Front Cover
 Back Cover

Title: Ethnohistorical report of the Florida Indians
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/FS00000019/00001
 Material Information
Title: Ethnohistorical report of the Florida Indians
Series Title: Ethnohistorical report of the Florida Indians
Physical Description: Book
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: FS00000019
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida State University
Holding Location: Florida State University
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA0251
ltuf - ACS5320

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Main 3
        Main 4
        Main 5
        Main 6
        Main 7
        Main 8
        Main 9
        Main 10
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
    Back Cover
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
Full Text











Defendant )








I by

Charles H. .airbanks, Ph. D.
Assistant PFofessor
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology
Tallahassee, Florida


* fon4



~ r

~ r



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 . .
Spanish Indians
Tribes of Northwes
Amacano . .
Chine . .
Caparaz . .
Tawasa. . .
Pawokti .
Chatot.. .. .
Osochi. . .
Sawokli . .
Yuchi ....
Yamasee .
Apalachee/. .

. . .22

Lists .
ribes. .
* . .

t Florida.
* . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
* . .
. . .
. . .
* . *
* . .
. . .
. . .

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 . .. . . .

. .78

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

"The Occurrence
American Antiqui

"The Kirksville
unpaged. (1938)

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

vol. 6,


vol. 4,

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)

Archaeology" N
History No. 4,

national Park Service,

pp. 27-32.


Popular Study

"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

American Antiquity,

"The Kolomiki Mound

vol. 7

, no. 3, pp

Group, Early

American Antiquity, vol. 11, no.

Island, Georgia"
. 223-231. (1942)

County, Georgia"
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)

"Fort Frede

"A General



vol. 12,

rica National Monument" Emory Universit
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 8-14. (1948)

Survey of

Florida Indian
Park, Florida.

and Hi


"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.


by Charles

H. Fairbanks:

"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.
369-371. (1956T

IB --

2. Manuscripts

prepared for


Report of

Excavations at
(52 pp.)

Fort Frederica


Survey Report

of the Shinholsters

Site, (14

Report o
ment, (9

f Excavations

at Ft. Caroline


The Stabilization

Some Problems in the
at 5th International



of the Funeral


(20 pp.)

Origin of Creek Pottery. Presented
Congress of Ethnological & Anthro-
(10 pp.)

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-

ing letter:


Washington, D. C.

November 16, 1956


Dr. Charles H. Fairbanks
Department of Anthropology and Archeology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Dr. Fairbanks:

Re: The Seminole Indians of Florida v.
United States
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

Assistant Attorney General
Lands Division

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

of Florida,

(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.


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.

Stuart said:

"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-
sula. ".1/

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

West Florida.

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.


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.

Goggin, (1952).

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)
pp. 77-109.

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

in 1564.

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


I .

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),
Chapter 7.

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
Georgia, (1955).

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

the Spanish.

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
Archeology, (1953).
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,

Surruque, Urubia)

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
Water, Indians.

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 /


34/ Year

1565-72 Chatelain






















, (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


p. 234-5

p. 247-8

p. 125&ff.


pp. 132-3; Swanton

(1941), pp. 122-3

Boyd, (1941), pp. 182-3

Wenhold, (

pp. 322-3

Lanning, (


pp. 11-12

(1941), pp. 123-4; Swanton,

1935), p. 198

Geiger, (1937),

AI 58-1-30/64



Boyd, (1939),

p. 267

pp. 339-40

p. 279

(1922), p. 105

is far



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
were made.

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

usually made

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),
p. 35.

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.

The disinte-

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
"Romans, (1775)."

_/ 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,
4 66/
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.

Father Monaco

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
80/ 81/
indicated on the maps of Swanton or Rouse as

occupied by any group up to the presence of Seminole in
1 82/
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:

Amacano Pensacola
Apalachee Sawokli
Apalachicola Yamasee
Caparaz Yuchi
Chatot Tamathli
Chine Osochi
Pawokti Tawasa

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.

L 49

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
121/ 122/
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

around 1700.

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
year, 1674."

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.

128/ Ibid.



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

of interaction.

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

129/ Ibid.
130/ Boyd, et al., (1951), op. cit., pp. 26, 31, 27, & 38,
Def. Lx. 17.
Boyd, (1953), op. cit., pp. 468, 471, & 472, Def.
Ex. 16.
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,
& 184.

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-
154/ 155/
suses or traders lists in the years 1738, 1750, 1760,
156/ 157/
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
166/ 167/
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

Palachocolas Fort.

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

19th century.

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.


P "I\

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.


L 1

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

----I -Nq

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

mission period.

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-

lowing chapter.




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.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs