Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Post-conquest Aztec ceramics: Implications...
 Florida coin beads - Charles H....
 An Indian and Spanish site on Tampa...
 Brief notes
 Information for authors

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00074
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00074
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893
notis - AAA9403

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 95
    Post-conquest Aztec ceramics: Implications for archaeological interpretation
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
    Florida coin beads - Charles H. Fairbanks
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
    An Indian and Spanish site on Tampa Bay, Florida - Wilfred T. Neill
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
    Brief notes
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
    Information for authors
        Page 129
Full Text


2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.

The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds
source text of the Florida Anthropologist
considered the copyright holder for the text
these publications.

all rights to the
and shall be
and images of

The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication
available to the University of Florida, for purposes of
digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this
publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.






21, N
er, 19


lished quarterly in March, June, September, and
December by the Florida Anthropological Society
at the Department of Anthropology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. Sub-
scription is by membership in the society for in-
dividuals interested in the aims of the society.
Annual dues are $4.00; student memberships,

$2.00. Requests for membership and general in-
quiries should be addressed to the secretary;
subscriptions, dues, and back issue orders to
the treasurer; newsletter items to the president;
and manuscripts and books for review to the
editor. Second class postage paid at Talla-
hassee, Florida.


Ripley P. Bullen
Florida State Museum
Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida

2nd Vice President
Carl A. Benson
2310 Resthaven Drive
Orlando, Florida 32806

1st. Vice President
James W. Covington
University of Tampa
Tampa, Florida 33620

Howard A Chamberlen
Florida State Museum
Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida 32601

L. Ross Morrell
Florida Board of Archives and History
401 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
David S. Phelps
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306
David S. Phelps
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Robert C. Dailey
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

L. Ross Morrell
Florida Board of Archives and History
401 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Executive Committee
Dan D. Laxson
231 West 41st Street
Hialeah, Florida 33012

William D. Goza
P. O. Box 246
Clearwater, Florida 33517

Cliff E. Mattox
P. O. Box 521
Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931

William H. Sears
Department of Anthropology
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Yulee W. Lazarus
Temple Mound Museum
P. O. Box 294
Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548

Resident Agent
Ripley P. Bullen
Florida State Museum
Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida 32601

Stanley J Olsen
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Wilfred T. Neill
122 Homecrest Road
New Port Richey, Florida 33552


Post-Conquest Aztec Ceramics: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation ............ 96

Florida Coin Beads .................. ......... ..... ............... ....... ..... 102

An Indian and Spanish Site on Tampa Bay, Florida ............................ ................... 106

Examples of Colonial Spanish Hoes .................................................................. 117

A Seminole Census: 1847 ....... ........ ...... ..... .................. ....................... 120

A Supposed "Florida Folsom" Point: A Reflutation ............................................ 122

A Com posite Bone F ishhook ................................................................... .......... 124

Tw o Indian Crania from Peru ...................... ................................................... .. 124

Volumes XV through the current volume may be purchased from the Treasurer of the Society at $4.00 per
Volumes I through XIV may be purchased from Johnson Reprint Corporation, 111 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York 10003. Prices are as follows:
Volumes I, V, X $6.00 per volume
Volumes II, IV, VI, IX, XI, XIV $8.00 per volume
Numbers 1 through 5 are available from the Johnson Reprint Corporation at the following prices:
Numbers 1 and 3 $2.00
Number 2 $2.50
Number 4 $4.50
Number $3.00


Thomas H. Charlton


A study of Aztec and post-conquest Aztec
ceramics in the Teotihuacan Valley reveals a
ceramic continuity with few significant changes
resulting from the conquest in rural ceramic
patterns. It is not until the congregaciones of
the 17th century that the tradition is finally
broken, perhaps by population losses which re-
duced both the scope of the markets and the
number of pottery artisans.

The recent publication of Ceramics and Man
(Matson 1965) underlines the broad theoretical
interest of archaeologists in pottery. There
exists, of course, different opinions about the
kinds of interpretations an Archaeologist can
make using a ceramic basis. Two contrasting
opinions are exemplified in works by Robert
Ehrich and George Kubler.
Ehrich's (1965) paper supports the theory,
rather widespread among archaeologists, that
ceramics serve not only as markers of relative
time, but also reflect sociocultural happenings,
including conquest.
The analysis of a ceramic corpus may elo-
quently show the actual cultural impact of
a conquering or dominant political power on
the way of life of a submerged population,
and the extent of effective domination may
to some degree be measured by it (Ehrich
1965: 13).
Kubler presents a somewhat more restricted
view on the usefulness of ceramics in the for-
mulation of sociocultural reconstructions. In his
fascinating work, The Shape of Time, he states:
The temptation to interpret social pro-
cesses from potsherds and broken stones
has also been irresistable, and we are pre-
sented with cycles of political revolution,
based on evidence which really speaks best
of other things. Potsherds and broken stones

* This is a revised version of a paper presented at
the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Sante Fe, New Mexico, May 9-11, 1968.
The research on which this paper is based was sup-
ported by the Social Science Research Council, the
Canada Council, and the Associated Colleges of the
Midwest. Research is continuing under National
Science Foundation Grant GS-2080.

are classes of effort that reflect political
life from vast distances, no more strongly
than when we faintly hear the dynastic con-
flicts of medieval France in Provencal
poetry. (Kubler 1962a: 57)
He continues this line of thought in his major
treatise, The Art and Architecture of Ancient
In short, ceramic frequencies give reliable
information only about very coarse time re-
lationships: about the history of the craft
itself, and perhaps about economic condi-
tions if other evidence is available. But
sherd frequencies are unsatisfactory evi-
dence for political or sociological recon-
structions. Pottery sequences reflect other
orders of events only after delays and with
much leveling of a more agitated reality.
(Kubler 1962b: 10)
It is to an examination of the relationships
between ceramics and conquest that I direct my
attention in this paper. The specific case is
that of the Aztecs following the Spanish con-
quest. This is a situation in which some control
over both changes in ceramics and changes in
aspects of non-material culture is available.


Since 1964 I have been engaged in research
directed toward the establishment of the post-
conquest Aztec ceramic sequence in the Teoti-
huacan Valley as a preliminary step in the study
of post-conquest settlement patterns. Through
a combined archaeological-ethnohistorical ap-
proach (Charlton 1966; 1967a), I have been able
to correlate specific colonial communities men-
tioned in documentary sources with Aztec arch-
aeological sites located through surface survey
by William T. Sanders Teotihuacan Valley Pro-
ject (Sanders 1965). From one of these dated,
post-conquest, rural Aztec sites I collected, in
1967, about 1,200 sherds from 11 mounds, one
of which is the ruin of the colonial church. The
town is San Miguel Axoloapan, abandoned be-
tween 1603 and 1950, most probably by 1617.
The site is TA-38 of Sanders' survey (Fig. 1).


VOLUME 21, NO. 4



I ~ -~
o l
0. ~- n

Fig. 1. Aztec occupation of the Teotihuacan Valley (Sanders 1965, Fig. 11). TA-38 is labelled 38-61 and
is located Southeast of Otumba


Since the site was occupied for at least 80 and
possibly for 130 years after the Spanish con-
quest, some of the ceramics on the surface must
be post-conquest in origin. The presence of the
church on this site argues for some strong Span-
ish influence at least in the religious sphere
within the community. Yet the ceramic assemb-
lage which I collected and analyzed shows very
few obvious characteristics which would indicate
such an influence.
I have isolated three major kinds of ceramic
materials within the samples collected from the
surface of TA-38 by Jeffrey R. Parsons in the
summer of 1964, and by myself in the summer of
1967. First, there are definite post-conquest
materials which do not occur in excavated Aztec
samples. and which are associated with post-
conquest structures and artifacts in known con-
texts. Second, there are modified Aztex wares,
sherds which in form, paste, and decoration are
Aztec but which have a surface finish which is
probably post-conquest in origin. This surface
finish is the result of modified technical pro-
cedures used in the manufacture of ceramics
after the conquest. Third, there are definite
Aztec wares, identical in form, paste, and decor-
ation to those recovered in excavated samples.
I shall begin my discussion with a brief des-
cription of the nature of Aztec pottery. Then I
shall indicate the changes which occurred in it
after the conquest. Finally, I shall discuss the
kinds of non-Aztec post-conquest materials pre-
sent on the site.


Jeffrey R. Parsons (1966) has carried out the
most recent and most complete analysis of Aztec
ceramics. He has divided the Teotihuacan Valley
excavated materials into nine wares, with types
subsumed under the wares, and form classes and
variants under the types. Of the nine wares,
two dominated the Aztec ceramic assemblage,
Orange Ware and Red Ware. In my preliminary
analyses, I concentrated my attention on these
two wares.
Characteristic of each ware is a well-burn-
ished surface. Prior to burnishing, the manu-
facturing technique included the smoothing of
the surface of the moist clay with a cloth. This
produced an even surface covered with stria-
tions, thin lines and ridges, usually running

parallel to the rim. The burnishing eliminated
these striations and produced a smooth surface.
In a few examples, however, the burnishing is
sloppy and the striations may still be seen. Red
Ware differs from Orange Ware in surface treat-
ment in that it tends to be better burnished with
a resultant higher gloss.


With the exception of a few unusual designs
which are probably post-conquest in origin and
rare on rural sites, the failure to burnish the
exterior surface, and occasionally the interior
surface, is the major criterion for differentiating
Aztec and post-conquest Aztec ceramics in both
Orange Ware and Red Ware. In such examples,
the striations are quite prominent and noticeable.
Aztec designs on both wares continued for at
least one generation after the conquest but sur-
face finish began to deteriorate quite rapidly.
I base these conclusions on my analyses of
several kinds of material. These included post-
conquest plain wares found in definite associa-
tion with 17th century majolica pottery in a cave-
quarry excavation at Oxtotipac in the Teotihua-
can Valley (Sanders 1965; Charlton 1967b). I
also examined many known post-conquest ves-
sels in museum collections in Mexico and the
United States. Further, I re-examined the exca-
vated Orange Ware from the Teotihuacan Valley,
the materials upon which Parsons (1966) based
his Teotihuacan Valley Aztec ceramic sequence.

My analysis of these latter materials supports
my contention that surface finish is the first
aspect of Aztec ceramics to change after the
conquest. Black-on-Orange sherds, with exterior
striations and no evidence of burnishing, the
striatioqs usually concentrated on the upper
exterior rim area of the vessel, show a striking
positive association with Teacalco (Charlton
1963), the latest site and phase in the Teotihua-
can Valley sequence (Aztec IV). This site was
probably occupied both before and after the con-
quest. Of the Black-on-Orange sherds in the ex-
cavated sample, 26.2% have such striations.
Such materials occur in excavated sites in the
Teotihuacan Valley ranging from 2.05% to 4.72%.
It is interesting to note that in most cases
the Black-on-Orange design variants which Par-
sons suggests are late in the sequence are those
with the striations. This is true not only of the
excavated samples but also of the surface sam-
ples collected from TA-38.

A similar correlation exists for Plain Orange
sherds. At Teacalco 27.1% of these sherds have
an exterior striated surface. Only between 8.45%
and 11.58% of the Plain Orange sherds from
four of the five other sites have this character-
istic. The sixth site, Oxtotipac, a cave-quarry
used for the deposit of refuse from a colonial
church and convento, has the highest frequency
of colonial Plain Orange Ware encountered in
the Teotihuacan Valley, either from surface
collections or from excavations. Of these sherds
48.2% can be classified as colonial. The majo-
lica and glazed wares from this site suggest
that it was used during the 17th and 18th cen-
turies. The lateness of use would account for
such a high concentration of such materials.
Thus, in both Black-on-Orange and Plain
Orange, the striated surface treatment is assoc-
iated with late designs and with late sites.
These associations suggest that the striations
occur with greatest frequency on post-conquest
materials although isolated examples on pre-
conquest ceramics are known.
A similar striated surface treatment occurs
quite infrequently on Red Ware, at times in asso-
ciation withcurvilinear designs in graphite black
which are quite unlike those on pre-conquest
materials. Noting the limited occurrence of
striations on Red Ware and the general decline
in frequency of this ware through the Teotihau-
can Aztec sequence, from a peak of 44.0% in the
Zocango Phase (Aztec II) to 18.5% in the Tea-
calco Phase (Aztec IV) (Parsons 1966), I sug-
gest that Red Ware disappears shortly after the
conquest, perhaps within one generation. This
is a ware which required much finishing in terms
of surface treatment. It is possible that asso-
ciated with the decline in technical perfection
in ceramics the manufacture ceased. This may
also have occurred as a result of a loss of know-
ledge of how to make the ware stemming from a
decline of interest in the ware or from a loss of
members of the guild producing it. It is interest-
ing to note that on TA-38 there is a good nega-
tive correlation between Red Ware and definite
post-conquest materials. This also suggests
that Red Ware did not persist long into the 16th
In summary, during the period ranging from
80 to 130 years after the Spanish conquest the
following changes occurred in Aztec ceramics
on TA-38, San Miguel Azaloapan: Red Ware de-
clined in frequency and few samples of post-
conquest Red Ware occur. Black-on-Orange also
declined but good examples of post-conquest

Black-on-Orange are present on the site. Pre-
conquest Black-on-Orange are present on the
site. Pre-conquest Plain Orange declined but
this decline was offset by an increase in post-
conquest Plain Orange. As these changes took
place definite post-conquest materials were in-
troduced and increased in frequency on the site.
The major changes involved not the replace-
ment of Aztec pottery by a new ceramic tradition
or even an extensive remodeling of that pottery
through contact with the Spanish conquerors.
Rather, the changes that took place in Aztec
ceramics during the 16th century and early 17th
century were those of minor aesthetic and tech-
nical losses and re-emphases in tradition. The
indigenous ceramic assemblage suffered slight
modifications and changes in frequencies of
wares during this period. It did not incorporate
new designs or new techniques.


When the types of definite post-conquest mate-
rials from TA-38 are examined, the picture of
Spanish influence on ceramics becomes clearer.
A total of 143 identifiable post-conquest items
were recovered from surface collections of the
11 mounds. Among these items there was one
metal nail and one colonial figurine. Considering
that 37 pre-conquest style figurines were also
recovered, it appears that the figurine-making
tradition in rural sites was not greatly influenced
by the conquest during the 16th century. It is
possible that colonial figurines date from later
centuries or are an urban phenomenon. Forty-
three glazed sherds were recovered. Of these
sherds, three were unidentifiable porcelain and
35 were identical to modern pottery and represent
broken pieces from a campesino's lunch pot.
The five remaining sherds were covered with a
bubbly, poorly applied green glaze. Similar mate-
rials occur in the Oxtotipac excavation in asso-
ciation with 17th century majolica wares. It is
probable that the green glazed wares were the
first glazed ceramics to reach rural sites and
initially were poorly made. They were probably
introduced during the first fifty years of the 17th
century. On TA-38 they are the only colonial
domestic sherds which indicate Spanish influ-
The other 98 definite post-conquest sherds
from the site include fragments of three molded
and plastered bricks from the church. The other
95 sherds are fragments of round and U-shaped
drain pipes. These are thick, with striated and

uneven outer surfaces. They are identical to the
pipes in the Otumba end of the Zempoala-Otumba
aqueduct, constructed between 1554 and 1571.
It is possible that the pipes came from the aque-
duct. They tend to be clustered on five of the
eleven mounds.
Thus, only five of the definite post-conquest
sherds are 16th and 17th century in date and
functioned within the domestic ceramic assemb-
lage. The others are either uncertain in age or
had no obvious function within a domestic cera-
mic complex. The drain pipes are unlikely to be
found on most Aztec-Colonial sites. They occur
on this site and on others close to the Otumba
aqueduct but are not found on those more dis-
tant. Thus, in TA-38 the high frequency of post-
conquest materials on some mounds is mis-
leading since most of these are items which
were probably not incorporated into the domestic
ceramic complex.
It is likely that non-Aztec post-conquest wares
of the 16th century and early 17th century are
rather restricted in distribution. Most of the
Aztec sites surveyed yielded no obvious glazed
ceramics or any other materials which could be
considered post-conquest. Yet a re-examination
of many of these materials suggests that post-
conquest Aztec pottery with striations is present
although definite non-Aztec post-conquest mate-
rials are not.
This situation is true for the Teacalco ex-
cavated samples which I analyzed after ex-
cavation in 1963 and which I have recently re-
examined. Only modified Aztec ceramics are
present. Surface collections from many Aztec
sites present the same situation.
The Huexotla site near Texcoco is interesting
in that an Aztec adoratorio was converted into
a Christian chapel through the addition of an
altar and apse with columns. Around this chapel
only Aztec and some modified Aztec sherds were
found. The site was probably abandoned with
the construction of the large convento at Huex-
otla in the middle 16th century.
Oxtotipac is the site which has yielded a large
amount of definite post-conquest lebrillos. These
are large, coarsely made basins, with flat bases,
flaring sides, a rim made separately and attach-
ed by hand, a stamped interior base, and a red-
brown interior slip which overlaps the exterior
rim area, Noguera (1934) first described these
in his report on the excavations of the Templo
Mayor. They have recently been reported from
subway excavations in Mexico City (Arana and
Cepeda 1967). They are post-conquest, a spec-

ialized ware, probably 16th century in date,
associated with conventos, but only so far as I
have been able to determine, in the Valley of
Mexico. There are large numbers at Oxtotipac
but none on the surface at TA-38. Lebrillos are
non-Aztec post-conquest materials clustered in
urban areas and around conventos. They occur
sporadically on rural Aztec sites.


On the basis of the materials from San Miguel
Axaloapan (TA-38) and other sites, it seems
fairly certain that the Spanish did not directly
influence rural Aztec ceramics in any significant
way during the 16th and 17th century. Nor did
they introduce many new items during the same
period. It is probable that glazed wares began
to appear only toward the end of the 16th century
when the Spanish set up their own pottery making
Most Aztec sites in the Teotihuacan Valley
were abandoned during the Congregaciones of
1603 and yield few glazed sherds on the surface
although they do have modified Aztec ceramic
assemblages. The modifications are not great
and alone do not clearly reflect any major socio-
cultural event such as conquest. The changes
are in frequencies of wares, in techniques of
manufacture, and in aesthetic designs. This
appears to be true also of Aztec chinampa com-
munities abandoned about 1600.
I would suggest that the major discontinuity in
the Aztec ceramic tradition occurs not with the
conquest but with the subsequent depopulation
and congregacion of the remaining populations
into a few large centers. This was the major
crisis facing the rural population, not the con-
quest. At this time, the wares, which through
the 16th century were declining in frequency,
disappear, Spanish influence in glazing began
to be felt and green glazed pottery appeared
with greater frequency on those few Aztec sites
which were not abandoned in 1603 but which
were abandoned later in the 17th century. Aztec
Plain Orange ware co-existed with the glazed
wares but was poorly made with uneven surfaces
and heavy striations present. Although Spanish
ranchos of the 17th century have large quantities
of majolica present on them very little of this
type of Spanish made pottery appears on the
contemporary Indian sites. It is possible that
majolica was restricted to the Spanish, either
by design or by virtue of its cost.

In conclusion, then, I would state that Aztec
and post-conquest Aztec ceramics of the 16th
century and the early 17th century form a con-
tinuity with few significant post-conquest chang-
es occurring. The conquest is not reflected
immediately or clearly in the rural Aztec ceramic
assemblage. Changes occur but they are minor.
It is not until the congregaciones of the 17th
century that the tradition is finally broken, per-
haps because of population losses which re-
duced both the scope of the markets served by
the potters as well as the number of persons
with the necessary craft and artistic skills
needed to produce the pottery. The gradual
changes of the 16th century are followed by a
decline in the 17th century with rather crude
plain wares and technically imperfect glazed
wares becoming dominant.
These materials do not provide an adequate
basis on which to decide between the theories
of Kubler and Ehrich. However, they do suggest
that non-material sociocultural events tend to be
reflected later and dimly in rural ceramics. In
this they suggest the validity of the Kubler
A re-evaluation of sociocultural interpretations
of change in prehistoric ceramic assemblages
is in order.


Arana, A., Raul Martin and Gerardo Cepeda C.
1967 Rescate Arqueologico en la Ciudad de
Mexico. Boletin I.N.A.H. No. 30, pp. 3-9.
Charlton, Thomas H.
1963 Report on Excavations at Teacalco,
Estado de Mexico, September and October,
1963. Manuscript.
1966 Aztec Ceramics: The Early Colonial
Period. A report of fieldwork completed
during the summer of 1966 submitted to the
Institute Nacional de Antropogia e Historia,
November, 1966. Multilithed.
1967a Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Post
Conquest Aztec Sites. Paper presented at
the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
May 4, 1967.
1967b Post-Conquest Ceramics: A Preliminary
Analysis of the Oxtotipac Samples from the
Cave Excavation and the Terrace Surface.
May, 1967.. Multilithed.
Ehrich, Robert W.
1965 Ceramics and Man: A Cultural Perspec-
tive. In Ceramics and Man, (Frederick R.
Matson, Editor.) Viking Fund Publications
in Anthropology, No. 41, pp. 1-19. New York.

Kubler, George
1962a The Shape of Time. Yale University
Press. New Haven.
1962b The Art and Architecture of Ancient
America. Penguin Books. Baltimore.
Matson, Frederick R. (Editor)
1965 Ceramics and Man. Viking Fund Publica-
tions in Anthropology, No. 41. New York.
Norguera, Eduardo
1934 Estudio de la Ceramica Encontrada en
el Sitio Donde Estaba el Templo Mayor de
Mexico. Anales del Museo Nacional de
Arqueologia, Historia,' Y, Ethnografia.
Tomo I, pp. 267-282, Secretaria de Educa-
cion Publica, Departamento de Monumentos,
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
1966 The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the
Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Sanders, William T.
1965 The Cultural Ecology of the Teotihuacan
Valley. Department of Sociology and Anth-
ropology, The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity Park.

Department of Sociology and Anthropology
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa


Charles H. Fairbanks


At a number of historic sites in Florida a
clearly defined type of silver bead has been
found associated with both Indian and Spanish
Colonial artifacts. Study of these beads and
their associations had indicated that they were
probably made from Spanish cut silver coins
salvaged from wrecks along the coasts. It is
suggested that they were hammered into shape
by Indians or possibly by Spanish seamen resi-
dent in Indian camps. Their wide distribution
suggests the existence of some sort of redistri-
butive system.

In the course of an analysis of glass beads of
European origin in Spanish-Indian sites in Flor-
ida and the Caribbean we became aware of a
type of simply made silver bead that occurred
widely in Florida Indian sites but were not found
in purely Spanish sites in Florida or the Carib-
bean. They are found at Goodnow Mound (Griffin
and Smith 1945: 14-15, P1. II-A) on the east
coast, at Ft. Center just west of Lake Okeecho-
bee, and at Punta Rassa on the west coast as
well as sporadically at other sites. No very
precise dating is yet possible but the associated
glass beads seem to indicate dates as early as
the 16th century and as late as the first quarter
of the 18th century. Thus they cannot be used
at present as chronological markers, but are of
interest for the light they throw on Indian and
Spanish relationships.
The beads are associated at Goodnow with
beads of the following types: Florida Cut Cry-
stal, Amber Chevron, Ichtucknee Plain Blue,
Florida Spheroidal (translucent green), and seed
beads of opaque white, light blue, and dark blue
colors. At Ft. Center they are associated with
Florida Cut Crystal, Florida Cut Crystal Pen-
dant, and possibly other forms. At Punta Rassa
they are associated with Florida Cut Crystal,
Florida Cut Crystal Pendant, Punta Rassa Tear-
drop Pendant, Seven Oaks Gilded, Chevron, and
seed beads of blue, green, and white colors.
At Canova Beach and Wabasso Beach, as well
as some other sites in the Vero Beach area
they seem to be associated with Florida Spheroi-
dal, Florida Cut Crystal, and amber beads as
well as a series of cut metal ornaments (Rouse
1951: P1, 7 N, 8 E-l). In at least a few cases
in the Vero Beach area they are also associated
with rolled tubular beads of silver and copper

The wrecks so far positively identified in the
coastal stretch from Sebastian Inlet to Ft.
Pierce are those of the 1715 Flota. At least
some of the sites recorded in that area, such as
Br 134, are clearly the camps of salvors who
used some Indian labor. The Florida Cut Crystal
bead and Amber bead, and probably the Chevron
Bead from Fuller Mound A, Br 90, would date
from the 17th century and are rarely found as
late as 1715. They do occur, however, in some
of the earlier 18th century mission sites. All
indications are that these Florida Coin Beads
date from about 1650 to about 1720.
The beads vary in size and shape as can be
seen from Table 1 and Fig. 1. The overall shape
is usually spherical with flattened ends, al-
though a few are rather neat cylinders. The
The majority are barrel shaped (i.e., an elon-
gated spherical form). The outside is usually
quite smooth, showing few if any tool marks.
All share the characteristic of having a longi-
tudinal section resembling the capital letter
"H" in which the cross-arm is vertically pierced
as is indicated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1. Florida Coin Beads from the Punta Rassa
site. University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, No. 8193. Lines are 2cm.
Perforations are relatively large in relation to
bead diameters. About half of these perforations
have a square shape and show the appearance
of having been punched rather than drilled as
small extrusions of metal are found around the
lip of the hole. In some cases the central hole
is rather round and could have been drilled. In
the case of at least some of these round holes
the minute extrusions of metal around the edges
suggest that they were punched with a round tool
rather than one having a square cross-section.

VOLUME 21. NO. 4




6.5 mm.



4.5 mm.








real 0.85


Bead as
% of Coin



Square hole

Square hole
Square hole

Square hole


sq. hole


Square hole

Square hole


From these morphological characteristics the
method of manufacture seems fairly clear. I be-
lieve that the bead maker took a Spanish cut
coin and punched a hole in the center with a
wrought iron nail. These nails had square cross-
sections and were considerably harder than the
silver or villon (silver and copper mixture) coins.
Round holes could have been punched either
with a round tool or the nail could have been
used as a reamer to round the hole. It would
seem that some anvil with a hole for the punch
would have been handy but not really necessary.
Experiments using a hard wood anvil and silver
discs of about the thickness of Spanish coins
indicated that this method is clearly possible.
It evidently was not necessary to heat the coins
in order to punch the holes without buckling the
The second step in making a bead was to hold
the pierced coin in a vertical position, when the
punch would be horizontal and serve as a con-
venient handle. That the punch remained in the
hole during this stage seems pretty certain. With
the coin in a vertical position, the edge was
hammered repeatedly while the coin was rotated
in its punch axis. This expanded and thickened
the edge in a sort of double mushroom which
gradually approached the typical "H" form.
Leaving the punch in place prevented the hole
from collapsing or being deformed during this
hammering process. The use of a square nail
would greatly facilitate handling the coin during
the whole process.

Fig. 2. Cross-sectional diagram of a Florida
Coin Bead.

When the desired cylindrical, spherical, or
barrel-shaped form had been achieved, the bead
was finished by polishing. How this was done
is not apparent. I suppose that with moderate
skill in the hammering stage, little final polish-
ing would be necessary.

The weights of the Punta Rassa series of
beads were compared to the weights of Spanish
cut coins as shown in Table 1. In the two cases
the beads bear no clear relationship to weight
of any denomination of Spanish coin. In most
cases, however, they are only slightly less than
the presumed legal weight of the coins. This
averaged 8.21 grams or 86.37% of the coin
weight. This implies that some metal was lost
during the hammering and finishing processes.
The loss is not great, however, and seems to
support our hypothesis about the origin of the
beads. These were clearly not made by skilled
silversmiths and it is to be expected that some
loss of metal would occur.
When we consider the relatively crude way in
which the cut coins were made, we will see that
minor variations in weight are to be expected.
During the period under discussion the Spanish
New World mints, of which Mexico City was the
most important, used a method which has been
called "Cabo de barra" or "bit of a bar." In
this technique molten silver was poured out in a
long strip, apparently on a smooth stone surface.
The strip or barra was then cut into bits (cabos)
approximating the weight of the coins. The
weight of an eight real, or piece-of-eight, varied
throughout the period, averaging around 27
grams. If the worker cut his "cabos" too big,
he, or the assayer, simply chipped or shaved
off the proper amount. Many of the cut coins of
the period show clear signs of this shaving pro-
cess. The cut and shaved "cabo" was then
placed between two dies bearing the proper de-
signs. The whole stack was then struck with a
hammer to transfer the designs, or parts of them,
to the coin. Most of the "cabos" were irregular
and the force was irregularly applied. The re-
sulting coins rarely show complete designs
(Peterson 1965: Pl. 24).
Coins made by this method could be shaved
by anyone into whose possession they came. It
was not until the development of the screw press
about 1731 that milled edges came into use and
shaving could be readily detected. Before 1731
most merchants used scales of various types to
weigh coins offered them. Nesmith (1955) asserts
that individual coins varied in weight but that
groups of coins generally averaged above
weight. We are not able to check coin weights
very accurately for several reasons. Few, if any,
uncirculated, cut coins are available. When
pressed coins with milled edges appeared after
1731, most earlier coins seem to have been re-
minted. The coins available in any quantity are

those from wrecks of the Spanish Flota carrying
them to Spain. When these have been cleaned,
even by the most careful methods, they certainly
do not give an accurate picture of the original
The Florida Coin Beads seem to have been
made from silver cut coins of 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4,
and 8 reales value. The question of who made
them is not as easily resolved. Certainly the
Indians along Florida's east coast were busily
salvaging any wreck that came to their attention
(Dickinson 1945). The experience of Fontenada
clearly recounts the fact that shipwrecked mar-
iners were often held for years by the Indians
(Fontenada 1944). The Spanish salvage crews
sent out to recover whatever was possible also
seem to have had Indian labor, probably re-
cruited locally (Governor of Florida 1716). The
process used to make Florida Coin Beads was
probably within the capability of either the
Indians or of the Spanish sailors, untrained in
silversmithing or metal-working. What is perhaps
most interesting is that these beads are found
clean across the peninsula. In fact, one of our
largest collections was intrusive into the Ft.
Center site jlst west of Lake Okeechobee, and
thus rather removed from either coast. Goggin
and Sturtevant (1964) have shown that the Cal-
usa in the 16th and 17th centuries had a ramage
system involving a redistribution based on tri-
bute from subject towns and bands. It now seems
clear that the bulk of Spanish wrecks occurred
on the east coast of the peninsula, especially
in the vicinity of Canaveral. Yet relatively few
Florida Silver Beads have been found there. Two
or three specimens have come from the Goodnow
Mound and a few sites in the Vero Beach area.
The majority have come from Central sites or
West coast sites. There seems to be a strong
possibility that the beads were made on the
east coast, by either Spaniards or Indians, and
then taken to Calusa country as tribute.


Dickinson, Jonathan
1945 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal, or God's
Protecting Providence, being the Narrative
of a Journey from Port Royal in Jamaica to
Philadelphia between August 23, 1696 and
April 1, 1697. Edited by Evangeline Walker
Andrews and Charles McLean Andrews.
First published 1699. New Haven.

Fontenada, Hernando de Escalante
1944 Memoir of Do. d'Escalente Fontenada
respecting Florida (written in Spain about
the year 1575). Translated from the Spanish
with notes by Buckingham Smith and re-
printed with revisions. Miami.
Goggin, John M. and William C. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricul-
tural Society (with Notes on Sibling Marri-
age). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropo-
logy, pp. 179-220. New York.
Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith
1948 The Goodnow Mound, Highlands County,
Florida. Florida Park Service, Contributions
to the Archaeology of Florida, No. 1.
Nesmith, Robert I.
1955 The Coinage of the First Mint of the
Americans at Mexico City 1536-1372.
Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 131.
American Numismatic Society. New York.
Peterson, Mendel
1965 History Under the Sea. A Handbook for
Underwater Exploration. Smithsonian In-
stitution. Washington.
Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey of Indian River Archaeology,
Florida. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, No. 44 New Haven.

Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida



Wilfred T. Neill


Although the Rocky Point peninsula, on Old
Tampa Bay, appears to offer a complex series of
sites, the complexities can be resolved. There
were only two occupations of the peninsula, one
in Safety Harbor times and the other immediately
post-dating the Safety Harbor Period. The latter
occupation resulted in the site called Rocky
Point I, not a village midden but the refuse of a
shellfishery operated by Spaniards and probably
a few Timucua Indians. Sherds from Rocky Point
I include aboriginal (Safety Harbor Period) and
Spanish types, as well as aberrant Spanish types
with a suggestion of aboriginal treatment.

A small peninsula, about 150 acres in area,
extends into the northeastern corner of Old Tam-
pa Bay, in Hillsborough County, Florida. The
peninsula has no name; but its southern tip, with
exposed limestone bedrock, is known as Rocky
Point. Plowden (1955) employed this name to
cover the entire area, and I follow his usage.
Middens, or at least piles of shell, once occu-
pied a considerable portion of the peninsula.
Plowden enumerated four sites here, with a fifth
on a nearby islet. The area, crossed by a large
causeway, had been badly disturbed even when
Plowden investigated it; and it has since been
further disturbed by clearing, filling, construc-
tion, and removal of shell. The islet site, Rocky
Point V in Plowden's terminology, still exists;
but Rocky Point III and IV have been built upon,
and II nearly removed. My attention has been
devoted chiefly to Rocky Point I, badly disturbed
but still amenable to some useful investigation.
The sites, and indeed the entire configuration
of the peninsula, have been much altered in the
last decade or so; and I reproduce Plowden's
1955 map (Fig. 1), which was made at a time
when site outlines, and natural shore lines,
could be determined somewhat more accurately
than at present.
When Plowden saw the Rocky Point I shell
deposit in 1955, he estimated its length to be
3,000 feet, and its width to vary from 20 to 100
feet. The estimate of length was generous, and
the width (except where the shell was leveled
and spread in modern times) in most places is

closer to the lower limit given. The deposit
borders the present shore line, and rests on the
fore-dune. It has not been badly encroached upon
by the sea, although storm tides have washed
some material down onto the beach slope. Plow-
den found the western half of this crescentic
shell ridge to be comparatively undisturbed,
and he concentrated his efforts there; but in
spite of the large size of the deposit, and the
many cuts made into it for road fill, he collected
only five sherds and a few flint chips.
I first visited the site in 1955, and was simi-
larly impressed by the scarcity of cultural re-
mains. However, in the eastern half of the shell
ridge, I found nine sherds in one small area at
the base of the deposit. Storm tides, cutting into
the base of the ridge, had exposed most of the
sherds; but they were still in situ, held in place
by the compacted oyster shell. Of these pottery
fragments, one was aboriginal; five were Span-
ish; and three more, while apparently Spanish,
hinted at aboriginal ceramic treatment. All this
material, tightly clustered, lay no more than an
inch or two above the sand dune atop which the
shell had been accumulated. The find suggested
that the deposit, or at least a part of its eastern
portion, was not prehistoric, but dated instead
from a time of Spanish occupancy. Plowden's
five sherds, one or two of them Spanish, did not
conflict with this interpretation.
In roughly the last decade, the western half
of the ridge has been removed, spread about, or
built upon. The eastern half still exists, al-
though its upper levels have been stripped away
in most places. Where trees inhibited this re-
moval, the original upper surface of the shell
deposit can be distinguished. The maximum
thickness of the deposit, prior to modern distur-
bance, did not much exceed three feet in the
eastern half of the ridge. In the western half,
Plowden found the maximum thickness of the
deposit to be about three feet, six inches.
Fig. 2 portrays a part of the eastern half of
Rocky Point I. The area designated "1" is the
shell ridge. It rests upon dune sand. The beach,
designated "2", slopes from the base of the
deposit toward the water. At this point the beach
is well above normal high tides, and is relatively
free of material derived from the shell deposit,
Limestone bedrock, an exposure of which is
designated "3", extends under the shell-capped


VOLUME 21, NO. 4

Fig. 1 The Rocky Point Peninsula, after Plowden (1955). Sites indicated by strippling and Roman

dune, and in fact under the entire peninsula, at
no great depth. In the background is Old Tampa
Bay, designated "4."
With some help from James C. McKay, I rein-
vestigated Rocky Point I in May and June, 1968.
Our attention was directed toward the eastern
half of the shell ridge, where the lower levels
of the deposit -- roughly the lower 15 to 24
inches -- had not yet been hauled away for fill.
These lower levels, the only ones remaining in
the work area, consisted almost entirely of
oyster shells, and had Spanish earthenware frag-
ments from top to bottom. It was felt, therefore,
that a detailed stratigraphic excavation was not
warranted, especially since even the small rem-
nant of the site was jeopardized by the con-
tinued removal of shell (Fig. 3). Accordingly,
work was limited to inspection of the cut faces
of the deposit, where artifacts were weathering
out; to small areas where storm tides had cut
and washed a little of the deposit onto the beach
slope; and to other small areas where oak and
cabbage palm roots did not prevent a little dig-
ging into the shell. In these fashions we accum-
ulated 88 sherds and a few other artifacts. Once
again, the sherds included aboriginal, Spanish,
and aberrant types. In the following account,
sherds from my 1955 visit are indicated thusly:
(1955). Artifacts not so annotated are from the
1968 efforts.

Only two of the sherds are unequivocally abori-
ginal. Of these two, one (1955) is a small rim
sherd. The other is a larger body sherd. Both
include some sand-tempering, and are plain
(Fig. 4 A-B). Plowden reported three sherds
of Glades Plain from this site. My specimens,
at least, are harder and less sandy than the
norm of Glades Plain. Also, the rim sherd has a
somewhat laminated paste, and the body sherd
includes a little finely ground shell in addition
to sand. The rim sherd is considered a variant
of Pinellas Plain, the body sherd probably Pen-
sacola Plain.
Eleven of the sherds, while seemingly Span-
ish, exhibit peculiarities reminiscent of aborigi-
nal pottery. I refer to these sherds as the "aber-
rant" group, a term signifying only that they
differ from any material previously described
from Florida. One of these specimens is a rim
sherd (1955) which, from paste alone, would be
called a fragment of a Spanish olla. It apparently
came from a bowl, or else a wide-mouthed jar,
with a simple rim and a flat lip (Fig. 4 C). The

sherd bears a perforation, located about 35 mm.
below the lip. This perforation tapers in dia-
meter toward the interior of the vessel. The lip
and exterior surface of the sherd bear traces of
red filming throughout. The pigment looks to be
the same red that characterizes many aboriginal
pottery types in Florida. It is not a Spanish red
glaze. A second rim sherd of this group looks
like Spanish ware, but the paste is dull brownish
rather than the usual pinkish or terra cotta. The
paste includes both reddish particles (presum-
ably sherd tempering) and some finely ground
shell. Two deep grooves extend downward from
the lip of this sherd (Fig. 4 D). Three body
sherds (Fig. 4 E-G) represent this same brown,
sherd- and shell-tempered ware. A sixth sherd
is a fragment of ordinary Spanish olla ware,
but exhibits traces of red filming on the interior
surface (Fig. 4 H). A seventh specimen, a rim
sherd, is of olla paste, but is from a small,
globular vessel with a rim that turned in toward
a small orifice. Two other sherds, both of them
small and thick, are red-fired like some olla
fragments, but are tempered only with fine sand.
They have the sandy feel of Glades ware. A
tenth sherd is an olla fragment, with a dark,
gray-brown glaze on both surfaces. It bears a
perforation (Fig. 4 I). The hole was made before
firing, for the glaze continues through it. At both
ends of the hole, the glaze has been worn away.
Presumably the vessel was suspended by a
thong, passed through two opposed perforations
near the rim. The eleventh and last member of
the "aberrant" group (Fig. 4 J) is only 5 mm.
in thickness. The paste is flesh color; it is tem-
pered with shell and sherds, both finely ground.
The rim is slightly thickened and comparatively
high. The exterior of this sherd was somehow
roughened. Unfortunately, the sherd is so worn
that the nature of the roughening cannot be
identified; more than anything it suggests a
nearly obliterated check stamping. This odd
little rim sherd is flat, without curvature.
Finally, there are 84 Spanish olla sherds, five
of them from the 1955 visit.
At this point a terminological problem intrudes.
Some workers have used the phrase "olive-jar
sherd" for any fragment of Spanish pottery that
was not a piece of majolica. Herein I restrict
the term "olive-jar" to large, amphora-like ves-
sels with collared rim, and usually with coarse
throw-marks interiorly. No such vessel was
noted by me at Rocky Point I. In the south-
western United States and nearby Mexico, the
term "tinaja" is used vernacularly for a diver-

Fig. 2 Rocky Point I. Shell deposit (1), beach
slope (2), outcropping (3), Old Tampa Bay (4).

sity of vessels, including essentially aboriginal
ones; but in the Florida literature the same word
has been used as a synonym for "olive-jar."
Thus I fall back on "olla." In Spanish this
word generally signifies a pot or similar wide-
mouthed vessel, made of earthenware and used
especially for culinary purposes. In Spanish-
speaking parts of the New World, the word may
also be extended to a large water jar of earthen-
ware, or to various Indian ceramics.
Of the 84 olla sherds, four are made from a
very poor, laminated paste; they will exfoliate
readily, as shown in Fig. 4 K. The remaining 80
are fairly hard and well-made, although some-
what crumbly when broken. None shows coarse
throw-marks. A few show (on interior surfaces
only) some fine, parallel striations perhaps in-
dicative of wheel-turning. However, almost every
sherd exhibits the geometrically accurate curva-
tures of wheel-turned pottery. Of the 80 sherds,

Fig. 3 Continued removal of Rocky Point I, to underlying sand, reveals depth of shell. Deposit
is entirely of oyster shell.

two are glazed on both surfaces, and one (Fig.
4 L) is glazed interiorly but not exteriorly. The
glaze, a dark gray-brown, has held up poorly.
The paste of the 80 sherds is a light pinkish-
orange in color. Sherd cores do not differ from
surfaces. Tempering materials include bits of
shell up to about 2 mm. in diameter; dark red-
dish lumps, presumably clay or sherd tempering,
up to 5 mm.; an occasional jagged bit of silicate
grit (crushed chalcedony?); and an occasional
blackish particle (charcoal?). These tempering
materials appear together in the paste. The
silicate and blackish inclusions are few, the
shell particles fairly abundant, the clay or sherd
particles most numerous. Some typical sherds of
this group are illustrated (Fig. 4 M-P). A sim-
ilar paste characterizes four of the aberrant
group: a perforated, red filmed rim sherd (Fig.
4 C); a red-filmed body sherd .(Fig. 4 H); a rim
sherd from a small, globular vessel; and a glaz-
ed, perforated sherd (Fig. 4 I).
Plowden reported one "Spanish olive-jar"
sherd and one "sherd-tempered" fragment from
Rocky Point I.

Aboriginal non-pottery items, found by us at
Rocky Point I, were few. They included a flint
spall, and a larger piece of flint that had been
worked into an edged tool (Fig. 5 A). Plowden
found some lenses of clean sand, and we noted
quite a bit of charcoal. There were also a few
Melongena (crown conch) and Busycon (whelk)
shells, perforated to remove the meat (Fig. 5 B-
F). The shells were not modified for hafting,
and showed no wear on lip or beak. A few frag-
ments of quahog (Mercenaria) shells are also
likely to represent food remains.
Scraps of glass, crockery, brick, and metal
were found atop the deposit and on the beach
slope. Most of these items clearly post-date
Spanish times, and only two of them seem more
likely to have been contemporary with the abori-
ginal, aberrant, and Spanish ceramics. These
are two fragments of blackish (actually dark
green) bottle glass, both heavily patinated. One
of them is subtriangular, with use-spalling a-
round most of the periphery (Fig. 5 G). It would
be called a utilized flake if it were in flint. The
other glass fragment has had several spalls
struck from it. From their position on the beach
slope, these two artifacts could have been wash-
ed from the lower levels of the shell deposit.
Many superficial piles of clean, hard, uncom-
pacted oyster shells are obviously very recent

additions to the deposit.
Significant is the absence from Rocky Point I
of vertebrate remains, of black midden dirt, and
of shell tools -- the absence, in fact, of most
artifact classes, aboriginal or Spanish. The site
is not a village midden, nor can it be associated
with any village site on the peninsula. Rocky
Point I seems to have been a shellfishing station
where oysters were gathered and opened.
Fisheries, operated jointly by Spaniards and
Indians, once existed on Tampa Bay. The "Span-
ish Indian" fisheries have been discussed else-
where in detail (Neill 1955); see that paper for
literature citations. The Spanish Indians were
Mikasuki Seminole who had associated them-
selves with the Spanish at various fisheries,
especially on Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor.
The association can be traced back as far as
1769. For several reasons, Rocky Point I does
not appear to be a site of these Spanish Indians.
Bunce, head man of the Tampa Bay (Spanish
and Seminole) fisheries in the 1830's, described
his own settlement, a typical one. It has about
ten Spaniards and twenty Spanish Indians, many
of the latter born and raised at Bunce's fishing
rancho. The Indians worked at the fisheries from
August until March, and supported themselves
through the summer by raising crops. When the
fish were running, Seminoles from the interior
were hired on a temporary basis. Some of the
Spanish Indians had wives from Seminole vil-
lages of the interior. All the Spaniards had In-
dian wives. From other sources we learn that
the Spanish Indians dwelt in palmetto-thatched
huts; raised corn, melons, pumpkins, and peas;
sent produce to Havana in exchange for coco-
nuts, limes, and oranges; gathered coontie
(Zamia); and ate fishes and turtles. Many Span-
ish Indians were baptized in Havana, or visited
there. Some became experienced sailors, or even
registered seamen. Runaway Negro slaves also
found a haven at the fishing rancnos.
In other words, a Spanish Indian rancho was a
small but full-fledged community, comparatively
long-lasting, fairly complex in its structure, and
in contract with both Cuba and the Seminole
country of Central Florida. No Rocky Point site
yields the debris that might reasonably be ex-
pected of such a community. Also, the Rocky
Point peninsula, most of it scarcely above a
tidal mudflat, was hardly amenable to agriculture
in Spanish Indian times. It further seems that
the Spanish Indian ranchos were devoted to




_ L

Fig. 4 Rocky Point I ceramics. Aboriginal (A-B), aberrant (C-J), Spanish (K-P). Scale in cm.

fishing, not shellfishing.
Turning now to artifacts from Rocky Point I,
the aboriginal sherds are not Seminole; they
represent types reported for the Safety Harbor
Period. The Safety Harbor Culture was borne by
the Tocobaga, the Timucua-speaking Indians of
the Florida Gulf Coast. Also, a hybridization of
Spanish and Indian ceramic techniques, hinted
at by the aberrant sherds from Rocky Point I,
does not suggest the Seminole. Melongena and
Busycon shells, opened by one or two holes, are
characteristic of Safety Harbor Period sites, and
earlier sites, on the Florida Gulf Coast. Flint
chips,as well as a cutting (oyster-opening?) tool

of flint, likewise suggest the Tocobaga rather
than the Seminole.
It is thus suggested, tentatively, that Rocky
Point I represents a shellfishing station that
was operated by a small group of Spaniards and
Tocobaga Timucua. This was prior to the arrival
on the Gulf Coast of those Mikasuki Seminole
who became known as the Spanish Indians.
The Gulf Coast Timucua did not accept mis-
sionization; they were usually hostile toward
the Spanish and especially toward the mission-
ized Apalachee and North Florida Timucua.
Tocobaga,principal town of the Gulf Coast Tim-
ucua, was on several occasions the scene of

- .,'

Fig. 5 Non-ceramic items from Rocky Point I. Flint tool (A), perforated Melongena (B-D) and
Busycon (E-F) shells, knapped glass (G). Scale in cm.

actual warfare between the Indians and the Span-
ish. (Tocobaga is identified as the Safety Harbor
Site, about 7 miles WNW of Rocky Point I.) It is
not likely that an association of Spaniards and
Timucuans developed at Rocky Point I until
after the local Indian culture had collapsed. Nor
is it likely that, during the period of hostility,
the Spanish were operating a shellfishery in
sight of Tocobaga.
Between 1685 and 1708, the Florida tribes were
raided by the English, the Yemassee, and the
Lower Creeks. The raids, most damaging be-
tween 1700 and 1705, were directed primarily
toward the Spanish missions and the missionized
tribes of North Florida; but slave-catching was
another motive for these forays, which extended
even into southern Florida. The raids brought an
end to the Safety Harbor Period, to the culture
of the Gulf Coast Timucua. (See Crane 1928 and
Swanton 1946 on Timucua history, Willey 1949
on the culture history.) Tocobaga, always the
principal target of actions against the Gulf
Coast Timucua, probably did not survive the

raids. One early map source, regrettably not
bolstered by any other document, notes speci-
fically that Tocobaga was burned in 1709. At
any rate, when we next hear of Tocobaga In-
dians, some of them are in St. Augustine await-
ing transportation to Spanish holdings in the
West Indies. (But they were not transported, and
were wiped out by an epidemic that struck St.
Augustine in 1726.)
It is logical to expect that Spanish fishermen,
coming probably from Cuba, moved into Tampa
Bay's richshellfishing grounds as soon as Toco-
baga had been destroyed, its people decimated
and dispersed. It is further logical to expect that
some of the Gulf Coast Timucua chose not to
cast their lot with the remnant of the mission-
ized tribes, not to beg for the indulgence of
Spanish officials at St. Augustine or Pensacola;
but chose instead to join Spanish shellfishermen
who were comparatively indifferent to political
events in Florida, and whose maritime orienta-
tion afforded protection from mainland raiders.
Is there evidence, from documentary sources,

that the Spaniards were in contact with Florida
coastal Indians after the British raids but before
the establishment of the Spanish-Seminole fish-
ing ranchos? Roberts (1763: 19-21) mentioned
Spanish use of Indian divers in South Florida in
1733, and stated that the Indians of that area
cured great quantities of fish for trade to Span-
iards who came up from Havana. The Indians
also provided mats and hats made of plant fib-
ers, and oil extracted from manatees and wolf-
seals. Ambergris was traded to the Spaniards in
exchange for scissors, knives, axes, hatchets,
and fishhooks (Covington 1959:115). Spanish
fishing vessels began operating in waters of
Southwest Florida, at least, far back in the
early 1600's; and by 1770, there were 30 or more
ships engaged in this business (Covington 1959:
117). Each fishing crew set up a base on land,
as the catch had to be cured. Spanish techniques
of curing, reported for. this general period of
Florida, included sun-drying, salting, brine-
pickling, and smoking; fish roe was dried in the
smoke of burning corn-cobs. In 1760, and for
some years previous to that time, Spaniards from
Havana lived in the Indian River area during fall
and winter, the fishing season (Romans 1775:
In 1763, by the terms of the Treaty of Paris,
Florida passed from Spain to Great Britain. Late
in that year, the British officer James Robertson
made an inspection tour of the state. His report
(Covington 1961: 5-14) included a few observa-
tions of interest here. He noted that Spanish
ships were still operating at least in South
Florida waters, keeping up "an illicit trade"
with Havana. Robertson did not visit Tampa
Bay, but provided translation of certain Spanish
documents relating to it. According to these
documents, on Tampa Bay was "a place called
Piloto." (This name, Spanish for "pilot," sug-
gests a pilot station where Spanish ships enter-
ing Tampa Bay would pick up someone to steer
them.through the tortuous channels.) Piloto was
not on the island that lies at the mouth of Tampa
Bay (Egmont Key, the pilot station in modem
times); it was "near the river Quetaste." (Snead
Island in the mouth of the Manatee River?)
Piloto had "stone, clay, and abundance of oys-
ters for making lime." (A big pile of clean,
fresh oyster shells, the debris of a shellfishery,
could profitably be burned to produce quicklime
for the manufacture of cement and mortar.)
Robertson reported that in 1763 the Spaniards
evacuating Florida by terms of the treaty, took
with them all their Indian associates -- 3,000

Indians "in the pay of the King of Spain." Pre-
sumably Rocky Point I was abandoned at this
time if not sooner. The Second Spanish Period,
opening in 1781, saw the development of the
Spanish-Seminole fishing ranchos, which per-
sisted into the American Period.
Thus the Rocky Point I shellfishery would
seem to date from within the period 1710-1763.
Other Florida sites of this approximate time
period are few, and need not be reviewed in de-
tail. The ceramic assemblage of the period
usually includes (1) some common, indigenous
pottery types, attributable to surviving remnants
of local tribes; (2) some exogenous types, most-
ly of the Leon-Jefferson or the St. Augustine
Period, attributable to North Florida Indians
fleeing the British; and (3) Spanish types. This
was the apparent situation at the John Quiet
and Big Mound Key Site (Bullen and Bullen
1956); Snead Island (Bullen 1951: 45); Santa
Rosa Pensacola (Smith et al. 1965); the Higgs
Site (Smith 1949); and Fort Pupo (Goggin 1951).
At the Safety Harbor Site, the upper levels of
Area B, Area C, and the big shell heap also had
the requisite ceramic mixture of this period.
Griffin and Bullen (1950) considered the Jeffer-
son and Spanish wares to represent trade ves-
sels reaching Tocobaga within the Safety Harbor
Period, but neither ware appeared in the burial
mound although iron and silver items did so
(Willey 1949: 136-139); so Spanish and Leon-
Jefferson ceramics might have reached Toco-
baga after its collapse as a fully functioning
Several of the above 18th Century sites yielded
flint work, bottles of dark green glass, and
glass fragments that were knapped or use-spal-
led like flint. Several also revealed a hybridi-
zation of European and Indian ceramic techni-
ques: Miller Plain with ring base; red-filmed,
wheel-turned variety on Pensacola paste; soup
bowls on St. Johns and San Marcos pastes. How-
ever, these combinations do not suggest the
aberrant sherds of Rocky Point I, beyond reveal-
ing a general willingness of Indian and Spaniard
to reach a compromise on certain details of
ceramic style. Such compromise, variously mani-
fested, has been reported from Florida and New
Mexico southward to Patagonia. What with the
length of Spanish trade routes, the aberrant
ceramics of Rocky Point I could have been made
in Mexico (the source of much majolica that
reached Florida), shipped to Havana, and picked
up in the latter port by Tampa Bay shellfisher-
men with dried oysters to sell.

As we investigated only the lower levels of a
portion of the eastern half of Rocky Point I,
other parts of this deposit might be prehistoric,
or might have received really substantial addi-
tions of shell in post-Spanish times. However,
the unusual shape of the deposit bespeaks a
single-minded desire to leave shell in a narrow
ridge along the fore-dune. Also, each end of the
deposit is terminated abruptly by a low-lying,
marshy area, as though someone were determined
to keep the shell on the high ground even though
a low spot would seem a better place to discard
it. Recalling that Plowden found Spanish and
aboriginal sherds in the western half of the de-
posit, types not out of keeping with my inter-
pretation of the eastern half, it seems likely that
Rocky Point I dates entirely from a single time
period (barring, of course, some inconsequential
additions in modern times).

The disturbance of all the local sites militates
against any thorough-going analysis of events
at Rocky Point. However, it is desirable to
arrange the available data into a logical frame-
work; for even the site remnants are vanishing,
and it is unlikely that much more will be learned
about the area.
Stearns (1872) said that the largest of the
Rocky Point sites lay about a mile north of the
peninsula's tip. The description could relate
only to Rocky Point III or IV (although the dis-
tance is not as great as Stearns guessed it to
be). Stearns could find no pottery at this largest
site. Plowden found a comparatively large col-
lection of sherds at III, but mentioned none from
IV. I concur with Plowden that IV (now des-
troyed) was Stearns' large shell heap without
sherds. The site, associated with the modern
shore line, would hardly be preceramic. Even at
the end of preceramic times, the sea was still
about 15 to 20 feet below its present stand; and
Old Tampa Bay, maximum present depth 17 feet,
probably did not exist. (See Lazarus 1965 on
fluctuations of sea level in Florida.) Rocky
Point IV is thus regarded as a heap of shell-
fishing refuse, with an abundance of shells but
not much else. Plowden found no sherds at
Rocky Point V, which might therefore be simi-
larly identified as shellfishing refuse. Sites IV
and V appear to be remnants of a single deposit,
split when the causeway was constructed and
the area north of it built up. The age of IV-V
will be taken up later

Rocky Point II had a shell deposit along its
bayshore side, but also extended well inland of
the fore-dune. The inland extension contained
much black dirt along with some shell. Support-
ing a well-defined stand of cabbage palms and
oaks, Rocky Point II has the look of a typical,
small, village refuse midden of aboriginal origin.
Plowden reported St. Johns Plain, Weeden Island
Plain, Glades Plain, and unclassified check
stamped sherds from this site, as well as one
flint scraper. The site has since been removed
in large part, and the remnant of it bulldozed
about. We picked up four poorly made, plain
sherds with laminated paste (Pinellas Plain);
two plain sherds with fine sand tempering (prob-
ably Plowden's Weeden Island Plain); and one
small, plain temperless sherd (St. Johns Plain
or a temperless variant of Pinellas Plain). We
also picked up a flint scraper, and a Melongena
shell that had been perforated for removal of the
meat. The site remnant is now littered with
pieces of house foundation, drain tiles, terra
cotta piping, and other debris of essentially
modern occupation.
Just north of II is III. The latter (now destroy-
ed) appears to have been continuous with II,
before the causeway was built between them.
From III Plowden reported sherd-tempered, Belle
Glade Plain, Weeden Island Plain, Glades Plain,
Pasco Plain, and unclassified check stamped
sherds, along with a Melongena hammer.
In other words, II-III is the only village refuse
midden of the area, the other sites being nearly
sterile deposits of shell. Therefore various
Indian artifacts of bone, shell, flint, and pottery,
reported by Shepard (1886) from an unspecified
site on the Rocky Point peninsula, are from
II-III. Aboriginal sherds from Rocky Point, class-
ified by Willey (1949: 338-339), were a part of
the material on which Shepard had based the
1886 report. Willey listed Pinellas Plain and
Incised, Papys Bayou Plain and Punctated,
Hillsborough Shell Stamped, St. Johns Plain and
Check Stamped, West Florida Cord-Marked (Late
Variety), and Pasco-related cord-marked types.
Sherds from Rocky Point, where nameable, be-
long mostly to pottery types found by Griffin and
Bullen (1950) at Safety Harbor, the nearby type-
site of the Safety Harbor Period. These include
Pinellas Plain and Incised, Pensacola Plain,
St. Johns Plain and Check Stamped, Belle Glade
Plain, Glades Plain, and Pasco Plain. Both
Safety Harbor and Rocky Point also produced a
few cord-marked sherds. Certain of the Rocky
Point types -- Hillsborough Shell Stamped,


Weeden Island Plain, and the Papys Bayou
series -- are generally assigned to the Weeden
Island Period; but as shown by Sears (1967), the
Weeden Island and the Papys Bayou series, and
Hillsborough Shell Stamped, carry over into
Safety Harbor times at the Tierra Verde Site.
(Tierra Verde lies about 22 miles SW of Rocky
Point, at the mouth of Tampa Bay.) An aborigi-
nal sherd-tempered type would not be anachron-
istic at Rocky Point, for a variant of Pinellas
paste has reddish inclusions suggestive of sherd
or clay tempering.
Thus there is no evidence that the Rocky
Point peninsula was occupied before the Safety
Harbor Period. Early in that period, with sea
level a foot or so below its present stand, the
peninsula would have been somewhat more at-
tractive as a village location than it later be-
came. The thin soil, underlain by rock, might
have stayed dry enough to permit a little farming
on the higher spots; and fresh water could have
accumulated in a few low spots. Disadvantages
of the locality were perhaps outweighed by the
extraordinary availability of oysters in nearby
waters. There may have been only one Safety
Harbor Period village, strung out along the
eastern side of the peninsula.
At the Safety Harbor Site, the Indians relied
heavily on oysters for food, but kept most of
the shell out of the village area. Wherever they
opened their oysters, the people of Tocobaga
left most of the shells at the bay's edge outside
the village area, thus producing an almost sterile
shell deposit (Griffin and Bullen 1950: 22).
Probably, then, at nearby and contemporary
Rocky Point, the Indians of the Rocky Point II-
III village similarly left the greater part of their
shells outside the village area, thus forming the
nearly sterile shell deposit called Rocky Point
IV-V. Village area III was about 135 yards from
shell deposit IV, on opposite sides of the penin-
sula's constricted neck.
Of the presumed shellfishing deposits, IV-V
was heaped up (15 feet high according to
Stearns). In contrast, Rocky Point I had the
unusual shape of a long, low ridge following the
shores of the peninsula for about half a mile. In
other words, shellfishing refuse was disposed of
in two different ways -- presumably aboriginal
and Spanish -- at Rocky Point.
The Rocky Point peninsula was just barely
habitable when first occupied in Safety Harbor
times. Even a slight rise of sea level must have
rendered it intolerable as a village location.
Evidence of a rising sea level can be seen at

the Safety Harbor Site, where a sizeable portion
of the village area is now submerged at high tide
(Willey 1949: 136). Arable land and potable water
must have soon vanished from Rocky Point.
Oyster beds had probably been depleted by con-
stant gathering. The village II-III was abandoned
before the Spanish arrived.


Rocky Point was first occupied early in the
Safety Harbor Period. The first inhabitants built
a village on the eastern side of the peninsula.
The separation of village debris into two parts
(Rocky Point II and III) probably reflects the
construction of a modern causeway. The vil-
lagers brought or manufactured shell tools and
ornaments, bone implements, a few flint points,
and half-a-dozen kinds of pottery -- the usual
artifact assemblage of a small village in Safety
Harbor times. Relying heavily on oysters for
food, but preferring to keep the village area
moderately free of shells, they left a large part
of their shellfishing refuse on the west side of
the peninsula, roughly 135 yards from the vil-
lage. The separation of this refuse into two
parts (Rocky Point IV and V) may reflect only
the construction of a modern causeway, and the
modern build-up of the peninsular land north of
the causeway.
Barely habitable at the outset, the Rocky Point
peninsula soon became uninhabitable as the sea
continued to rise. The Tocobaga Timucua, bear-
ers of the Safety Harbor Culture, abandoned their
village on the peninsula.
Soon after the collapse of Timucua culture,
perhaps about 1710, Spaniards established a
shellfishery at Rocky Point. Probably they came
from Cuba. At Rocky Point the Spaniards were
joined by a remnant of the Tocobaga Timucua.
The Spanish and Indian shellfishers left a long
ridge of oyster shell following the fore-dune
(Rocky Point I). Perhaps the shells were de-
posited in this fashion in order to facilitate
lime-burning, an activity that interested the
Spanish at this time. As is usual with shellfish-
ing deposits, this ridge yields little cultural
debris beyond fragments of broken vessels. The
sherds include aboriginal types of the Safety
Harbor Period; Spanish types; and aberrant
types, essentially Spanish but with a hint of
Indian ceramic influence.
These shellfishermen brought their catch by
boat to Rocky Point I. Here they opened the
oysters and cured the meat promptly (for raw

oysters spoil rapidly). As shellfishing was a
seasonal occupation, carried on during the cooler
months only, the Spaniards probably built no
actual village on land. A simple campsite, leav-
ing little trace, might have been built at some
bayside locality that offered fresh water and at
least fairly high ground.
In 1763 the Spanish evacuated Florida, taking
all their Indian associates with them. Rocky
Point was abandoned by this time, and was not
reoccupied during the period of the Spanish-
Seminole fishing ranchos. In American times,
casual oyster-gatherers added a little shell re-
fuse to the debris of earlier shellfishermen, and
in so doing left scraps of glass, crockery, and


Bullen, Ripley P.
1951 The Terra Ceia Site ( ) Manatee Coun-
ty, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications, Number 3. Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen
1956 Excavations on Cape Haze Peninsula,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida State
Museum, Social Sciences, Number 1. Gaines-
Covington, James W.
1959 Trade Relations Between Southwestern
Florida and Cuba -- 1600/1840. The Florida
Historical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.
114-128. Jacksonville.
1961 The British Meet the Seminoles. Contri-
butions of the Florida State Museum, Social
Sciences, Number 7. Gainesville.
Crane, Verner W
1928 The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732. Duke
University Press. Durham
Goggin, John M.
1951 Fort Pupo: A Spanish Frontier Outpost.
The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 30,
No. 2, pp. 139-192. Tallahassee.
Griffin, John W. and Ripley P. Bullen
1959 The Safety Harbor Site, Pinellas County,
Florida. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications, Number 2. Gainesville.
Lazarus, William C.
1965 Effects of Land Subsidence and Sea
Level Changes on Elevation of Archaeo-
logical Sites on the Florida Gulf Coast.
The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 18. No. 1,
pp. 49-58. Gainesville.

Neill, Wilfred T.
1955 The Identity of Florida's "Spanish
Indians." The Florida Anthropologist, Vol.
8, No. 2, pp. 43-57. Gainesville.
Plowden, William W., Jr.
1955 Archaeology on Rocky Point, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 8. No. 1,
pp. 17-21. Gainesville.
Roberts, William
1763 An Account of the First Discovery and
Natural History of Florida. London.
Romans, Bernard
1775 A Concise Natural History of East and
West Florida. Vol. 1. New York.
Sears, William H.
1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The
Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 20, Nos. 1-2,
pp. 23-73. Tallahassee.
Shepard, James
1886 Shell Heaps and Mounds in Florida.
Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution
for 1885, pp. 902-906. Washington.
Smith, Hale G.
1949 Two Archeological Sites in Brevard
County, Florida. Florida Anthropological
Society Publications, Number 1. Gainesville.
Smith Hale G., et als.
1965 Archaeological Excavations At Santa
Rosa Pensacola. Notes in Anthropology,
Vol. 10. Tallahassee.
Stearns, Robert E. C.
1872 Remarks on Mounds and Shell Heaps of
Tampa Bay. Proceedings of the California
Academy of Sciences, Ser. 1, Vol. 4, pp.
214-215. Los Angeles.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United
States. Bureau of American Ethnology.
Bulletin 137. Washington.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
Vol. 113. Washington

New Port Richey, Florida




Stanley J. Olsen
Many times farm implements are recovered from
colonial sites but are given only the briefest
superficial attention. This is particularly dis-
turbing if such tools are of a distinctive form or
style and consequently may aid in pinpointing
the country of origin of the settlers using these
tools (if this isn't already known from other
sources), or may establish the dates of contact
and trade with the manufacturer of these tools.
Implements that fall into this category are the
chopping hoes that were basic hand tools for
the pioneer Spanish settlers living in the south-
eastern and southwestern United States during
the late seventeenth and early eighteenth cen-
Hoes of the Spanish colonial period (Fig. 1)
are known from many sites and a few fine ex-
amples exist in museum collections. One such
implement, from a California mission site, is on
exhibit in the Los Angeles County Museum.
Fragmentary examples have been figured in site
reports by Boyd, Smith and Griffin (1951: Plate
VI, 13), and by DiPeso (1953: Plate 73, C).
These are usually listed simply as "iron hoes"
with no further comment. (Editor's Note: For
further illustration, description and bibliography
of Spanish hoes see L. Ross Morrell; 1965; The
Woods Island Site in Southeastern Acculturation,
1625-1800. Florida State University Notes in
Anthropology, Vol. 11. Tallahassee.)
It is worthy to note that all of these hoes are
of a particular pattern and unlike the present day
grubbing hoes or mattocks. Mr. Arthur Woodward,
referring to a partial hoe unearthed in San Pablo
de Quilburi, Arizona (DiPeso 1953) likened it to
a pick-mattock and had the artist reconstruct
the implement with a pickhead opposite the hoe
blade (DiPeso 1953: Fig. 21). This same hoe
is shown here as Fig. 1.
When a number of these Spanish tools are ex-
amined and compared it is apparent that the end
opposite the chopping blade was never more
than an extended rib (Figs. 1-2). On close ex-

amination of these hoes it can be noted that the
handle sockets or eyes were formed of two
pieces of strap iron, forged to form a circular
opening for the handle. This joining of the straps
was accomplished by forging or heat welding
the pieces together when quite hot, using a ham-
mer and anvil.
The simplest way to forge-weld two iron bands
or straps is to allow enough bonding surface to
both pieces to insure a firm joint. This was
accomplished by using the faces of the two
pairs of projecting ribs, one of which was also
welded to the blade (Fig. 2).
A socket or eye could have been forged by
simply bending a single strap around a suitable
sized mandrel thus eliminating the weld and pro-
jection opposite the blade. However, this added
rib strengthened the socket in the area where a
crack or break would most likely occur from hard
Some of the projecting ribs show a battered or
mushroomed surface that may have been caused
through use as a hammer to drive planting stakes
or to break small stones that were uncovered
during cultivation. One has a blunt, forged, chi-
sel edge on this projection.
Two of the examples figured here are from
dated sites. The specimen from Florida (Fig. la)
was uncovered during roadgrading operations on
the site of the Spanish mission of San Luis de
Talimali located within the present city limits
of Tallahassee. This mission was established
about 1633 and continued in operation until
abandoned by the Spanish in 1704. The dated
hoe from Arizona (Fig. Ib) is from a site in the
south-central portion of the state. The fragmen-
tary blade was uncovered on the floor of a dwell-
ing. Associated artifacts indicate that it was
used during the period of 1692-1698.
The hoe illustrated in Fig. 2a was recovered
in the general area of Las Vegas, New Mexico
as a surface find and not associated with a dated
site. Insufficient records accompanying this
tool prevent further comment. It is, however, a
fine colonial type and similar to specimens
having been dated as early eighteenth century.



VOLUME 21, NO. 4

San Pablo de Quiuri, Arizona 1692-1698
r-) A-


San Luis de Talhmal, Florida 1633-1704

Fig. 1. Colonial Spanish hoes from late 17th and early 18th century sites in Arizona and

extended r7is required for welding
'surface & for added strength

0, .5

Lcoo ascz, ac rea., ,r ; e c e
coloniall, surface find ,nC pcsztwe date)

Fig. 2. Method of hand forging and welding the ribbed handle socket in early Spanish hoes.


Boyd, Mark F., Hale G. Smith and John W. Griffin
1951 Here They Once Stood. University of
Florida Press. Gainesville.
DiPeso, CharlesC.
1953 The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San
Pedro River Valley, Southeastern Arizona.
The Amerind Foundation, Inc., No. 6.

Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida

James W. Covington
In 1847 Captain John Casey, Seminole Emigra-
tion Agent, complied a list of Seminole men who
were present in Florida. In spite of certain
obvious defects, this enumeration is a worthy
supplement to our limited knowledge of Seminole
life at this time. When the Second Seminole War
(1835-42) ended, the Indians were scattered
throughout the entire peninsula, but most of them
were to be found in the southern portion. Those
Seminoles still in the north moved into the two
and one half million acre temporary reservation
set aside for them in Southwest Florida. This
temporary reservation was situated west and
south of Lake Istokopa and west of a line run-
ning from the mouth of the Kissimmee River
through the Everglades to Shark River and thence
along the coast to the Peace River.
By 1847, the various bands had arranged them-
selves in a pattern near the shores of Lake
Okeechobee. The Creek speaking Seminoles
(Tallahassees) living to the north of the lake
had as one of their important leaders Chipco
(Echo Emathla Chopka). The Mikasuki speaking
bands living to the south and west of the lake
included bands directed by Sam Jones, Billy
Bowlegs and Ismahtee. The so-called "boat
Indians" under Ismahtee living in the Ten Thou-
sand Island section recognized ancient Sam
Jones, rather than Billy Bowlegs, as their lead-
It is difficult to ascertain how Captain Casey
obtained the enumeration of Seminole men. From
his numerous contacts with the Seminoles, he
probably knew more about them than any other
white man living in Florida and could assemble
a worthy census. At a conference held in Fort

Myers during August, 1852, the list was pre-
sented to Benjamin Hopkins.
The list has both good and bad features. It
does show a possible complete tabulation of the
Seminole men, their band affiliation, and re-
lationship. It demonstrates a close relationship
by marriage between Chipco's band and the
Mikasuki bands. Unfortunately, the names were
written by an unskilled white man and some of
them are probably difficult to recognize or iden-
tify. The list was printed in the August 27,
1853, issue of the Florida News (Jacksonville).

1. Quatkascal, Echo Emathla Chopka,
(Tallahassee Head-man),
2. Cotsa.
3. Coc Emathla Achalee, (brother of Wildcat).
4. Cotsa Fixico Thlokkok (related to Wildcat).
5. Cotsa Achulee, or Isa-na-lai-kee,
(uncle to 4).
6. Compper Tustennakee, or Sai-yot-pee.
7. Chitto Tustennakee, (brother to Bowlegs).
8. Ekon Tsahtee, (cousin of Cowassat Fixico).
9. Fuss Hatchee Emathla, (son of 7).
10. Kowochee
11. Mah-wah-hee, (nephew of 7).
12. Osanna Hajo, (brother-in-law of 6).
13. Okchan Tusteannakkee.
14. Possuk Tusteannakkee, (cousin of 7).
15. Pahosee. (Seminole).
16. Pannukkee, (stepson of 4).
17. Pellico.
18. Ruffarnee, (brother-in-law of 7).
19. Passalitch-tsee.
20. Tallapoosa.
21. Tustennuk Hajo
22. Tnssakia Sustee.
23. Tomathlee.
24. (fold in paper)
25. Istachoksee-hoh-kee, (son of 15).
26. Holata Fixico.


1. Holahta Mikko, or Billy Bowlegs,
King of the Seminoles-
2. Assinwah, (father-in-law of Billy and Big
Man of his Tribe).
3. Achulee Hajo
4. A-sa-ho-lee, (son of Hoith.le-wake, and
half brother of Waxee Hajo).
5. Chupanthlokko, (younger brother of Fuss
Hatchee Emathla).
6. Chapanoska, (son of Nokosee Emathla).
7. Chow-es-tai-co-chee, (son of Hoith-le-wake-

8. Costa Fixico.
9. Chlee Hajo, (nephew of Ismathla).
10. Choskowa.
11. Chokta Mikko.
12. Echo Hajo.
13. Ec- ko-chee
14. Fuss Hatchee Emathla, (brother-in-law of
Billy Bowlegs).
15. Fuss Hajo
16. Foklinna, (son of Hoith-le-wake-achulee).
17. Fuss Enaha.
18. Hoith-le-wake-achulee.
19. Hoith-le-paya, (brother of 18).
20. Hokississ Hajo .
21. Holuttkee Tustennukkee, (brother of 17).
22. Hoithlee Machtee.
23. Istu Manuttee, (son of 19, half brother of
Maxco Hajo).
24. Kapitsa Yahola.
25. Mikko Hajo (son of 2).
26. Mikko Kochokkonnee, or Penreyihter,
(nephew of 25).
27. Munnaitsee, (stepson to Old Alligator, who
28. Noska Hajo, or Moe-hai-see, (son of 14).
29. Nokosee Emathla, (son of 2).
30. Ninnee Honeathlee Tustennukkee, or Eucha
31. Oktaiatsee-fixico-chee, (son of Hoit-le-
32. Osa Eucha, (related to Holutkee Tusten-
33. See-pah-sah-kee, (son of Assinwah).
34. Oklaw-tsahlee, (nephew of Chakta Mikko).
35. S-sai-yee, (son of Hoith-le-paya).
36. Sunnumtataiskee, or Phililip, (nephew of
37. Tustennuk Hajo, (stepson of Choktaw
38. Waxee Hajo, (stepson of 19).
39. Waiyah, (son of 7).
40. Tuss Hatchee Emathla, (brother-in-law of
41. Chassanoska, (son of Nokoosee).
42. Hoithlee-wake-achula, (3 women).
43. Hotutkee Tustennukkee.
44. Istin-sammihtsee.
45. Coniss Hajo.
46. Nilkuss Hajo.
47. Kasee (12 years old, no parents).
48. Okluiassee-fixico-chee, and two sisters.
49. Mikka Hajo.
50. Ponaih-ish-tsee.
51. Fuss Hajo.
52. Bill Bowlegs.

53. Wassee Hajo.
54. Ninnee Homathla Tustennukkee.


1. Ismahtee (Head Man).
2. Cowassat Fixico
3. Ahallok Fixico-chee or Isah-pa
4. Meehoikee, (son of 1).
5. Malai-ik-pee, do.
6. Nohas Hajo-chee, (son of 2).
7. Suff-chee-yee, (son of 2).
8. Fukosa Enee-othloochee.
9. Yaha Fixico.
10. Chiu Bobukee, (12 years, son of Taha).


1. Apaiakee, or Sam Jones, Chief.
2. An-chai-hailee.
3. Choko Tustennukee.
4. Chokotee Tustennukee.
5. Chokochootee, (related to Enehs Thlok-
6. Conip Hajo, (younger brother to Huithly-
7. Eneha Thlokkochee.
8. Enehochee Kotsa.
9. Enehah Kochokkonee.
10. Fixico-chee, (related to 1).
11. Fuss Hajo-chee, (nephew to Sam Jones).
12. Hospotatkee, (related to 1).
13. Aolata, (related to Bowlegs).
14. Hunnahfullihtsee.
15. Hoithywaloochee.
16. Isfatee.
17. Ist-in-summihtsee, (nephew of Eneha
18. Istai-paih-kootsee, (Seminole, son of Tuska
Eneha, dead).
19. Kotsa Hago, (nephew of 1).
20. Kotsa Shopko, (related to 1).
21. Nelkuss Hajo.
23. Naolkee, (nephew of Oklohlachulee).
24. Osanna Hajo
25. Oktaists-ochulee, (related to Kar-sik-tsoo-
tsee, who emigrated).
26. Oklakl-ochulce.
27. Oklaiatsee Hajo.
28. Paynee, or Sopokta Mikko, (brother-in-law of
29. Puk-ah-jo, (related to 7).
30. Sah-tai-yee, (son of Eneha Kockokkona).
31. Tustennuk Hatka
32. Tustenuk Chopko, (old man).

33. Tusakin Hajo, (related to Bowlegs).
34. Tustenuk Chopko.
35. Tustenuk Kochokkonee.
36. Cahil, (12 years old, son of Nees-no-ranuts).

Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida

Wilfred T. Neill and James C. McKay
Bullen (1967) described a fluted point found by

j r.7
.9 -

him in the collection of a relic hunter from Mich-
igan. Although the point had no counterpart in
accurately labeled material from Florida, Bullen
tentatively accepted the statement that it had
been found years before "on the bank of the
Crystal River" in this state. The specimen was
somewhat Folsom-like in having well-made basal
projections, and in being widest at a level
slightly distal to midblade. The name "Folsom"
was therefore re-introduced into Florida projec-
tile point terminology.
Three characteristics of the artifact -- pati-
nation, material, and typology -- permit some
choice between acceptance or rejection of a

Fig. 1. Upper left: Specimen of doubtful provenience, both faces (after Bullen 1967).
Other specimens from Tennessee (after Lewis and Kneberg 1951).

Crystal River provenience. To check these
characteristics from the specimen itself, we
visited the Crystal River Museum where it was
on display. At that time (May 13, 1968) the
point was labeled "Folsom," ascribed to Crystal
River, and dated "10,000 B.C." (Dates for
Folsom sites actuallycluster around 8000 B.C.)
Of the aforesaid characteristics, having some
bearing on provenience, patination is the least
useful. Still, some generalizations can be ad-
vanced. No doubt the rate of patination is af-
fected by the chemical and physical conditions
to which a flint artifact has been exposed, and
by the material of which it is made. (Flint, in
the broad archaeological usage of the term, in-
cludes a variety of silicate rocks, which differ
among themselves in crystalline structure and in
the contained impurities.) Patination generally
proceeds with comparative rapidity in the warm,
wet Florida peninsula, where even the youngest
projectile point types, the Mississippian tri-
angles, are likely to show a definite patina. The
situation is quite different in, say, the Midwest,
where even the oldest types, the fluted lanceo-
late points, commonly show very little patina.
It is possible to comment on the patination of
early points definitely found at Crystal River.
As noted elsewhere (Neill 1964: 19), Suwannee
points have been found on higher ground over-
looking the Crystal River. During the 1950's,
the Marion Engineering Company cut into an
early site at the town of Crystal River. Three
projectile points were uncovered from a deeply
buried occupation level. The artifacts were
typical Suwannee points,unfluted, with incurvate
outlines and flaring, basal "ears." The points,
and flint scrap from the site, exhibited a heavy,
whitish patination (as do most early points from
In contrast, the Folsom-like point on display
is very lightly patinated, so lightly that the
colors of the flint are not obscured.
The displayed point is made from a good'grade
of whitish flint, streaked with yellowish-tan.
We have seen no Florida projectile point or
spall, of any time period, that was made of this
exact substance. However, to judge from the
provenience of flint artifacts at hand, the mate-
rial was utilized by Indians in an area from
(roughly) the Great Lakes southward to the Ohio
and westward to Missouri.
Of course, typology is the most useful of the
three characteristics that bear upon provenience.
As already mentioned, the displayed artifact dif-
fers trenchantly from all known Paleo-Indian

projectile points that are assuredly Floridian,
including some from Crystal River. However, a
series of fluted points from southern Illinois
(Peithmann 1955: second unnumbered plate) in-
cludes several that are much like Bullen's ex-
ample. At least one of Peithmann's specimens
is widest at a level slightly distal to midblade.
Most of these Illinois points have well-worked
basal projections, backwardly directed. (We
would restrict the term "basal ears" to out-
flaring projections.)
From western Tennessee northward to Wiscon-
sin and Ohio, there exists an assortment of long-
fluted points with well-worked, backwardly
directed basal projections. Within this assort-
ment one can detect certain modal conditions,
some of them named (e.g., Redstone, variant
Cumberland, "generalized Folsom," Clovis);
but intermediate specimens also exist. Bullen's
example belongs, typologically, to this assort-
ment. Illustrations in Lewis and Kneberg (1951:
Pls. 1-5) depict variation in Tennessee speci-
mens. In Fig. 1 we reproduce some of their
illustrations, for comparison with that presented
by Bullen.
To summarize: An unlabeled projectile point,
found in a Michigan relic hunter's collection, is
typologically a part of a fluted point complex
unknown from Florida but concentrated in an area
that extends roughly from western Tennessee to
Wisconsin and Ohio. The point is made of a
material unknown in or near Florida, but common
in the aforesaid more northerly area. Its patina-
tion is not what would be expected of a Paleo-
Indian projectile point from "the bank of the
Crystal River," but is quite in keeping with an
origin somewhere in the northern area toward
which our attention is directed by typology and
material. Accordingly, we suggest that the speci-
men did not actually come from Florida.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1967 A Florida Folsom (?) Point. The Florida
Anthropologist, Vol 20, Nos, 1-2, p. 2.
Lewis, T. M. N. and Madeline Kneberg
1951 Early Projectile Point Forms, Examples
from Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeologist,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 6-19. Knoxville.
Neill, Wilfred T.
1964 The Association of Suwannee Points
and Extinct Animals in Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 17-32.

Peithmann, Irvin M.
1955 Echoes of the Red Man. Exposition
Press. New York.
New Port Richey, Florida


Ripley P. Bullen
Figure 1 illustrates a large, composite, bone
fishhook found by Mr. Alvin Hendrix of Mac-
Intosh, Florida, while skin diving in the Okla-
waha River a little north of the Sunday Bluff
site. Mounting the end opposite the bark in a
wooden handle would convert this specimen into
a spear while the attachment of cordage at the
same place forms a conventional, but unbent,
7As illustrated, this fishhook consists of three
parts. First is a 6-inch long bone point identical
to hundreds of others except that it exhibits a
relatively short, artificial, groove near one end.
In the lower part of Figure 1 a duplicate long
bone point is shown with its groove just below
that of the fishhook above it!
One end of the barb is fifted into this groove
as shown in the accompanying sketch (Fig. 2).

o 2 IN,
o0 2 3 4 5 CM.

Fig. 1. Composite bone fishhook and slotted
bone point.

Fig. 2. Composite fishhook.

Fig. 3. Two types of gorges
This secondpart-is pointed at both ends and re-
sembles a gorge (Fig 3), but differs from a gorge
in that it does not have a d.ddle cross-groove
for the attachment of a line Remains of a black
substance suggest that pitcr or gum may have
been used as an adhesive t hold, or to better
"seat," the barb in the groove)
The third element consist of string or cord
used to_&bithe barb in place. This cord is
evident in the picture but further description of
it is impossible without close examination which,
in this case, would damage the specimen.
The composite fishhook found by Mr. Hendrix
illustrates a little known facet of aboriginal
technology -- the construction of complex tools
by the assembling of pre-made component parts.
The recovery and analysis of such tools shed
light on-the usages and functions of odd-shaped
bone artifacts found in many collections.

Florida State Museum
Gainesville, Florida

Robert C. Dailey
Two Peruvian Indian skulls, presumably a male
(Fig. la-b) and a female (Fig. 2a-b) were given
to the Department of Anthropology, Florida State
University in 1968. These crania, reported to
have been excavated near Fortaleza de Para-
monga in the central coast region of Peru, are
in extremely good condition except that about
half of the teeth of each have been lost through
careless handling. Nothing further is known of
the whereabouts of the post-cranial skeletons
nor the circumstances surrounding the excava-
tion. Grave goods said to be associated with
the burials indicate that they probably date to
the Late Chancay period of the central coast.
Though an effort was made to compare the metri-
cal and morphological characteristics of these
skulls with data reported for this area by New-
man (1947), no conclusive correlation was found.
At the time the crania were received from the
donor, portions of the hair of each still adhered

to the scalps. By coincidence, the hair of the
skull designated as being male was short, while
that of the female was long. Moreover, several
pieces of textile were so arranged in the hair
of the latter as to suggest that it may have been
tied in a bun at the time of burial. Most of the
facial area of the male crania was covered with
several layers of fabric, which in view of the
preservation of parts of the exoskeleton would
seem to indicate that these individuals were
The age of the male, ascertained on the basis
of suture closure, appears to have been between
forty and fifty years of age at the time of death.
This assumption is further confirmed by the
slight elevation of the peri-articular margins of
the occipital condyles, also suggesting middle
age. Inthe case of the female, the suture closure
indicates that the individual was probably not
less than thirty or more than forty years of age.
The dentition was incomplete in both crania,
although there is evidence that all teeth had
erupted at the time of death. Both skulls ex-
hibited attrition, the extent being considerable
and moderate in the male and female, respec-
tively. Pre-mortem tooth loss was confined to
the lower right first molar in the male, while the
female had the following losses: upper left-2nd
premolar, lower left-ist and 3rd molars, upper
right-3rd molar, and lower right 2nd premolar,
1st, 2nd and 3rd molars. Only the roots of the
upper right canine and 1st premolar remain in
the female. Periodontal disease is evidenced in
both crania to some degree, the female having
the more considerable infection. Dental caries
which were present in both crania were located
as follows: Female -- one large buccal cary
above the neck of the upper left first molar, and
one interproximal at the neck of the third molar
on the same side; Male one large occlusal
cavity on the upper left third molar. There was
a slight deposit of calculi on the upper right
molars of the male; none in the female.
The male crania is very broad (Hyperbtachy-
cephalic, 88.0), high and short in length (Hypsi-
cranic, 79.0) (Tapeinocranic, 90.1) partially due

Maximum Length

Maximum Breadth

Basion-Bregmatic Height

to a moderate defree of fronto-occipital deforma-
tion. The medial supraorbital ridge is moderate,
nuchal lines pronounced, and the inion large
and pointed. The orbits (Hypsiconchic, 94.6) are
large and squared with rounded corners and
poorly defined borders. There is marked post-
orbital constriction. Mastoid processes are very
large and well developed. The sagittal suture
is obliterated only at the coronal suture and is
beginning to ossify above the pterions, which
are H-shaped. The facial region is broad (Eury-
prosopic, 82.5) (Euryene, 49.6). The nasal aper-
ture (Mesorrhine, 47.1) is piriform with poorly
defined margins and a small anterior nasal spine.
Zygomae are massive and project laterally. The
maxilla is slightly prognathous (Mesuranic,
114.8) and has canine fossa. The mandible is
short and bilobate with broad, heavy rami. The
ascending rami rise vertically and there is no
gonial flare. Anomalies are present in the form
of exostoses in both canals of the auditory
meati. Pathologies other than dental are confined
to considerable osteoporosis and vascular acti-
vity on the occiput above the inion, and a moder-
ate degree of osteoporosis on either side of the
sagittal suture just below the lambda.
The crania of the female is similar in form to
that of the male (Brachycephalic, 83.4) (Hypsi-
cranic, 79.8) (Metriocranic, 95.6), but with less
pronounced features. Some of the differences
are purely sexual, and a few no doubt a function
of age. The orbital apertures (Hypsiconch, 91.4)
are squared with angular corners and sharply
defined borders. The nasal aperture (Chamaer-
rhine, 52.2) is broad, and a prominent anterior
nasal spine is observed in the female. Some
prognathism and a more considerable degree of
gonial version is present. The facial region
(Mesoprosopic, 85.1) (Mesene, 50.4) is less
broad. Dehiscences of the tympanic plates and
twolarge wormian bones in the lambdoidal suture
are the only anomalies. Slight osteoporosis is
present on the occipital bone below the lambda.
A list of the measurements and indices deter-
mined for these skulls is given in the following
Male Female

16.1 16.3

14.1 13.6

12.7 13.0

Cranial Module

14.3 15.3

Cranial Index

Height-Length Index

Height-Breadth Index

Auricular Height

Minimum Frontal Breadth

Total Facial Height

Upper Facila Height

Facial Width

Facial Index

Upper Facila Index

Nasal Height

Nasal Index

Nasal Breadth

Orbital Height

Orbital Breadth

Orbital Index

Maxillo-Alveolar Length

Maxillo-Alveolar Breadth

Maxillo-Alveolar Index

Depth of Palate

Mean Diameter Foramen

Length of Mandible

Bicondylar Width

Height of Symphysis



















































Minimum Breadth of Ramus 3.2 3.3

Angle of Mandible 97.50 1100

Height of Ramus 7.4 6.0

Bigonial Diameter 9.5 8.3

Fig. 1. Male Peruvian Indian cranium; a, left lateral view; b, frontal view.

Fig. 2. Female Peruvian Indian cranium; a, left lateral view; b, frontal view.


Newman, Marshall T.
1947 Indian Skeletal Material from the Cen-
tral Coast of Peru, Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethno-
logy, Harvard University, Vol. 14, No. 4.
pp. 1-71. Cambridge.

Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida


The Florida Anthropologist publishes.original papers in all subfields of anthropology, with an
emphasis on archaeology. Contributions from allied disciplines are accepted when they concern
anthropological problems. The geographic scope of the journal, in order of importance, includes
Florida, the Southeastern United States and related regions, North America, and other areas.
Manuscripts will be published in order of receipt within the limits of space and issue balance,
except those contributions which are solicited by the editor. Authors will generally be notified
of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 3 to 5 weeks following receipt ofa manuscript.

Preparation of Manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted for publication should be typed double spaced on one side only of a
good grade of white bond paper, leaving more than one inch margin on all sides of the page.
Pages which have numerous corrections should be re-typed. All parts of every manuscript, in-
cluding text, quotations, tables, abstract, lists, acknowledgment, and references should be typed
double spaced. All manuscripts longer than four pages must be accompanied by a brief abstract
written in an informative and succinct manner; manuscripts of four pages or less will be included
under "Brief Notes."

Reference and Style
Contributors are referred to American Antiquity, the journal of the Society for American Archaeology,
for matters of style and reference. All manuscripts, with the possible exception of "Brief Notes,"
should list references at the end of the text, and should limit the list to only those references
cited in the text. All books, monographs, and articles should be listed alphabetically by author,
and chronologically by work. Do not abbreviate the names of series or journals. The listing for
a book should include the full title, publisher's name, and place of publication.

Notes and Acknowledgments
Footnotes should not be used unless absolutely necessary. If the information is pertinent to the
discussion, include it in the text. Acceptable footnotes are those stating that the paper is a
revision of one offered at a professional meeting, or acknowledging permission to publish. General
acknowledgments should be included following the text.

Twenty-five reprints without covers are furnished free to each author. Those authors desiring
more than this number will be charged for the.cost of printing involved.
Illustrations and Tables
All illustrative material, drawings, maps, diagrams, charts, plates, and photographs should be
included in a single numbered series and designated "Figures," abbreviated as Fig. (Figs.)
in the text and legend. Never use the term "Plate."All tabular material should be included in
a separately numbered series of "Tables." All figures must be of a size suitable for maximum
reduction to( 6 X 8V2" including caption. If the original illustration is too large to be mailed,
a photograph suitable for reproduction should be submitted instead of the original. Photographs
should have a glossy surface and be sent unmounted. Drawings should be made with india ink
on a hard, smooth-surfaced, white board. When several objects are shown in a single illustration,
each object of the figure should be designated with a lower case letter, not a number or a capital
letter. Each figure and table must be accompanied by a brief descriptive caption. Captions should
be typed double spaced on a separate sheet of paper. Specific references in the text should
indicate what portion of the manuscript the illustrative material is intended to support.

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