63.
180/ Gilbert Imlay, A Topographical description of the
western territory of North America; etc. (1797), p. 369.
i. e. in the Okefenokee Swamp area. I believe it is probable
that, from the American Revolution onward, Yuchi as individuals
or small groups were resident in Florida. They were near the
Mikasuki in 1821.
The Yuchi were part of the raiding groups attacking Flo-
rida tribes in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. They
were also part of the groups migrating into Florida to become
the Seminole. They maintained their identity as Yuchi at
least until 1821, although forming an integral part of the
Yamasee: The Yamasee were not original inhabitants of
Florida but have been consistently connected with its history
since the end of the seventeenth century. The original home
of the Yamasee seems to have been on the coast of South Caro-
lina. L'Du iln.: the early colonial period they gradually moved
southward and occupied, or absorbed the tribes in, the province
of Guale on the Georgia coast. Swanton quotes a Spanish manu-
script in the Lowery Collection to the effect that some Yamasee
were in the Fresh Water Province at the Mission of San Antonio
de Anacape in 1681. However, this seems to have been a
short incursion of the Yamasee into Florida. The main body
of the tribe was in Carolina until 1715. In 1675 there were
300 Yamasee and Tama in the Mission of Candelaria half a
league from San Luis in Apalachee.
181/ Morse, (1822), op. cit., pp. 306-308.
182/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 95-96.
In 1715, the Yamasee were encouraged to begin a war
with the Carolinians at the instigation of the Coweta chief,
Emporer Brim. This war seems to have been plotted by
Brim as the first in a series of attacks against the European
powers. After defeating the English he hoped to turn on the
French and Spanish in that order and regain the Southeast for
the Indians, particularly the Creeks. The results of the
Yamasee War were great. It produced a general withdrawal
of the Creek from the Oconee and Ocmulgee in central Georgia
to the Chattaboochee and Flint Rivers. It initiated a policy
by Brim and later Creek chiefs of temporarizing between the
Spanish, English, and French. Thus we find Brim and his
descendants promising allegiance to Spanish and British
alike. For the Yamasee it meant a flight southward to
the protection of the Spanish in Florida. I believe it is
this movement of Yamasee to the vicinity of St. Augustine
that accounts for the rather sudden appearance of Georgia
pottery types in the St. Augustine area.
These Yamasee had previsouly been engaged in slave-raids
almost to the tip of Florida under the leadership of Carolinian
traders. Thus they gained some familiarity with the country.
Their settlements near St. Augustine were Nombre de Dios,
Tolemato, Palica, and Carapuyas. These missions, or some of
183/ Ibid., pp. 96-100.
184/ Boyd, (1949), op. cit., Def. ix. 30.
Boyd, (1952), op. cit.
185/ Nairne insert of moll Map of 1720, Lef. Lx. 35.
them, had been originally established for the Timucua. With
the destruction of the Timucuan settlements by Yamasee and
Carolinian raids, the Yamasee repopulated these villages.
Some new settlements were organized, and many older settle-
ments were consolidated and moved to the immediate vicinity
of St. Augustine. These Yamasee at St. Augustine suffered
the same extermination as did the Timucua in that area during
the first half of the 18th century.
While most of the Yamasee in South Carolina may have
moved to St. Augustine, some moved farther west. At a slight-
ly later date (1719) we find the Yamasee present in the Pensa-
cola area where a "captain" of the Yamasee was in the company
of the chief of the Apalachee who was engaged in trying to re-
settle the Apalachee at San Marcos. The church records
of Mobile show occasional references during 1728 to individuals
who are probably Yamasee, so it is possible that some were
settled there along with the refugee Apalachee. In 1754,
the Yamasee were still allied with the Spanish. In John
Bartram's 'Lescription of East Florida" published in 1769,
there is a map by Jeffery showing "Yamasee Land" on the north-
east shore of Pensacola Bay. As this map also shows the location
186/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., pp. 100-106.
187/ Barcia, (1951), op. cit., p. 378, 2.
188/ Hamilton, (1910), op. cit.
189/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 106, not found in
I I -~-~- ~-
of Spanish missions that had been destroyed thirty or more
years before, it is of doubtful value. William Bartram
visiting the central Florida area in 1774 says that he found
Yamasee slaves among the Seminole. He also says the
Yamasee had been completely destroyed by the Seminole some
time previously. As Bartram was completely ignorant of the
Yamasee War, only a generation or two before his time, his
information on Yamasee history is suspect. At any rate,
it seems unlikely that the Yamasee were completely destroyed.
In the later history of the Seminole we will see that a
number of Seminole were supposed to be largely Yamasee, in-
cluding the chief Jumper. The Oklawaha band in particular
is said to have been Yamasee in origin. It is impossible
to tell, at this time, which band of the Yamasee are in-
volved in the formation of the Seminole. Some of those resi-
dent around St. Augustine are probably represented, as are
those who went with the Apalachee to Pensacola and Mobile.
On their return in, or about, 1719 they would have been later
absorbed by the Seminole. The Yamasee resident among the
Upper and Lower Creeks would also probably have contributed
to the Seminole.
I believe the reference to Barcia given above is particu-
larly important is assessing the processes at work in the
formation of the Seminole. We hear in this case of
190/ Bartram, (1928), op. cit., p. 130.
191/ Ibid., pp. 164 & 315.
192/ Bprcia, (1951), op. cit., p. 378.2.
Apalachee, accompained by a Yamasee chief, appearing to ask
help of the Spanish in Pensacola in re-establishing a settle-
ment at St. Ilarks in the old Apalachee area. I think these
new settlements were already mixed groups, composed partly of
returned Apalachee and partly of Creeks from Georgia along
with some odds and ends of broken tribes. Lack of Spanish
control in the area brought about a new alignment of tribes
which eventually led to the formation of the Seminole.
Apalachee: The discussion of the Apalachee has been
left until the closing pages of this chapter because it serves
as an introduction to the succeeding chapter entitled "The
Destruction of the Missions by the Carolinians." The Apala-
chee were certainly the most important Indian group in west-
ern Florida during the Spanish regime. They were, from Spanish
points of view, the second most important tribe in all Florida.
The Apalachee, together with the missions and garrison planted
among them, served as a major bulwark for Spanish Florida
against the encroachments of the French from the west and the
Carolinians from the north. When Carolina and England turned
their attention toward the interior of the continent, they
realized that the Apalachee were the base of the successful
Spanish blockade. For this reason, the brunt of the English-
Indian attacks fell on Apalachee in the years at the beginning
of the 18th century. It was into the void created by the col-
lapse of the Apalachee that the new migrants moved who were to
form the lTikasuki division of the Seminole.
The Apalachee tongue seems to be related to the Hitchiti
group Muskhogean languages. This close connection is further
shown by the neighboring territories of the Apalachee and the
Hitchiti-speaking group of Lower Creek towns. A recently dis-
covered document concerning the ball game among the Apalachee
indicates close cultural relation with the more western divi-
sions of the Muskhogean group, the Natchez for instance, in
certain mythological elements. Basically the Apalachee were
a regular" part of the greater southeastern culture area,
The first recorded mention of the Apalachee is in the
account of the Narvaez expedition of 1528. The Apela-
chep nre described as an agricultural and exceedingly war-
like group. The De Soto expedition traveled through the
Apalachee country and wintered at what Swanton believes was
the Lake Jackson Mound Group near Tallahassee. The Lake
Jackson Site belongs to the Ft. ;alton archeological complex
and indicates that the Apalachee of 1539-40 possessed a
r i-1. 1r.-i culture. This is characterized by temple
mounds and distinctive pottery.
The next references to the Apalachee are rather garbled.
The Spanish priests reported that the Apalachee were seeking
missionaries. They usually link those requests with exaggerated
estimates of the population of Apalachee. Not until 1633
193/ Bandelier, (1905), op. cit., pp. 12-13, 24-39.
194/ De Soto Com., (1939), op. cit., pp. 147-48.
195/ Swanton, (19f:2), op. cit., p. 118.
_ __ _
did missionaries actually go to Apalachee. Barcia reports
an Apalachee revolt in 1638, although this may actually have
been a revolt of the Apalachee labor battalions working at
St. Augustine. During thesame period other sources
report continued conversions in Apalachee as well as peace
established between the Apalachee and the Chacatos, Apala-
chocolos, and Amacanos. Another revolt broke out in
1647 at the same time when Chisca (Yuchi) influence appears
in the area. At that time there were eight priests and seven
churches in the province. Evidently there were two factions
in the Apalachee group as the revolt was settled with the
help of friendly Apalachee after a military expedition had
failed. The Apalachee at this time were furnishing labor
for the fortifications at St. Augustine, evidently a source
of some discontent.
The 1656 revolt, originating among the Timucua, spread
to Apalachee but lasted less than six months. In 1659 there
were eleven missions in Apalachee. Swanton quotes a let-
ter from the Lowery Collection to the effect that the Apalachee
were reduced from 16,000 in 1638 to 5,000 in 1676. The
196/ Barcia, (1951), op. cit., p. 218.2.
197/ Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., p. 198.
198/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 119.
Serrano y Sanz, (1913), op. cit., pp. 204-205.
199/ Chatelain, (1941), op. cit., pp. 122-23.
200/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., pp. 182-83.
I I --- c
Florencia list of 1675 gives a total of 8,180 more or less,
so this figure of 5,000 for 1676 appears in error. In addi-
tion the lists of 1659, 1675, 1680, all show an agreement
that is very close in names of missions. If any major decline
occurred it was not by whole mission villages being destroyed
or defecting. It must have been the usual colonial loss through
military action, disease, and death. The table on the following
page identifies the missions in Apalachee from 1659 to 1680.
The destruction of the missions will be discussed in Chapter
From this table several processes are evident. Between
1659 and 1675, missions 10, 11, 12, and 13 in the lists are
added. Of,these, all may reasonably be said to be new peoples
migrant into the area. Nuestra Senora de la Candelaria de la
Tama is said specifically to have contained Yamasee. San
Martin de Tomole probably was made up of Tamathli from the
northeast. Santa Cruz was in the neighborhood of San Martin
and perhaps for this reason could also be considered to be
migrants. The mission of Assumpcion del Puerto is specifically
stated to have been made up of three small tribes, Caparaz,
Amacanos, and Chines. The Chines, at least, appear later
in Senor San Pedro de los Chines of the 1680 list. San Antonio
de Bacuqua also appears between 1659 and 1675. This was appar-
ently an outlying Apalachee town only rather late brought into
the vicinity of San Luis.
201/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., pp. 182-83.
202/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., p. 185.
^fl Amrgp W:~'- r
1659 Florencia 1675 Calderon 1675 1680
(Chatalain. 19/1o 122-3) (Boyd. 19.48: 18-3) (Wenhold. 1936: 8-9) (Chatelain. 1941: 123-4L
1, S. Luis de Apalachee San Luis San Luis de Talimali S. San Luis de Talimali
2. S. Cosme y S. Damian San Damian de San Damian de SS. San Cosne y San
Acpayca Cupahica (Escambi) Damian de yecambi
3. San Antonio de San Antonio de S. San Antonio de
Bacuqua Bocuqua bacuqua
4. S. Pedro y S. Pablo de San Pedro de Patale San Pedro de Patali SS. San Pedro y San
Apalache Pablo de patali
5. S. Joseph de Apalache San Joseph de Ocaya San Joseph de Oouya ?
6. Juan de Apalache San Juan de Azpalaga San Juan de Aspalaga ?
7. San Francisco de Apalache San Francisco de San Francisco de S. San Francisco de
Oconi Oconi Oconi
8. La Concepcion Concepcion de La Concepcion de N.S. de la Purissima
Ayubale Ayubali conception de ajubali
9. S. Lorenzo de Apalache San Lorenco de San Lorenzo de S. San Lorenco de
Ybitachuco Habutachuc' Ybithachucu
10. Candelaria La Purificacion de N.S. de la Candelaria
(Tama & Yamasee) Tama (Yamasee) de la Tama, c. n.
11i San Martin de Tomole San Martin de Tomole S. San Martin de Tomali
12. Santa Cruz de Santa Cruz de Capoli Santa Cruz y San Pedro de
Ytuchafun (Chuntafu) alcantara de ychatafun
13. Asuncion de Nuestra Assumpcion del Puerto ?
14. S. San Carlos de los
Chacatos, c. n.
15. S..San. Pedro de los
Chines, c. n.
c. n.: for conversion nueva.
Table 1. APALACHEE MISSIONS, 1659-1680
In 1693 and 1702, Bacuqua is described as being the
most peripheral of the Apalachee district, being almost a
days journey northward 'rom San Luis. In the 1675
list, however, it is described as only three leagues (about
7.5 miles) from San Luis. We see, then, that between
1659 and 1675 certain cbrn,_: had taken place in the Apala-
chee mission picture. At the earlier date only the core
of Apalachee settlements had been converted. By 1675, the
ourtlying towns had been converted and certain bands of
ioreign Indians had been drawn in.
The mission of San Francisco de Oconi presents a num-
L.er of problems. Some writers have assumed that this repre-
ernts a settlement of the Hitchiti Oconi from central Georgia
i-_:Ldent and even forming part of the Apalachee. The presence
-fi a mission of San Francisco de Apalachee in the 1659 list
indicates that this must have been a rather ancient settle-
.Irit, if indeed it is Oconi. The presence of certain central
;e,:.rgia pottery types in the Apalachee area has been pre-
vi.jusly mentioned. These first show up during the mission
i::i-iod. There is a high degree of similarity between a col-
ication of pottery from the site of Oconee Old Town on the
2'onee River in central Georgia and sherds found by Hale G.
Zriith at the site of San Francisco de Oconi. I believe this
pr1rsence of Georgia pottery types and the place-name Oconi or
203/ Boyd, (1953), op. cit., pp. 460 & 468-72, Def. Ex.
204/ Boyd, (1948), op. cit., p. 184.
Oconee is evidence of movement at a relatively early date,
1659 or earlier. However, Apalachee and Hitchiti are so
similar linguistically that Oconi could well have occurred
in both dialects. This would mean that we have a village of
Oconee in both the Apalachee and Hitchiti groups. Such an
explanation would go far towards explaining the attack by
Ocone on Tama mentioned by Swanton for 1608. If this
is the case, we still have to explain the presence of cen-
tral Georgia pottery styles in the Apalachee area during the
The year 1675 seems to mark the apogee of the Apalachee
missions. Between that date and 1680 the number of missions
does not increase, although there may be a shifting of popu-
lations and settlements. If anything is suggested by the
list it is that the Chines and Chacatos have become more
important as they now have individual missions. The accom-
panying map, largely derived from Boyd, Smith, and Griffin
shows the location of the missions in Apalachee as it can be
Boyd in several publications has assembled all of
the pertinent documents for this area. What follows is largely
derived from these sources. In this material we see a smoothly
functioning mission system disrupted by the English and Indian
205/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit., p. 179.
206/ Boyd, et al., (1951), op. cit.
Boyd, (1953), op. cit., Def. Exs. 16 & 17.
San Luis, near the present site of Tallahassee, was the
religious and administrative center of Apalachee. Here was
built a blockhouse completed, or nearly so, by 1697. In the
area, besides the Indians, were a number of Spanish settlers
or ranchers. Some of these may have been purely settlers but
it is likely that most had some connection with the garrison.
These settlers were largely concerned with the raising of
cattle, hogs, and horses, although some mention is made of
chickens. At any rate cattle, hogs, and horses seem to have
been the major interest. Ve hear of friction developing be-
tween the Indians because of damage to Indian fields by the
stock. Cattle and lard as well as horses were supplied from
Apalachee to both St. Augustine and Pensacola. In this con-
nection it is interesting that Apalachee was the base or sup-
plied .i .: in the westward exploration occasioned by 'rench
intrusions. The Indians were also irritated by the neces-
sity of working for the Spanish ranchers, often without pay in
conditions that must have approached slavery. Apalachee levees
were working on the expansion of the Castillo de San Marcos at
St. Augustine and Apalachee must have been a literal granary
for the presidio. Cormaerce with the outside world flowed along
the road from St. Augustine to Apalachee and to Pensacola. In
addition, the port of St. Marks (San Harcos) twenty miles to
the south was a local strong point with its fort, as well as
an ocean outlet for the products of Apalachee. In the discus-
sion of minority tribal groups in western 2loriaa we have seen
207/ Leonard, (1936), op. cit.
that many of these were drawn into the Apalachee orbit during
this period, only to suffer the fate of their hosts. Some
trade was carried on with the Apalachee and neighboring tribes
to the north and northwest. This trade, however, was always
on a minor scale and never reached the porportions of Carolinian
trading enterprises. We do hear of a few trading parties of
Indians entering the area and of a few hi-jacking operations
by Spaniards. In general Apalachee, like Timucua, was fairly
quiet during all this period. Into this peaceful scene errupt-
ed the Carolinians and their allies, intent on slaves first
and colonial expansion secondly. This story, and especially
the later fortunes of the Apalachee is discusses in the fol-
DESTRUCTION OF THE MISSIONS BY THE CAROLINIANS
Beginning about 1690 a constantly accelerating series
of attacks succeeded in destroying virtually all the abori-
Linal population of Florida and reducing the far flung Span-
ish system of missions and blockhouses to the actual and
literal range of the guns at the Castillo de San Marcos in
St. Augustine. Kroeber has revised Mooney's figures for
the aboriginal population of North America. Kroeber gives a
total population for the area of the present state as 24,000
persons. This seems very reasonable and certainly is
not a high estimation. In view of Spanish figures on the
Timucua mission, I would place it slightly higher, say at
25,000 persons as of 1650. In 1728, Swanton finds an enumera-
tion of 123 persons near St. Augustine and by Spanish accounts
these were the only missions remaining. Somewhat later
we hear that 80 families, mostly south Florida tribes, removed
to Cuba with the Spaniards in 1763. Thus the total of about
400 persons represents the final remnant of the aboriginal
Indian population of i'lorida. This remnant left vith the
Spanish in 1763 and settled in Cuba.
208/ A. L. Kroebor, Cultural and Natural areas of Native
North America, (1939).
Mooney, (1928), op. cit.
209/ Kroeber, (1939), op. cit., pp. 138-39, Table 7.
210/ Swanton, (1922), op. cit.., pp. 104-05.