Florida anthropology

Material Information

Florida anthropology
Series Title:
Notes in anthropology
Fairbanks, Charles H ( Charles Herron ), 1913-1985 ( editor )
Place of Publication:
Tallahassee, FL
Pub. jointly by the Florida Anthropological Society and Florida State University
Publication Date:
Vol. 2, no.5, 1958
Physical Description:
81 pages. : ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Anthropology ( lcsh )
Anthropology ( fast )
Antiquities ( fast )
Antiquities -- Florida ( lcsh )
Florida ( fast )
serial ( sobekcm )
bibliography ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Notes in anthropology, no.2.
General Note:
Florida Anthropological Society publications, no. 5

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
01720305 ( OCLC )
G1 .N6 vol. 2 ( lcc )
570.9759 Fai ( ddc )

Related Items

Related Item:
The Florida Anthropologist

Full Text

Reprinted with the permission of the Florida Anthropological Society
Ill Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003 Berkeley Square House, London, W1X6BA

First reprinting 1970, Johnson Reprint Corporation
Printed in the United States of America

Charles H. Fairbanks
Published Jointly by
The Florida Anthropological Society Publications, No. 4'* 5
The Florida State University, Department of Anthropology,
Notes in Anthropology, Vol. 2
Tallahassee, 1958

The 1957 Anthropological Round Table
Charles H. Fairbanks...
Archeological similarities between the Southeast
and the West Indies
Irving Rouse
Accomplishments and opportunities in Florida
Indian ethnology
William C. Sturtevant..
Highway Salvage Archaeology
Its background and the Florida Program
William H. Sears
Summary and Comments
Charles H. Fairbanks...

Charles H. Fairbanks
When the Florida Anthropological Society was invited to hold
its 1957 annual meeting at Rollins College the present editor,
then president, decided to attempt a re-evaluation of the present
position of anthropology in Florida. Rollins College had been
host on April 9 and 10, 1949 to an anthropological conference at
which a variety of papers had been presented. These were publish
ed in the same year as "The Florida Indian and His Neighbors"
(Griffin, 1949). It was felt that an up-dating of the former con
ference would give cohesion to the 1957 annual meeting and prove
valuable to the membership of the society.
With these ends in view, a round table on the present status
of Florida anthropology was organized. It was decided to include
the subjects of ethnology and linguistics that had not been read
at the previous conference. The following individuals presented
papers on the indicated subjects:
Julian Granberry: The present status of linguistic
studies in Florida.
John M. Goggin: Recent developments in Florida archeology
Irving Rouse: Florida-Caribbean relationships.
William C. Sturtevant: Opportunities and needs in
Florida ethnology.
Charles H. Fairbanks: Summary and Comments
The papers presented at the round table all proved to be
exceptionally interesting. It was decided to publish them as a
companion work to "The Florida Indian and his Neighbors". The
first deadline for submission was March 15, 1957. At that time
only three papers had been received. A year later the editor
still had only the original three papers.

In the belief that the papers were valuable and that they
should be published' while still pertinent, the editor has decided
to go ahead with those papers on hand February 15, 1958, the date
of the 1958 annual meeting. Goggin's paper on archeology and
Granberry's on linguistics had not been received. Sears had re
vised his. paper on highway salvage archeology and re-submitted it
by that time. Both Rouse and Sturtevant had made minor editorial
revisions during the summer of 1957. Essentially, however, the
papers stand as given at the round table. In order to partially
fill the void left by the absence of a paper on archeology,the pr
esent editor has prepared a bibliography of archeological publi
cations since 1949. This will serve as a general indication of
the wealth of material on Florida archeology since the earlier
round table but cannot substitute for an extended discussion of
the accomplishments and future problems in Florida archeology.
The present publication is financed by Florida Anthropolo
gical Society, the Department of Anthropology of Florida State
University, and the Library of Florida State University.
Charles H. Fairbanks
- 2 -

Irving Rouse
Since the islands of the West Indies lie like a series of
stepping stones between South, Middle, and North America, they
raise the possibility of diffusion among the three regions.
Ideally, one should study the relationships of all three to
the West Indies in order, for example, to balance the possi
bility of origin in Middle America against those of origin in
North and South America. This paper, however, will of necessity
be limited to relationships between North America, i.e., the
Southeast, and the West Indies.
Research on this problem has been of three kinds. First,
a series of writers, extending back as far as Brinton (1871),
have demonstrated that West Indian culture is basically South
American rather than Southeastern in its affiliations. They
did not make detailed comparisons of West Indian and South
eastern traits, however.
Secondly, there have been two detailed comparative studies
by individual scholars, the first by Lovn (1924, revised in
1935) and the second by Gower (1927). These have shown that,
despite the South American affinities of West Indian culture,
there are some similarities in individual cultural traits be
tween the West Indies and the Southeast.
More recently, several institutions have set up research
programs to work on the problem more systematically. Yale
University was the first to establish such a program, so far as
I know; it did so in 1933 and has been carrying it on continu
ously ever since.1 The University of Florida and Florida State
University have begun similar programs in the past few years.
It is interesting to note that the Yale program was inspir-
- 3 -

ed by the earlier, individual research of Gower. Osgood, who
conceived the Yale program, was a fellow student of Gower's at
the University of Chicago and became interested in the problem
while she was writing her dissertation on it. Osgood's contri
butions to the program were almost entirely archeological, and
the same has been true of Rainey Goggin, Granberry, George
and Robert Howard, myself, and most others who have participat
ed.2 Recently, however, we have been joined by Sidney W. Mintz,
a Caribbean ethnologist, and William C. Sturtevant, a special
ist in Southeastern ethnology, and this has given the program a
better balance.
From an archeological standpoint, perhaps the greatest
single achievement has been the establishment of time and space
perspective. Before the beginning of the Yale program, these
were not available. Gower, for example, had to compare the
Southeast and the West Indies on a single, timeless level, and
she made no geographical distinctions, except to differentiate
the Ciboney and Arawak in the Greater Antilles from the Carib
in the Lesser Antilles. Thus, she had no way of telling whether
a given trait which occurred in both the Southeast and the West
Indies did so contemporaneously or whether this trait had a
continuous distribution from the middle of the Southeast to
the middle of the Antilles.
Recent archeological research, mainly under the Yale
Caribbean Program, has resulted in the setting up of time-
space charts for Florida and the Greater Antilles, i.e., for
the two adjacent sections of the areas with which we are here
concerned. The most pertinent parts of these charts are repro
duced in Table l.2 The Florida columns are taken from Goggin's
latest chronological chart (Goggin, 1952) and the Greater
Antillean columns from my own work (Rouse, 1953). To give a
broader perspective, I have placed on the left side of the
chart a general Southeastern column and on the right side, a
general Antillean column, referring to the area from Puerto
Rico to the mouth of the Orinoco River.
While this chart, as is usual in such cases, expresses
- 4 -

primarily relative chronology, I have added to it, alongside
each general column, a series of absolute dates. Those on the
Southeastern side are based upon the radiocarbon dates (see,
e.g.. Bullen, 1956), and since these dates are now fairly numer
ous, should have some degree of accuracy. The absolute dates
given on the West Indian side are based upon (1) a series of 26
radiocarbon dates for Venezula, Panama, and the island of
Trinidad, off the mouth of the Orinoco River (Cruxent and Rouse,
1958) and (2) a glottochronological date for the migration of
the Arawak into the Antilles, which is believed to be correlat
ed with Period II of the rlative chronology (Taylor and Rouse,
1955). The fact that (1) and (2) correspond nicely and that
they are both consistent with the relative chronology gives
them a high degree of reliability.4
Since the date for the appearance of the Pueblo Viejo
phase of culture in eastern Cuba is crucial to my argument, it
should be added that this is corroborated by historical evi
dence. The Spaniards were told that the so-called Taino Indians,
who possessed the Pueblo Viejo culture, had migrated from
Hispaniola to the eastern tip of Cuba only about 50 years be
fore the arrival of Columbus (Harrington, 1921, vol. 2, p.414).
The treatment of the rectangular divisions in the body of
the chart, i.e., of the phases of culture there represented,
indicates the level of cultural development reached by each
phase. It has seemed advisable to use for this purpose the
three-fold classification devised by Steward (1947): (1)
Marginal, indicated by the white spaces; (2) Tropical Forest,
indicated by the stippling; and (3) Circum-Caribbean, by the
crosshatching. The nature of these three divisions is as
1. Marginal. The term "Marginal" is Steward's equivalent
of the "Archaic" in the Southwest. It refers to those phases
of culture which are more advanced than the Paleo-Indian but
which have not yet attained the level of agriculture. In the
areas with which we are dealing, such phases are characterized
by an emphasis upon shell-fishing. They may or may not have
- 5 -

pottery and/or burial mounds. Other evidences of ceremonial
development are rare.
2. Tropical Forest. The term "Tropical Forest" corres
ponds to the "Preformative" of current developmental classifi
cations (e.g., Phillips and Willey, 1955, pp. 755-65). I
folio Steward's practice in using it, despite the fact that it
is not, strictly speaking, descriptive of ecological conditions
in the Southeast. Tropical Forest cultures are those which in
clude agriculture as veil as pottery and, in some cases, burial
mounds, but in which ceremonialism is lacking or weakly develop
ed. Neither a priesthood nor well-differentiated social classes
are to be found in the Tropical Forest phases of culture, inso
far as this can be determined from archeological evidence.
3. Circum-CaTibbean. This term is used solely in a de
velopmental sense, without any necessary implication of con
temporaneity or of relationship between the cultures so class
ified. Possible alternative names would be "Formative" or
"Fluorescent," as employed in the developmental classifications.
Included are those archeological remains which give evidence of
both agriculture and a high degree of ceremonialism, as well as
a priesthood and social classes, where these can be distinguish
ed. I have considered temple mounds and ball courts to be the
best indicators of the Circum-Caribbean level of cultural de
velopment in the Southeast and the West Indies respectively.
Having outlined the space and time perspective in the
Southeast and the West Indies respectively, and defined the
levels of cultural development there represented, we may pro
ceed to consider the similarities between the two areas on the
basis of these categories. We will begin with similarities on
a Marginal level. As Table 1 will indicate, it is the Marginal
cultures which have been in the two areas for the greatest
length of time and they are the only ones which are contiguous.
Therefore, one would expect the best and most detailed evi
dences of contact to appear on the Marginal level, and this is
what we find. Time permits mention of only two traits: (1)
burial mounds and (2) shell gouges. An identical form of burial
- 6 -

mound has been reported from the Glades and Malabar cultures of
Florida and from the Cayo Redondo culture of Cuba, consisting
of alternate layers of earth and shell refuse (Rouse, 1949, pp.
127-8). This type of mound is not found, to my knowledge, any
where else in the Southeast or the West Indies, and so it looks
like good evidence of diffusion, even though we cannot yet date
its occurence in Cuba. The shell gouge is found only in the
preceramic and early ceramic cultures of Florida and in Cuba,
although a further occurrence on the north coast of South
America complicates the picture (Osgood, 1942, pp. 40-1,
Cruxent and Rouse, 1958).
Turning to the Tropical Forest cultures, we would not ex
pect to find so much similarity between the Southeast and the
West Indies, since these cultures were some distance removed
from each other and did not reach their closest localities
until a relatively short time before the contact period. Again,
this theoretical expectation seems to be borne out by the facts.
I do not know of any archeological traits shared by the Tropi
cal Forest cultures of the Southeast and the West Indies which
are not so simple in nature or so general in distribution as
to have relatively little value for demonstrating cultural re
lationships. However, the pottery of the Bani culture in
central Cuba does have certain highly specific resemblances
with Floridean pottery, as pointed out most recently by Bullen
and Laxson (1954), though the resemblances are with a Marginal
culture in Florida, Glades III, rather than with the correspond
ing Tropical Forest cultures further north, such as St. Johns I
and II. The same is true of shell celts (Rouse, 1944, p. 132).
It is the possibility of resemblances on a Circum-Caribbean
level which has most intrigued writers on the subject in recent
years. Steward (1947, pp. 98-9), for example, has suggested
the possibility that the Circum-Caribbean cultures of the South
east are derived from the West Indies, and Howells has implied
the same thing in his Back of History (1954, pp. 297-8). When
looked at from the standpoint of our time-space chart (Table 1),
this theory presents certain difficulties. In the first place.
- 7 -

it would appear that the Circum-Caribbean level of development
was moving out from separate centers in the Southeast and the
West Indies, instead of passing from one area to the other as
would be the case if the two areas were connected. Secondly,
the cultures of the Circum-Caribbean type appear earlier in the
Southeast than in the West Indies, although the theories assume
that they diffused in the opposite direction. Thirdlyand
this is perhaps the most significant point since it is the best
documentedthere is a broad gap between the Circum-Caribbean
cultures of the Southeast and the West Indies, consisting of
most of peninsular Florida and all of Cuba except the eastern
tip. (The Bahamas also form part of this gap, although they
are not included in the chart.)
Few writers on the subject of Southeastern-West Indian re
semblances seem to be aware of the extent of this gap. The dis
tance across it, between the nearest Circum-Caribbean cultures
in the Southeast and the West Indies, is greater than that
across the corresponding gap between the Southeast and Meso-
america. The former measures more than 1,000 miles, whereas
the latter is only 800 miles. Yet writers postulating con
nections across the Southeastern-West Indian gap have not, to
my knowledge, considered it necessary to propose a mechanism
for orossing the gap, as is done in the case of the South-
eastern-Mesoamerican gap. Writers who postulate a relation
ship between the Southeast and the West Indies on a Circum-
Caribbean level should, in my opinion, recognize that they
thereby incur the obligation of demonstrating some sort of move
ment of peopleeither migration or tradeacross a thousand
miles of intervening space, not to mention the difficulty of ex
plaining the discrepancy in dates between the two.
Time does not permit me to go into the nature of the simil
arities across the gap except to point out that they are super
ficial. They are similarities in degree of cultural development
but not in the kinds of development that have taken place. For
example, the principal West Indian ceremonial structure, the
ball court, is not found in the Southeast and the principal
- 8 -

Southeastern structure, the temple mound, is not found in the
West Indies. Similarly, the cult of the zemis in the West
Indies is entirely different from the Southern Cult in the
Southeast. As Lovn (1935, pp. 680-1) has pointed out, both the
ball courts and the zemi carvings of the Antilles have their
counterparts in Mesoamerica rather than in the Southeast.
To summarize, the distribution of cultures in the South
east and the West Indies is such as to render most likely re
lationships on a Marginal (Archaic) level. Direct relationships
between cultures on a Tropical Forest (Preformative) level are
less likely, and on a Circum-Caribbean (Formative) level they
are improbable, because of the large gap in space and the dis
crepancies in time between the two. These distributional possi
bilities are borne out by the facts of the archeology, in that
the only detailed and highly specific resemblances so far known
are between the Marginal cultures of the Southeast and the
Marginal and Tropical Forest cultures of the West Indies respec
- 9 -

1. The Yale Program owes much of its success to grants
which have generously been made to it by the Wenner-Gren Found
ation for Anthropological Research, Inc.
2. For a history and bibliography of the Yale program to
1942, see Osgood (1942, pp. 5-9). The principal publications
on the Caribbean proper since then include Bullbrook (1953),
Cruxent and Rouse (1958), Goggin (1952), Goggin and Sommer
(1949), Granherry (1956), G. Howard (1947), R. Howard (1956),
Masius (1951), Osgood (1956), Rouse (1951, 1952), and Willey
3. Limitations of space prevent reproduction of the com
plete charts. For the rest of the Florida chart, see Goggin
(1952, Fig. 2). The most recent chart for the rest of the
Antilles is given in Cruxent and Rouse (1958, Fig. 4).
4. There was originally some discrepancy between the
radiocarbon dates and the glottochronology (Rouse, Goggin, and
Cruxent, 1958), but this has been reconciled by assuming that
the Arawak migrated from the Orinoco Basin to the east coast of
Venezuela and thence out into the Antilles instead of proceed
ing directly from the Orinoco into the Antilles. Such an as
sumption had previously been made by Loven (1935: 695) but re
jected by us. Now, however, we have obtained archeological evi
dence from the east coast of Venezuela which confirms it
(Cruxent and Rouse, 1958).
5. In referring to Steward's classification, Willey and
Phillips (1955, p. 777) state that they include the Tropical
Forest cultures "maintaining stable agricultural villages" in
the Formative rather than the Preformative stage. This, how
ever, would not apply to any of the phases of culture discussed
here, as Willey and Phillips (1955, p. 765) implicitly re
cognize when they include the Meillac phase in the Preformative.
They do place the Cedros and Cuevas phases in the Formative,,
but I would instead consider these phases to he Preformative,
since they, too, appear to be characterized as much by fishing
10 -

and shell fishing as by agriculture and there is good evidence
that the villages were frequently moved.
6. Steward (1947, p. 99) is an exception to this state
ment; he suggests that the well-known ability of the Antillean
Indians to navigate would have permitted them to cross the gap.
Even he, however, underestimates the extent of the gap; he
describes it as consisting only of the swamps of south Florida
whereas it also includes the high land of central and western
Brinton, Daniel G.
1871. The Arawak Language of Guiana in its Linguistic and
Ethnological Relations. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, n.s., vol. 14, pp. 427-44.
Bullbrook, J. A.
1953. On the Excavation of a Shell Hound at Palo Seco,
Trinidad, B.W.I. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, no. 50. New Haven.
Bullen Ripley P.
1956. Some Radiocarbon Dates and their Significance. The
Florida Anthropologist, vol. 9, pp. 31-6. Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley R., and D. D. Laxson
1954. Some Incised Pottery from Cuba and Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist, vol. 7, pp. 23-25. Tallahassee.
Cruxent, J. M., and Irving Rouse
1958. An Archaeological Chronology of Venezuela. Pan-
American Union, Social Science Monographs, III.
Washington. (In press.)
Goggin, John M.
1952. Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns
Archeology. Yale University Publications in Anthropol
ogy, no. 47. New Haven.
Goggin, John M., and Frank Sommer
1949. Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, no. 41. New
- 11 -

Gower, Charlotte D.
1927. The Northern and Southern Affiliations of Antillean
Culture. Memoir of the American Anthropological
Association, no. 35. Lancaster.
Granberry, Julian
1956. The Cultural Position of the Bahamas in Caribbean
Archaeology. American Antiquity, vol. 22, pp. 128-34.
Salt Lake City.
Harrington, M. R.
1921. Cuba before Columbus. Museum of the American Indian,
Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs. 2 yoIs.
New York.
Howard, George D.
1947. Prehistoric Ceramic Styles of Lowland South America,
their Distribution and History. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, no. 37. New Haven.
Howard, Robert R.
1956. The Archaeology of Jamaica : A Preliminary Survey.
American Antiquity, vol. 22, pp. 45-59. Salt Lake City.
Howells, William
1954. Back of History: the Story of Our Own Origins.
Garden City.
Lovn, Sven
1924. liber die Wurzeln der Tainischen Kultur. Goteborg.
1935. Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies.
Masius, Vera
1951. Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, no. 45. New
Osgood, Cornelius
1942. The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, no. 25.
New Haven.
1946. British Guiana Archeology to 1945. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, no. 36. New Haven.
- 12 -

Rouse, Irving
1949. The Southeast and the Vest Indies. In "The Florida
Indian and his Neighbors," edited by John V. Griffin,
pp. 117-37. Winter Park.
1951. A Survey of Indian River Archeology. Tale
University Publications in Anthropology, no. 44. New
1952. Porto Rican Prehistory. The New York Academy of
Sciences, Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the
Virgin Islands, vol. 18, pts. 3-4, pp. 307-577.
New York.
1953. The Circum-Caribbean Theory, an Archeological Test.
American Anthropologist, vol. 55, pp. 188-200.Menasha.
Rouse, Irving; J. M. Goggin; and J. M. Cruxent
1958. Absolute Chronology in the Caribbean Area. Proceed
ings of the Thirty-second International Congress of
Americanists, held in Copenhagen, August 1956.
Steward, Julian H.
1947. American Culture History in the Light of South
America. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 3,
pp. 85-107. Albuquerque,
Taylor, Douglas, and Irving Rouse
1955. Linguistic and Archeological Time Depth in the West
Indies. International Journal of American Linguistics,
vol. 21, pp. 105-115. Baltimore.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949. Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, no. 42. New Haven.
Willey, Gordon R.; and Philip Phillips
1955. Method and Theory in American Archeology II:
Historical-Developmental Interpretation. American
Anthropologist, vol. 57, pp. 723-819. Menasha.
Department of Anthropology
Yale University
13 -

Table 1. Comparison of Southeastern and West Indian Chronologies
3 ~~~~n mzs

William C. Sturtevant
Ethnology was not among the topics covered at the 1949
conference on the Florida Indian and his neighbors (Griffin,
1949). At that time, Alexander Spoehr's (1941-1947) was almost
the only significant recent work. Since then a number of new
studies have been made, and the bibliography on Seminole cult
ure has improved markedly in quality and coverage. A review
of the status of Florida ethnology is thus appropriate at this
Seminole Ethnology
During the first half of the 18th century, settlers from
the Creek Confederacy began entering the north Florida country
left vacant by the disappearance of the aboriginal inhabitants,
the Apalachee and Timucua. By the early 1800's, several thou
sand Indians, known as Seminole, were in this region. The
First Seminole War of 1816-18, and especially the Second Sem
inole War of 1835-42, had drastic results for these Indians.
Some 4,500 were deported west of the Mississippi, many were
killed, and the 300-400 remaining in Florida were far to the
south in relatively unexplored areas. As a result of the Third
Seminole War, 1855-58, still more were sent west, so that per
haps fewer than 200 remained in Florida. The tribe had been
reduced to less than a twentieth of its previous size, had
fought a long and difficult war, lost most of its leaders,
and had lost contact with related tribes. Not only were Sem-
Published with the permission of the Secretary, Smithsonian

inole economic resourcesherds, fields, and stored foods
systematically destroyed, but the Indians found themselves in
a new and very different ecological area, requiring consider
able adjustments in their subsistence techniques. The cultural,
social, and psychological effects of the wars must have been
immense, and the results are still evident.
There are today some 900 or 1,000 Seminole in Florida (no
accurate census has ever been made). About a third of these
are known as Cow Creek. They speak Creek (also known as Musk
ogee), and live mostly on the Brighton Reservation slightly
northwest of Lake Okeechobee, with a few families living off
the reservation in scattered camps north and northeast of the
lake. The remaining two-thirds are the Mikasuki, who speak a
dialect of Hitchiti, a Muskogean language not mutually intel
ligible with Creek. They live on the Big Cypress Reservation
on the northern edge of the Big Cypress swamp, on the small
Dania Reservation north of Miami, and off the reservations in
commercial camps in Miami and in camps along the Tamiami Trail
highway between Miami and Everglades City, with a few isolated
families in the Everglades north and perhaps south of the high
The casual visitor on first seeing Seminole is struck by
their conservative dress and housing. The impression is mis
leading, for these are precisely the most conservative areas
of Seminole technology and economy, most other areas of which
are quite fully integrated with the general economy of south
Florida. The really conservative aspects of Seminole culture,
in both of the bands and among all political factions, are
language and social organization. Every Seminole speaks Mika
suki or Creek (or both) most of the time; many know so few
words of English that they can scarcely ask for what they
need in a grocery store. I know of only one family where an
attempt is being made to prevent the children from learning
the Indian languages and this family is one of the very few
where the mother is white. This situation is very striking to
anyone with any acquaintance with other Indian groups in the
east,and is indicative of the stage of Seminole acculturation.

Marriages are still controlled almost without exception
by membership in the fire Cow Creek matrilineal sibs and the
approximately ten Mikasuki ones (the number of sibs one counts
among the Mikasuki depends on one's interpretation of the
rather complex system of sib linkages, associations, and
synonymy). The kinship system shows little or no direct in
fluence from English; the terminology is of the Crow type.
The political system of the Seminole is poorly known, but
it is evident that it is considerably simplified from its
Creek prototypes, presumably as a result of the Seminole Wars;
that it is an integral part of the ceremonial organization;
and that it is now undergoing change and breakdown. In part,
it is still operating among the off-reservation Mikasuki.
Since about 1950, several issues have tended to increase
the political activity within the tribe, to exacerbate faction
al divisions already present or latent, and apparently to
speed up social change. These issues are additional to dif
ferential acculturation, especially with regard to religion,
which has had obvious divisatory tendencies. There has been
an increased interest in the Seminole by Congressional subcom
mittees, local individuals and Florida organizations, with a
series of investigations, meetings, hearings, and public dis
cussions all involving Seminole representatives or groups.
Religion has been an area of very rapid acculturation dur
ing the last 15 years. Before 1943, there were almost no Sem
inole Christians; today some half the population are thorough
going Southern Baptists who do not attend the non-Christian
oeremonies. The two Mikasuki reservations are almost entirely
Christian, and the Cow Creek reservation is only slightly less
so. Most of the off-reservation Mikasuki and Cow Creek are
still non-Christian. For a time, and perhaps still, conversion
to Christianity was accompanied by movement to the reservations
(sometimes one and sometimes the other coming first). The non-
Christian Mikasuki conduct two annual ceremonies. The busk or
Green Corn Dance in the spring centers around the medioine bun
dles, whereas the Hunting or Snake Dance in the fall is less
sacred and has fewer 17 -

sacred and has fewer political concomitants. Until very recent
ly, the Cow Creek also held yearly busks and Hunting Dances;
however, increasing Christianization had cut down attendance
and reduced the number of ceremonial leaders to such an extent
that the Cow Creek Hunting Dance was discontinued two or three
year8 ago.
In other aspects of intellectual culture acculturation
has been less extensive. Medicine and the associated mythology
and ethnobotanical knowledge have been gradually declining for
several decades, yet all Seminole, Christian and non-Christian,
still resort to Seminole medical practitionersas well as to
white doctors and hospitalsand there remains one full-scale
medical specialist who preserves much of the old systematized
knowledge and conducts an extensive practice, without conflict
with his beliefs and activities as a Christian. Most elderly
Seminole also know and occasionally apply some traditional med
ical knowledge.
In summary, I think it is fair to state that the Seminole
are by far the least acculturated Indians east of the Mississ
ippi, and rank among the least acculturated in the United
States today.
There are several characteristics of the modern Seminole
which present problems for the field investigator. Attitudes
towards outsiders, language and interpreter problems, and the
dispersed settlement pattern, all combine to make it difficult
to find and to hold good informants, to conduct any investiga
tion requiring sampling or the questioning of an extensive num
ber of people, or to engage in participant observation to any
One result of this situation is that the long-term local
investigator has a greater advantage than usual over the out
sider who comes for an intensive but brief ethnological invest
igation. One can easily name a dozen or more people in south
Florida who during the past 75 years or so have had close as
sociations with the Seminole extending over many years, and
18 -

who have been considered real friends and advisers by the
Indians. Someone in such a position has an excellent oppor
tunity to make contributions to ethnological knowledge. Yet
only one such personLouis Capronhas had the combination of
intelligence, background, and interest necessary to carry out
systematic research and to make his extensive knowledge avail
able in a form meeting scholarly standards.
In the discussion of research opportunities which will
follow, these problems of rapport will be largely ignored. How
ever, I would like to emphasize here that there will be more
field problems in connection with any of these projects than
would be the case with most other Indian groups. The Seminole
are hard to work with, and this should be taken into account
in evaluating past and future studies of them.
Accomplishments. The published literature on the Seminole
includes many pre-anthropological and non-anthropological ac
counts. Many of these are valuable, and they are our only
primary sources on Seminole culture and history before about
1880. However, they are sources for the ethnologist and his
torian, rather than the results of anthropological or histor
ical work. Among published accounts of this nature which con
tain valuable data on the Seminole are those of naturalists
such as the Bartrams (J. Bartram, 1942; W. Bartram, 1791, 1853,
1943), William Baldwin (1843), Charles B. Cory (1896), and
John Kunkel Small (1921a, 1921b, 1922, 1923, 1933); of explor
ers such as Romans (1775), Hugh Young (1934-35), Pierce (1825),
John Lee Williams (1837, 1908), Willoughby (1898), and the
Ingraham expedition (Marchman, 1947; Church, 1949); of travel
lers and sportsmen such as W. H. Simmons (1822, 1908), Castel-
nau (1948a, 1948b), Henshall (1884), Ober (1875), and the
Dimocks (1908); of soldiers who fought the Seminole, such as
Motte (1953), Cohen (1836), Sprague (1848), and Canova (1885);
and of Indian bureau personnel such as Pratt (Sturtevant,
1956b), Wilson (1888), Duncan (1898), Nash (1931), and Tozier
(1954). There are of course many other similar sources which
remain unpublished but are preserved in various archival col-
19 -

lections where the anthropologist and historian can and should
utilize them.
The first strictly ethnological investigation of the
Florida Seminole was conducted during three months in 1881 hy
the Rev. Clay MacCauley for the Bureau of American Ethnology.
The results of his work were published in a 63 page paper six
years later. MacCauley, like other American anthropologists
of his time, had no formal training in ethnology. However, he
had previously provided the Bureau of American Ethnology with
material on the Ojibwa and Menomini, and was sent to Florida
by Major Powell "to inquire into the condition and to ascer
tain the number" of the Seminole. Powell recognized the dif
ficulties encountered by MacCauley, but also noted, correctly,
that his report was "the first ethnologic exploration of the
Seminles of Florida ever successfully attempted."1 It re
mains the only published description of the Florida Seminole
which attempts to cover all the major aspects of their culture
in any detail. MacCauley was handicapped mainly by the dif
ficulty of finding informants. Most of his information other
than that obtained by direct observation, apparently was se
cured from a young Mikasuki who had a small amount of school
ing in English. This man. Little Billie, was the father of
several leading modern Seminole, among them Josie Billie, who
has aided most recent ethnologists. As would be expected, Mac
Cauley's data are weakest on religion and political organiza
tion, and strongest on material culture, it is a surprising
fact that he was unaware that the Seminole spoke two different
languages. His Mikasuki informant gave him only Creek forms.
Beginning about 1886, Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Willson, Jr. of
Kissimmee developed an interest in Seminole history and cultura
Their contacts were chiefly with the northern Creek-speaking
groups of Seminole. In 1896 Mrs. Willson published a book
titled The Seminles of Florida, which went through many subse
quent editions and which is unfortunately probably the best-
known description of the Seminole. The work is a highly ro
manticized and inaccurate accumulation of observations and hy-
- 20 -

potheses. It may be classified as an example of poor amateur
ethnology. To sift the few useful facts from the mass of in
accuracies requires considerable knowledge of Seminole culture
and of Seminole personalities, and the book is not to he re
commended for any purpose. Mrs. Willson also published several
shorter accounts, which are all of comparable reliability.
The first trained anthropologists to visit the Florida
Seminole were M. R. Harrington and Alanson Skinner. Both made
expeditions to collect ethnographic specimens. In 1908 Har
rington visited camps of the Mikasuki and Cow Creek, and in
1910 Skinner visited the Mikasuki. These men were among the
most skilled collectors of ethnographic specimens who have
ever worked in the United States. Both Harrington's collection
in the Museum of the American Indian in New York, and
Skinner's in the American Museum of Natural History, are ex
tensive and well-rounded. They form invaluable documentation
for any study of Seminole material culture, collected as they
were before most of the recent innovations and replacements
began. Both men published several brief accounts of their ex
periences, which contain fragmentary but reliable information.
Of the two, Skinner'8 published data are the more extensive.4
The next anthropological field work among the Seminole
was that of Frances Densmore. She made four visits during
1931, 1932, and 1933, when she recorded nearly 250 songs by
Cow Creek and Mikasuki singers. She also made miscellaneous
ethnographic observations, and collected specimens for the U.
S. National Museum. In 1954, Miss Densmore returned to Florida
and recorded further songs and collected some folk tales at
the Dania Reservation. The results of her earlier trips have
recently been published (Densmore, 1956)This monograph
takes no account of ethnological or historical work since 1933-
in fact, it also omits any reference to MacCauley, who even
transcribed two songs in musical notation (1887:498,519). The
major part of Densmore's book consists of transcriptions and
musicological analyses of the songs. The "words" or syllables
of the songs are not given, and data on functions and contexts
- 21 -

are very skimpy and sometimes erroneous. The introductory
pages contain miscellaneous notes on various aspects of Sem
inole culture, with the emphasis on material culture. Here
also, errors of fact and misinterpretations are evident to one
familiar with the Seminole. Nevertheless, useful hits of in
formation are given, there are some excellent photographs, and
the body of music represents an emninently worthwhile contri
bution, which should serve as a valuable source for comparative
studies in the future.
In 1935, Gene M. Stirling spent the summer and fall among
the Mikasuki. He wrote a brief report for the Office of Indian
Affairs which contains a concise and accurate summary of Sem
inole social and political organization and economics, together
with recommendations for the Indian Office (Stirling, 1936).
There is also a manuscript of Stirling's at Harvard, which con
sists of a short Hikasuki vocabulary plus some mythological
texts in English (Stirling, 1941). Since 1953, Mr. and Mrs.
Stirling have again been in Florida, conducting ethnological as
well as archeological studies. None of their recent work has
yet been published.
In 1939, Robert F. Greenlee worked among the Mikasuki .
Some of his field notes are available (Greenlee, 1939). His
published papers (1942.1944,1945a & b,1952) duplicate each other
to a considerable extent and must be used with caution. In gen
eral, his data are rather poorly analyzed and sometimes errone
ous; however, much of his information was unique at the time he
publishedespecially that on medicine and mythologyand it
has provided useful leads for subsequent field workers.
Also during 1939 Alexander Spoehr was engaged in field
work among the Seminole. He spent about five months with the
Cow Creek band, as part of a comparative study of Southeastern
social organization which also involved field work in Oklahoma
among the Seminole, Creek, Choctaw, and Cherokee, before and
after his Florida work. The major emphasis in his study was on
changes in kinship terminology and kinship usages. The Florida
Seminole were studied as part of this project partly because
- 22 -

they are the least acculturated Southeastern group, and partly
because a comparison between the Florida and Oklahoma Seminole
kinship systems allowed reconstruction of the pre-removal Sem
inole system, comparison with the related Creek, and discussion
of subsequent independent changes in the two Seminole systems.
During the 1940's, Spoehr published the results of his invest
igation as four parts of one volume of the Field Museum Anthro
pological Series. The first part describes Cow Creek Seminole
social organization, the second describes the Oklahoma Seminole
kinship system and compares it with the Cow Creek system, the
third part gives data on the Cow Creek family and its organiza
tion and composition, and the last part describes and analyzes
the Creek, Cherokee, and Choctaw kinship systems, with some com
parisons with the Seminole, and with the general theoretical
and historical conclusions of the whole study (Spoehr, 1941-47).
These works of Spoehr's provided the first adequate and detail
ed description of Seminole social organization. In addition,
and perhaps more importantly, the Seminole data played an impor
tant part in his demonstration of the independent modification
of several Crow-type social structures towards bilateral types ,
and in his description of the functionally related changes in
other areas of social organization and the acculturational pro
cesses involved in these changes. Eggan (1955:508-509) has
called these studies of Spoehr's "the best controlled and most
detailed comparative studies of social and cultural change
which we have for American Indian tribes," and Murdock (1949:
199) has also emphasized their theoretical importance.
Ethel Cutler Freeman has been acquainted with the Seminole
for many years. Her first entended visit to the Mikasuki camps
was in 1939, and she has returned several times subsequently.
She has published four accounts, popular and anecdotal in style
(Freeman, 1942, 1944, 1945, 1952), and served as an advisor for
the W.P.A. booklet on the Seminole (1941; unfortunately not to
be recommended as a reliable source). Mrs. Freeman's best con
tribution is a study of the rapid changes in Seminole status
since the mid 1930fs. This paper contains valuable first hand
- 23 -

historical evidence on modern Seminole factionalism (Freeman,
Marianne Schweitzer spent the summer of 1944 investigating
the Tamiami Trail Mikasuki, but she found field conditions so
difficult that she had to rely largely on the inadequate data
in the published literature for her report, which formed her
M.A. thesis at Yale (Schweitzer, 1945). Her principal interest
was in socialization, and her thesis, which has not been pub
lished, contains some useful observations on this topic.
Louis Capron of Vest Palm Beach has had close associations
with the Seminole, especially the Cow Creek, since the early
1930's. I can testify to the high regard in which he is held
today by leaders of both the Cow Creek and Mikasuki. Fortun
ately Mr. Capron's chief interests in Seminole culture lie in
religion, especially ceremonial. This, with the intimately
associated political organization, is precisely the area in
which Seminole are most secretive with outsiders, so that Mr.
Capron's long friendship with the Indians has yielded ethnogra
phic data which it would probably have been impossible to se
cure in any other way. I know from personal experience how
difficult it is to elicit information on these subjects. Dur
ing part of my own field work I had a set of galley proofs of
Capron's 1953 publication on Seminole medicine bundles and
busks, which alone enabled me to draw out a few informants on
these topics. Capron is the discoverer of Seminole medicine
bundles, which he described in a paper published in 1953, in
which he also demonstrated their overriding importance in Sem
inole religion, and described for the first time and in detail
the Cow Creek busk or Green Corn Dance. Recently Capron has
published a popular article on the Seminole, which is excellent
ly illustrated in color (Capron, 1956), and a paper on the Cow
Creek Hunting or Snake Dance, which partially fills a major gap
in the published literature on the Seminole (Capron, 1957).
To Wilfred T. Neill we owe the best popular summary of
Seminole history and culture (Neill, 1956b). His primary data
for this work and for some brief papers on aspects of Seminole
- 24 -

material culture (Neill, 1953, 1954, 1956a, 1956d) hare been
drawn from Uikasuki and Cow Creek informants in a commercial
camp at Silver Springs. Neill is also contributing to our know
ledge of Seminole history, working from documentary sources and
from archeology, and incorporating information from modern in
formants (Neill, 1955a, 1955b, 1955c, 1956c).
John M. Goggin has had an interest in the Seminole dating
from his boyhood in Miami. Over the years he has paid them many
brief visits, has formed an important Seminole etbnographio col
lection (now in the Florida State Museum), has followed closely
changes in their status, and has given aid and guidance to
several field workers, myself.among them. He has published a
number of papers which combine his long acquaintance with the
tribe, bis ethnographic specimens, and his thorough knowledge
of the literary and museum resources for Seminole studies
(Goggin, 1937,1939,1940a, 1946,1951ab, 1952b, 1955,Ms) jThese papers
are chiefly contributions to the description and particularly
the history of items of Seminole material culture. In addition
Goggin contributed the excellent Seminole and Florida history
sect ions of the Anthropological Bibliography of the Eastern Sea
board (Rouse and Goggin, 1947).
Since 1953, Mr. and Mrs. Hugh N. Davis, Jr. of Miami have
done some field work among the Seminole. Mrs. Davis has written
a paper on Seminole clothing (1955) which contains the first
published description of the technique of Seminole patchwork.
This description is accurate, although Mrs. Davis unfortunately
showed her unawareness of the extensive resources for tracing
the history of changes in Seminole clothing styles.
Irvin M. Peithmann has published (1956) a booklet on the
Seminole which contains excellent photographs and a text based
on his own superficial observations and on rather uncritical
use of some of the published literature.
Finally, I may mention my own work. I spent a little over
a year in Florida between 1950 and 1953,^ working principally
among the Mikasuki, where I attempted a general coverage of the
whole culture. My materials vary in thoroughness, and some as-
- 25 -

pects of Seminole culture were hardly touched onfor example
personality and its relations with culture. My most extensive
data deal with medical beliefs and practices (Sturtevant,1954b),
and I hope to publish before too long a monograph which will
contain a description and analysis of Mikasuki medicine and
magic. I also have considerable data on material culture and
ethnobotany. In addition, I have varying amounts of material
on Seminole religion and ceremonial, social organization
^specially the sib system), mythology and historical traditions,
and linguistics. Papers published so far have concentrated on
aspects of Seminole history, combining informants' data with in
formation from the literature and from museum collections
(Sturtevant, 1953, 1954a, 1955, 1956a, 1956b, 1956c, 1958).
A brief survey of work on Seminole history is appropriate
here. Among earlier sources, the specialist must utilize the
works of Sprague, Foreman, and SwantonSprague (1848) for his
mass of primary data on the Second Seminole Var, Foreman (1932,
1934) for his careful and comprehensive histories of the re
moval and subsequent adjustments in Indian Territory, and
Swanton (1922, 1946) for the pre-removal history, particularly
of the earliest periods. Coe's Red Patriots (1898) I have also
found useful as a generally reliable summary of Seminole
history, particularly from the Second Seminole War to the
Mark F. Boyd has written a very thorough study of the
sources and early part of the Second Seminole War (1951a), and
a much-needed good biography of Osceola (1955). In addition,
he has edited and annotated a number of important documents
bearing on north Florida and the Lower Creeks in the immediate
ly pre-Seminole period (e.g. Boyd, 1948, 1949, 1951b, 1952,
1953; Boyd and Navarro Latorre, 1953).
Kenneth W. Porter is a professional historian who has
written many papers on the Seminole. His chief interest has
been the Seminole Negroes, and he has demonstrated their im
portance as a cause of the Seminole Wars and their leading
roles in the fighting. He has also contributed several impor-
- 26 -

tant studies of Seminole origins and early history, of Seminole
biography, and of the Seminole Negroes of the Bahamas and
Mexico, Porter's papers are uniformly well conceived and well
documented, and are based on some field work in Oklahoma and
Mexico as well as on a wide knowledge of the published and man-
uscript literature.
A recent study of C. W. Tebeau's (1957) provides some in
formation on Seminole history in southwest Florida, and is par
ticularly useful for the history of Episcopalian missionizing
among the Seminole.
A new book-length history of the Seminole (McReynolds,
1957) does not contribute much. It is based on inadequate re
search and does not utilize the best recent work or provide any
new data or insights. The section on Seminole origins is in
adequate, the 1855-1858 war is not even mentioned, and there is
nothing whatsoever on the post-1858 Florida Seminole. It is
perhaps useful for the history of the Oklahoma Seminole.
As an expert for the United States Department of Justice in
the current Seminole suit before the Indian Claims Commission,
Charles H. Fairbanks has investigated Seminole origins and Sem
inole history through the Treaty of Moultrie Creek (1823) more
thoroughly than has ever been done before. His compilation of
historical data anthropologically interpreted, will, when pub
lished, go far towards elucidating the complex early history of
the Seminole, and will certainly be the best (from an anthro
pologist's point of view) historical work on the tribe. At pre
sent, the law firms representing the Seminole in this suit have
not yet engaged expert witnesses; when they do, it is probable
that further useful new historical research will be done and
eventually published in some form.
Opportunities. Before suggesting possibilities for re
search on topics of more general interest and applicability, I
would like first to summarize briefly the state of our know
ledge of Seminole ethnography, and to point out the principal
gaps in those basic descriptive data which are a prerequisite
to thorough exploration of special problems.
- 27 -

Mary R. Haas has considerable data on Creek as spoken in
Oklahoma, some of it published (1938, 1940, 1941b, 1941c, 1945,
1948), and there is a useful although old dictionary of the
language (Loughbridge and Hodge, 1914). The Florida dialect of
Creek, spoken by the Cow Creek, has not yet been compared with
the Oklahoma dialect. Present descriptive data on Mikasuki are
wholly inadequate. I have elsewhere (Sturtevant, 1953: 66)
summarized in non-technical terms a preliminary phonemicization
of the language, and I have a lexical file in manuscript, but I
have little text material and have done very little grammatical
analysis. There is an old and not very good published vocabulary
of Hitchiti, of which Mikasuki is a dialect (Gatschet, 1888:
163-211). Mr. and Mrs. John David West of the Summer Institute
of Linguistics have been studying Mikasuki since about 1954.
They have not yet published on the language, but I hope will
eventually provide the needed analysis. The genetic affili
ations of Hitchiti and Creek have been well established by Haas
(1941a, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1956). They form
two of the three suhgroups of the Eastern Division of the
Muskogean family (the other subgroup consists of Alabama,
Koasati, and Apalachee). The Western Division consists of Choc
taw and Chickasaw (dialects of one language). Muskogean as a
whole forms a subgroup with Natchez, and Natchez-Muskogean plus
Tunica, Atakapa, and Chitimacha form the Gulf stock of langua
ges, which probably goes with the Siouan languages in a larger
genetic group which Haas calls Siouan-Gulf.
There is more reliable literature on Seminole material cul
ture than on other topics, and there are also several excellent
museum collections which illustrate Seminole technology over
the last half century. The time is now ripe for a monograph
describing and tracing the history of Seminole material culture,
combining data, from modern informants and from the literature
with analysis of museum collections and of photographs, paint
ings, and drawings. I hope to raidertake this project in the
near future.
Our knowledge of Cow Creek social structure is probably
- 28 -

adequate, thanks to Spoehr. Very little detail however has
been published on this aspect of Mikasuki culture. The
Mikasuki sib system is more complex than that of the Cow Creek
and should be analyzed in detail, and Mikasuki kinship also
needs elucidation.
Political organization is the area in which our present
knowledge is least satisfactory. It is also perhaps even more
difficult than religion as a subject of inquiry with Seminole
informants. Yet it is important that we discover at least the
general outlines of the political and legal organization and
practices of the non-Christian Seminole, for they are the last
Southeastern Indians to maintain an independent control over
their internal affairs, and to preserve an aboriginal system of
maintaining this control.
Thanks mainly to Louis Capron, our knowledge of Seminole
ritual practice and religious beliefs is much more adequate
than it was five years ago. There still remain many lacunae,
however, some of which can be filled if they are investigated
soon. Further work is required on ritual statuses and roles,
their structuring, and the criteria for their occupancy. We
have a fairly complete list of the ceremonial dances of the
busk, but we do not know enough about their meaning and func
tion, and we also need detailed choreographic descriptions of
Non-ceremonial aspects of the aboriginal religion are
quite poorly known, due largely to the difficulties inherent in
investigating such topics, particularly among the Seminole. Non
religious knowledge and belief have also been inadequately
There are a few small published bodies of Seminole mythol
ogy and tradition, and I have some more in my field notes. The
topic is perhaps not of primary importance, but it is one of
the easier subjects on which data may be gotten from informants
and it is of considerable interest for comparative studies. Re
warding work remains to be done here as well as on other more
minor aspects of folklore.
- 29 -

Seminole physical anthropology provides unusual opportun
ities for significant work. To date, we have only anthropo
metric data on one living Florida Seminole male(IIrdlicka,1922:
54) and on the considerably mixed Oklahoma Seminole population
(Krogman, 1935,1936,1948). Yet genealogies indicate that the
Florida Seminole admixture ratio has been exceedingly low over
the last century or so, although it has begun to increase mark
edly within the last ten or fifteen years. Furthermore, some
preliminary data on Seminole blood types which I collected from
South Florida hospitals and hope to publish soon, indicate that
the modern Florida Seminole can have but very little non-Indian
ancestry. They are thus the only relatively "pure" Southeastern
Indians surviving, and as such they have considerable impor
tance for the general genetic history of the Southeast, Indian
and non-Indian.
Our knowledge of Seminole instory is also still inadequate.
The outlines are known, but much work needs to be done on all
periods. It is probable that historical research can make Sem
inole origins clearer. We need to know more of the dates and
circumstances of the earliest Muskogean immigrations into
Florida, and of the early relations of the first settlements
with the older towns of the Creek Confederacy from which they
came. It seems rather plain now that the Seminole received
little population or cultural influence from the aboriginal in
habitants of the state, hut this remains to be thoroughly demon
strated. The sources of the various Seminole bands in Florida
during the first half of the 19th century are also poorly known,
as are the types of relations existing between these relatively
independent bands.
A thorough modern history of the Seminole wars would be in
valuable to the anthropologist concerned with the Seminole. The
preliminary work has been done on the first and second Seminole
wars, although we lack a reliable overall synthesis from a
modern historical and anthropological point of view. However,
even the preliminary historical work on the third Seminole war
remains to be donehere is a topic where a student of Florida
- 30 -

history could make a valuable contribution in a relatively
short time. Seminole history of the last century, since the end
of the third Seminole war in 1858, is poorly known. Here the
cooperation of historian and field ethnologist is particularly
important, for a major source on this more recent history
should be the reminiscences and traditions of living Seminole.
The traditional history of this group is seemingly relatively
reliable for about 100 years into the past, after which relia
bility drops off rapidly.
It is evident that much basic ethnographic and historical
work with the Seminole remains to be done. However, enough is
known to suggest some lines of specialized research which
should yield results of broader general interest.
1 should like to consider first the area of history, ac
culturation, and culture change. The Florida Seminole are un
usual in the length of timesome 200 or more yearsduring
which they were an independent society on the frontier, main
taining control over their own internal affairs while select
ively adopting European culture traits and integrating than
into a functional whole of a very different sort from either
the aboriginal culture or that of European communities. John
Witthoft (1956) has recently described the nature of Eastern
Indian societies such as this, which have what he terms a "re
servation culture," and has pointed out that the type is becom
ing extinct, as the cultures are destroyed "by interaction with
a modern cosmopolitan culture." The Florida Seminole have been
exposed to the full force of the "economic competition and
social ranking" which accomplish this destruction more recent
ly than any other Eastern Indians, so that we can study at
first hand the preliminary stages of the transition to a more
subordinate status in the general American society.
One aspect of this transition is the beginning of Seminole
awareness of other modern Indian communities. Most reserva
tions today show the influence of pan-Indianism, but only in
very recent years have the first few signs appeared of the ces
sation of Seminole isolation from other Indians. An opportun-
- 31 -

exists for studying the beginnings of this sort of dif-
lion and the accompanying changes in world view.
Two aspects of Seminole history seem especially signif-
nt in terms of culture change. One of these is the effects
Seminole culture of the marked shift in environment which
resulted from the movement out of Georgia and north Florida to
sub-tropical south Florida. The other aspect is the question
of the results of the population bottleneck through which the
Florida Seminole passed, from some four or five thousand to 200
or less after 1858, with a subsequent gradual increase to the
present 1,000 or so.
These and other experiences differentiate the Florida Sem
inole from the Oklahoma Seminole and Creek. Yet the relative
recency of the splits between Florida and Oklahoma Seminole,
and between the Seminole and the Creek, provide unusual oppor
tunities for a form of control in the development and checking
of hypotheses on culture change. The problems involved are not
simple, since characteristics found to be shared may be due
either to common inheritance, or to independent but parallel
changes after the divisions of the societies. If the ancestral
common culture can be partly reconstructed, by comparisons of
the descendant cultures and by ethnohistorical research, then
the subsequent independent changes provide the chance for making
theoretically significant Spoehr has already de
monstrated for kinship terminology and usage.
The Seminole are one of the rare cases where speakers of
different languages share the same culture. The Cow Creek and
Mikasuki maintain linguistic and to a large degree social se
parateness, yet the cultures of the two bands are nearly ident
ical in other respects. Presumably this situation is the result
of "culture contact without conflict," of which we have few doc
umented instances (cf. Lindgren, 1938; Redfield, 1939; Pehrson,
1950). It is perhaps doubtful that sufficient historical and
ethnographic data are available to permit the elucidation of
the Seminole case in any detail, but a study of the relations
between the two bands now and in the past, and a detailed com-
- 32 -

parison of their cultures, would be valuable.
More old fashioned comparative and distributional studies
using Seminole data will help clarify the culture history of
the Southeast, the Eastern Woodlands, and perhaps the Plains.
I will only mention now that the Seminole medicine bundles are
of great importance from this point of view (Sturtevant, 1954a:
42-45), and that I suspect that Seminole music will turn out to
be highly interesting when compared with other Indian music as
far north as the Iroquois. A study of Goggin's (Goggin and
Granberry, MS.) now in process will, I think, show the impor
tance of some other Seminole data in a comparative study of cer
tain aspects of Southeastern culture.
Among more sociological problems, the prominence of polit
ical factions in modern Seminole society is worthy of invest
igation. This is a common characteristic of reservation so
cieties (cf.Fenton,1955). Factions have become increasingly im
portant among the Seminole in recent years, with the breakdown
of the older religious and political organization. Study of the
origin, history, and functions of these political divisions
might be expected to yield results of general interest.
The small size of the Seminole population may also be a
valuable characteristic for several types of study. Spoehr
(1941:18-20) has pointed out some of the effects of this in Cow
Creek social organization; his results should be compared with
the situation among the more numerous Mikasuki.
Since the Seminole population is about a thousand, total
sampling is theoretically possible within the time limits of
the usual field work. The usefulness of such sampling is ob
vious, particularly in studies of social organization. Yet the
existing problems of rapport will make any such attempt exceed
ingly difficultalthough it should be possible at least to
work out the genealogical relations of the whole population as
far as they are known to the Indians.
Finally, I would like to mention a couple of psycho-ethno
graphic or culture and personality problems. The recency of the
adoption of Christianity by many Seminole provides a chance, if
- 33 -

the work is done soon, to investigate the personality factors
involved in religious conversion. One would like to know what
sorts of people were converted in what order, and what sorts
still hold out as pagans. Obviously there are factors other
than pyschological ones involved in selective conversion of a
people to Christianity, but I think there can be no doubt that
personality characteristics are important determinants, and it
would be interesting to investigate their role in a situation
where conversion is taking place as rapidly yet selectively as
it has been among the Seminole.
Another topic which involves psychological as well as so
ciological and historical interests is that of nativistic or re
vitalization movements. Anthony F. C. Wallace is demonstrating
the value of a combined historical and psychological approach
to these religious and political movements centering around pro
phets (Wallace,1956a,1956b). It is known that there was at
least one Seminole prophet in the 19th centuryprobably more.
Current research by Charles H. Fairbanks should show whether or
not there are sufficient historical data to permit the utiliza
tion of psychological interpretations of these movements among
the Seminole.
Non-Seminole Ethnology
The ethnology of Florida Indians other than the Seminole
is with one exception purely a matter of ethnohistory. The ex
ception is the supposed survivors of a band of Choctaw brought
to Florida in 1814. A "chief" of this group has recently ap
peared, and has published a rather strange hook on the history
of the band (Ridaught, 1957; cf. Neill, 1955a:49-50). As far
as I know, no ethnologist has yet investigated this group.
Someone should certainly interview as many of its members as
can be reached.
All we will ever know of the cultures of the aborigines
of Florida now lies in the ground or in documentary material.
There seems to be no generally understood term for the type of
ethnology which involves searching out first hand written ac
counts of an extinct culture, and analyzing this material and
- 34 -

writing it up in ethnographic form. It is a sort of historical
ethnography which is often and properly combined with archeo
logical investigations. Florida is no exception to this: among
the best reconstructions of this sort are those by Goggin for
the Calusa, Tekesta, and Timucua (Goggin,1940b;1950;1952:21-30;
1953) and by Rouse for the Ais (1951:34-49). Willey has also
included cultural summaries of the Timucua and Apalachee in his
report on the archeology of the Florida Gulf coast (1949:522-
535). All of these of course start with Swanton's major works
on southeastern ethnohistory (1922,1928a,1928b,1946). He has
found most of the principal sources on the culture of the Flor
ida aborigines, synthesized the material these accounts contain,
and summarized the history of the tribes. Later work often has
added to his picture, or corrected it in various waysespecial
ly as better archeological data become available. With few ex
ceptions, however, his material is adequate until major new
sources are discovered. The most exciting new material is a
Spanish manuscript on the Apalachee on which Goggin and Gran-
berry are now working. Goggin maintains, I think correctly,
that this is the best single account of Florida aborigines in
existence. Not only will it add much flesh to our skimpy know
ledge of Apalachee culture, but Goggin's analysis is showing
that it also has much comparative importance. There are also
important Spanish sources on the Calusa and the Timucua which
have not yet been utilized to the fullest in reconstructing the
cultures of these groups.
The aboriginal languages of Florida are of course long ex
tinct. Records of the Timucua language are full enough so that
analysis with the methods of modern descriptive linguistics is
possible, as Granberry (1956) is showing. The genetic affilia
tions of this language are as yet unproven; Swanton (1929; 1946:
table 1 and p. 193) classified it as Muslcogean (in his broader
sense), while Haas (1951) suggests that it is perhaps Gulf al
though not Muskogean, and Granberry (personal communication)
agrees with this latter interpretation. Documentary resources
- 35 -

on the Apalachee language are less satisfactory, but they are
sufficient for Haas (1949) to have proved that Apalachee belongs
in the Eastern division of the Muskogean family, probably in
the sub-group containing Alabama and Koasati; further work cm
the materials will allow some description of the structure of
the language.
The languages of the Calusa, Tekesta, Ais, Mayaimi, and
Jeaga are entirely unknown. The only material we have consists
of a few place names and one or two other forms inadequately
translated. These are insufficient data for any attempt at
classification. Buckingham Smith in 1854 (1945: 41, 47-48, 52,
53) attemped to interpret the data in terms of Choctaw; Gats-
chet (1884:14, 67) tried the same through Creek; and Swanton
classified the languages as Muskogean, at first very tentatively
(1917; 1922: 11, 28-31) and later more positively on the basis
of no new material (1932: 13; 1945: 41-42, 52; 1946: table 1).
Swanton's statements have been followed by others (e.g., Voege-
lin and Voegelin, 1945; Goggin, 1950: 14; Rouse, 1951: 34), but
it should be emphasized that his hypothesis is incapable of
proof or disproof unless new materials are found. It is quite
possible that such materials exist in some Spanish archivea
Spanish missionary is said to have spent a winter studying the
Calusa language (Mooney, 1907)but until they are located, the
south Florida languages should be considered unclassifiable.
- 36 -

1. These statements about MacCauley are based on MacCauley,
1887:475,504; Powell,1887:zlix; Powell,1883:xxv. MacCauley's
Uenomini materiala two page list of sibsis Bureau of
American Ethnology MS.No. 59. His Ojibwa report, mentioned
by Powell (1883:nr), apparently no longer survives.
2. A quite entensive MS. vocabulary obtained by MacCauley from
Little Billie is in the Bureau of American Ethnology(MS.589).
It is entirely Creek, as are all forms cited in MacCauley,
1887. Curiously, opposite the entry "Otter 0-can-al-ki" in
a list of sibs in this vocabulary, appear the words "Miko-
suki tribe"; the sib is one of those present among the Mika-
suki and not among the Cow Creek (but the name given by Lit
tle Billie is Creek, not Mikasuki). At the bottom of the
same page is the note: "Fragments of Mikosuki0-ko-ni (i.e.,
Oconee)in Florida." Unfortunately MacCauley did not pur
sue these leads.
3. See the listing under Moore-Willson in Rouse and Goggin,
1947:130-131, 167.
4. Skinner, 1911a,1911b,1913,1915: Harrington, 1908,1946a,1946b,
5. The 1954 trip is mentioned on page vi of this work (Densmore,
1957) and referred to in Densmore, 1954.
6. I have elsewhere (Sturtevant,1954a) compared Capron's and my
own findings on Seminole ceremonial.
7. This field work was done in connection with the Caribbean
Anthropological Program of the Department of Anthropology
and the Peabody Museum of Yale University, which is aided by
funds from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research, Inc.
8. See bibliography. Porter's papers on the Seminole Negroes al
so contain valuable data and interpretations bearing on other
aspects of the Seminole Wars.
9. See the discussion of the Big Towns sib in Sturtevant, 1956c,
for an example of these Mikasuki complexities.

Baldwin, William
1843. Reliquiae Baldwinianae: selections from the cor
respondence of the.late William Baldwin, M.D., sur
geon in the U. S. Nary. With occasional notes, and
a short biographical memoir. (Compiled by William
Darlington, M.D.) Philadelphia: Klmber and Sharp-
Bartram, John
1942. Diary of a Journey through the Carolinas, Georgia,
and Florida from July 1, 1765, to April 10, 1766.
(Francis Harper, editor.) Transaction of the Amer
ican Philosophical Society, n.s.. yoI. 33, pt. 1.
Bartram, William
1791. Travels through North & South Carolina, Georgia,
East & West Florida, the Cherokee country, the ex
tensive territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek
Confederacy, and the country of the Choctaws; con-
training. observations on the manners of the
Indians. Philadelphia: James & Johnson.
1853. Observations on the Creek and Cherokee Indians.
1789. (With prefatory and supplementary notes by
E. G. Squier). Transactions of the American Ethno
logical Society, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 1-81. New York.
(A.E.S. facsimile reprint, 1909.)
1943. Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773-74; a report
to Dr. John Fothergill. (Francis Harper, editor.)
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
n.s., vol. 33, pt. 2. Philadelphia.
Boyd, Mark F.
1948. Enumeration of Florida Spanish missions in 1675
with translations of documents. Florida Historical
Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 181-188. St. Augus
- 38 -

Boyd, Mark F.
1949. Diego Pena1 a expedition to Apalachee and Apalachi-
colo in 1716. Florida Historical Quarterly, rol.
28, no. 1, pp. 1-27. St. Augustine.
1951a. Florida aflame: the background and onset of the Sem
inole War, 1835. Tallahassee: Florida Board of
Parks and Historic Memorials. (Reprint from Florida
Historical Quarterly, yol. 30, no. 1.)
1951b. Fort San Luis: documents describing the tragic end
of the mission era. Pp. 1-104 in Mark F. Boyd,
Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin, Here they once
stood: the tragic end of the Apalachee missions.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
1952. Documents describing the second and third expedi
tion of Lieutenant Diego Pena to Apalachee and Apal-
achicolo in 1717 and 1718. Florida Historical Quar
terly. yol. 31, no. 2, pp. 109-139. Tallahassee.
1953. Further considerations of the Apalachee missions.
The Americas. toI. 9, no. 4, pp.459-479. Washington.
1955. Asi-Yaholo or Osceola, no. pi., no. publ. (Reprint
ed with revisions from Florida Historical Quarterly,
vol. 33, nos. 3-4, pp. 249-305.)
Boyd, Mark F. and Jose Navarro Latorre
1953. Spanish interest in British Florida, and in the pro
gress of the American Revolution. (1) Relations
with the Spanish faction of the Creek Indians.
Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
92-130. Tallahassee.
Canova, Andrew P.
1885. Life and adventures in south Florida. Palatka;
Southern Sun Publishing House.
Capron, Louis
1953. The medicine bundles of the Florida Seminole and
the green corn dance. Anthropological Papers, no,
35, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 151,
pp. 155-210. Washington.
- 39 -

1956. Florida's "wild" Indians, the Seminole. Wat tonal
Geographic Magazine. toI. 110, no. 6, pp. 819-840.
1957. Notes on the hunting dance of the Cow Creek Semi
nole, October, 1946. Florida Anthropologist, rol.
9, nos. 3-4, pp. 67-78. (No place.)
Castelnan, Francis de
1948a. Essay on middle Florida, 1837-1838. (Translated by
Arthur B. Seymour.) Florida Historical Quarterly,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 199-255. Tallahassee. (Origi
nal published in 1843.)
1948b. Comte de Castelnan in middle Florida, 1837-1838.
(Translated by Arthur B. Seymour.) Florida Histori
cal Quarterly^ toI. 26, no. 4, pp. 300-324. Talla
hassee. (Originals published in 1842.)
Churoh, Alonzo
1949, A dash through the Everglades. Tequesta. no. 9,
pp. 15-41. (Coral Gables.3
Coe, Charles H.
1898. Bed patriots: the story of the Seminles. Cincin
nati: Editor Publishing Co.
Cohen, M. M.
1836. Notices of Florida and the campaigns. Charleston:
Burge8 & Honour.
Cory, Charles B.
1896. Hunting and fishing in Florida, including a key to
the water birds known to occur in the state. 2nd
Ed. Boston: Estes & Lauriat. (1st ed., same year
and publisher, contains less Seminole data.)
Davis, Hilda J.
1955. The history of Seminole clothing and its multi
colored designs. American Anthropologist. n. s.,
vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 974-980. Menasha.
- 40 -

Denamore, Frances
1954. The Seminole Indian today. Southern Folklore Quar
terly. vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 212-221. {Gainesville^}
1956. Seminole music. Bureau of American Ethnology Bul
letin 161. Washington.
Dimock, Anthony Weston and Julian A.
1908. Florida enchantments. New Tork: Outing Publishing
Duncan, A. J.
1898. Beport of A. J. Duncan, United States Indian In
spector, to the Honorable Secretary of the Interior,
in regard to the reservation of lands for the use
of the Seminole Indians of Florida. Report of the
Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year end
ed June 30, 1898. pp. 204-242. Washington. (Also
printed, without 3 maps included above, as pp. cc-
ccxxxviii of Report of the Secretary of the Interi
or. in Annual Reports of the Department of the In
terior for the Fiscal Year ended June 30. 1898.
iyol. i). Washington, 1898.)
Eggan, Fred
1955. Social anthropology: methods and results. Pp. 483-
551 in F. Eggan, ed.. Social anthropology of North
American tribes. 2nd Edition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Fenton, William N.
1955. Factionalism in^American Indian society. Actes du
IV6 Congrds International des Sciences Anthropologi-
ques et Ethnologjques.Vienne. 1-8 Septembre 1952,
Tome II, pp. 330-340. Wien.
Fontaneda, Do. d'Escalante
1945. Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda respecting Flo
rida, written in Spain, about the year 1575. (David
0. True, ed.) Coral Cables, Fla.: Glade House.
- 41 -

Foreman, Grant
1932. Indian removal: the emigration of the five civiliz
ed tribes of Indians. Norman: University of Okla
homa Press. (Reprinted in 1953.)
1934. The five civilized tribes. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Freeman, Ethel Cutler
1942. We live with the Seminles. Natural History, vol.
49, no. 4, pp. 226-236. New York.
1944. The Seminole woman of the Big Cypress and her in
fluence in modern life. America Indgena, vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 123-128. Mexico.
1945. Our unique Indians, the Seminles of Florida. Amer
ican Iddian. vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 14-28. New York.
1952. Fashions among modern Seminles. Pp. 56-57 in Helen
Walbran Faber and Ruth Page Lansley, The scenic
highlands of Florida. Sebring: Florida Specialties.
1956. Culture stability and change among the Seminles of
Florida. An analysis of a remarkably stable culture
now being forced into rapid change. (Paper read at
5th International Congress of Anthropological and
Ethnological Sciences, Philadelphia, September 5,
Gatschet, Albert S.
1884. A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a
linguistic, historic and ethnographic introduction.
Vol. 1. Brinton1s Library of Aboriginal American
Literature no. 4. Philadelphia
1888. Tchikilli's Kasi'hta legend in the Creek and
Hitchiti languages, with a critical commentary
and full glossaries to both texts. Transactions
of the Academy of Science of St. Louis, vol. 5,
nos. 1-2, pp. 33-239. St. Louis.
Goggin, John M.
1937. The present condition of the Florida Seminles.
New Mexico Anthropologist, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 37-39.
- 42 -

Goggin, John M.
1939. An anthropological reconnaisance of Andros Island,
Bahamas. American Antiquity, rol. 5, no. 1, pp. 21-
26. Menasha.
1940a. Silrer work of the Florida Seminole. El Palacio.
rol. 47, no. 2, pp. 25-32. Santa Fe.
1940b. The Tekesta Indians of southern Florida. Florida
Historical Quarterly, wol. 18, no. 4, pp. 274-284.
1946. The Seminole Negroes of Andros Island, Bahamas.
Florida Historical Quarterly. roL. 24, no. 3, pp.
201-206. St. Augustine.
1950. The Indians and history of the Ifatecumbe region.
Tequesta. no. 10, pp. 13-24. (Coral Gables.) (Re
printed with rerisions from pp. 21-28 of John M.
Goggin and F. H. Sommer III, Excaratiems on Upper
Matecumbe Key, Florida. Tale Unlyersity Publ. in
Anthr.. no. 41. New Harn, 1949.)
1951a. Beaded shoulder pouches of the Florida Seminole.
Florida Anthropologist, rol. 4, nos. 1-2, pp. 2-17.
1951b. Florida's Indians. Economic Leaflets, rol. 10, no.8.
Gainesrille: Unircrsity of Florida Coll, of Bns.Adm.
1952a. Space and time perspectire in northern St. Johns
archeology, Flor ida. Yale Uhirersltr Publ. in Anthr.,
no. 47. New Harn.
1952b. Style areas in historio southeastern art. Pp. 172-
176 in Sol Tax, ed., Indian tribes of aboriginal
America. Selected Papers of the HlXth Internation
al Congress of Americanists. Crol. 3). Chicago.
1953. An introductory outline of Timucua archeology. (Ab
stract .) Newsletter. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, rol. 3, no.3, pp. 4-17. (Baton Rouge.}
1955. Osceola: portraits, features, and dress. Florida
Historical Quarterly, rol. 33, nos. 3-4, pp. 161-
192, corer, and frontispiece. Tallahassee.
MS. Satinle pottery. In press in J. B. Griffin, ed..
Prehistoric pottery of the eastern United States.
Ann Arbor.
- 43 -

Goggin, John M. and Julian Granberry
MS. [Seventeenth century Apalachee culture and the
Apalachee and southeastern ball games.}(MS. in pro
Granberry, Julian
1956. Timucua I: prosodies and phonemics of the Mocama
dialect. International Journal of American Linguis
tics r yol. 22, no. 2, pp. 97-105. Baltimore.
Greenlee, Robert F.
1939 MS. [Mikasuki Seminle} field notes taken during the
summer of 1939. (Ms. in the files of the Cross-
Cultural Surrey, Institute of Human Relations, Yale
1942. Ceremonial practices of the modern Seminles. Te-
queata. rol. no. 2, pp. 25-33. Coral Gables.
1944. Medicine and curing practices of the modern Florida
Seminles. American Anthropologist, n.s., rol. 46,
no. 3, pp. 317-328. Menasha.
1945a. Eventful happenings among the modern Florida Sem
inles. Southern Folklore Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 145-152. Gainesville.
1945b. Folktales of the Florida Seminole. Journal of Amer
ican Folklore, vol. 58, no. 228, pp. 138-144.
1952. Aspects of social organization and material culture
of the Seminole of Big Cypress Svamp. Flor ida An
thropologist. vol. 5, nos. 3-4, pp. 25-31. Gaines
Griffin, John V., ed.
1949. The Florida Indian and his neighbors. Papers de
livered at an anthropological conference held at
Rollins College, April 9 and 10, 1949. Winter Park:
Rollins College.
Haas, Mary R.
1938. Geminate consonant clusters in Muskogee. Language.
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 61-65. Baltimore.
1940. Ablaut and its function in Muskogee. Language, vol.
16, no. 2, pp. 141-150. Baltimore.
- 44 -

1941a. The classification of the Muskogean languages. Pp.
41-56 in Leslie Spier, A. Irving Hallowell, and
Stanley S. Newman, eds.. Language, culture, and per
sonality: essays in memory of Edward Sapir. Menasha:
Sapir Memorial Fund.
1941h. Noun incorporation in the Muskogean languages.
Language, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 311-315. Baltimore.
1941c. A popular etymology in Ihiskogee. Language, vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 340-341. Baltimore.
1945. Dialects of the Muskogee language. International
Journal of American Linguistics, vol* 11, no. 2, pp.
69-74. Baltimore.
1946. A Proto-Muskogean paradigm. Language, vol. 22, no.
4, pp. 326-332. Baltimore.
1947. Development of Proto-Muskogean *kw. International
Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
135-137. Baltimore.
1948. Classificatory verbs in Muskogee. International
Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
244-246. Baltimore.
1949. The position of Apalachee in the Muskogean family.
International Journal of American Lingnistics. vol.
15, no. 2, pp. 121-127. Baltimore.
1950. On the historical development of certain long
vowels in Creek. International Journal of Ameri
can Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 122-125.
1951. The Proto-Gulf word for water (with notes on Siouan-
Yuchi). International Journal of American Linguis
tics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 71-79. Baltimore.
1952. The Proto-Gulf word for land (with a note on Proto-
Siouan). International Journal of American Linguis
tics. vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 238-240. Baltimore.
1956. Natchez and the Muskogean languages. Language,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 61-72. Baltimore.
- 45 -

Harrington, M. H.
1908. Only unconquered Indians, have Negroes as their
slaves. New York Press. Sugust 24. (Clipping in
Museum of the American Indian, N. Y.)
1946a. Seminole oranges. Masterkey. vol. 20, no. 4, p.112.
Los Angeles.
1946b. Seminole adventure. Ibid.. no. 5, pp. 157-159.
1946c. Funko the slave. Ibid,. no. 5, pp. 169-170.
1953a. Seminole surgeon. Ibid.. vol. 27, no. 4, p. 122.
1953b. Bad Injun boyhe fix lem. Ibid.. no. 5, p. 185.
Henshall, James A.
1884. Camping and cruising in Florida. Cincinnati:Clarke.
Hrdlicka, Ales
1922. The anthropology of Florida. Publications of the
Florida State Historical Society, no. 1, Deland.
Erogman, Wilton Marion
1935. The physical anthropology of the Seminole Indians
of Oklahoma. Corn!tato Italiano per lo Studio dei
Problemi della Popolazione. serie III, vol.II. Roma.
1936. The cephalic type of the full-blood and mixed-blood
Seminole Indians of Oklahoma. Zeitschrift fur Ras-
senkunde, 3. Band, 2. Heft, pp. 176-190. Stuttgart.
1948. The racial type of the Seminole Indians of Florida
and Oklahoma. Florida Anthropologist, vol. 1, nos.
34, pp. 61-73, [Gainesville?]
Lindgren, Ethel John
1938. An example of culture contact without conflict:
Reindeer Tungus and Cossacks of northwestern Man
churia. American Anthropologist, n.s., vol. 40, no.
4, pp. 605-621. Menasha.
Loughbridge, R.M., and David M. Hodge
1914. Dictionary in two parts, English and Muskokee and
Muskokee English. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
(First edition 1890.)
MacCauley, Clay
1887. The Seminole Indians of Florida. Fifth Annual
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pp. 469-531.

Mar chinan, Watt P. (editor)
1947. The Ingraham Everglades Exploring Expedition, 1892.
Teqneata. no. 7, pp. 3-43. tCoral Gables.}
McReynolds, Edwin C.
1957. The Seminles. Norman: Univ. of Okla. Press.
Mooney, James
1907. Calusa. Pp. 195-196 in F. W. Hodge, ed, Handbook
of American Indians north of Mexioo, part 1.Bureau
of American Ethnology Bnlletin 30, rol. 1. Washing
Motte, Jacob Rhett
1953. Journey into wilderness. An army surgeon's ac
count of life in camp and field during the Creek
and Seminole Wars, 1836-1838. (Ed. by James F. Sun-
deraan.) Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Murdock, George Peter
1949. Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
Nash, Roy
1931. Survey of the Seminole Indians of Florida. 71st
Congress. 3d. Session. Senate Document 314 [Serial
9347}. Washington.
Neill, Wilfred T.
1953. Dugouts of the Mikasuki Seminole. Florida Anthro
pologist. vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 77-84. Gainesville.
1954. Graters of the Mikasuki Seminole. Florida Anthro
pologist. vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 74-75. Gainesville.
1955a. The identity of Florida's "Spanish Indians."
Florida Anthropologist, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 43-57.
1955b. The calumet oeremony of the Seminole Indians.
Florida Anthropologist, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 83-88.
1955c. The site of Osoeola's village in Marion county,
Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 33,
nos. 3-4, pp. 240-246. Tallahassee.
1956a. Preparation of rubber by the Florida Seminole,
Florida Anthropologist, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 25-28.
- 47 -

Weill, Wilfred T.
1956b. The story of Florida's Seminole Indians. Silver
Springs: Ross Allen's Reptile Institute. (Revised
edition of his Florida's Seminole Indians. Silver
Springs, 1952.)
1956c. Surveyors' field notes as a source of historical
information. Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 34,
no. 4, pp. 329-333. Tallahassee.
1956d. Sailing vessels of the Florida Seminole. Florida
Anthropologist. vol. 9, nos. 3-4, pp. 79-86. [No
Oher, Frederick A.
1875. Ten days with the Seminles. Appletons! Journal of
Literatnre. Science, and Art, vol. 14, no. 332, pp.
142-144; no. 333, pp. 171-173. New York.
Pehrson, Robert Niel
1950. Culture contact without conflict in Lapland. Man,
vol. 50, pp. 157-160 (art. 256). London.
Peithmann, Irvin M.
1956. The unconquered Seminole Indians. Pictorial history
of the Seminole Indians. St. Petersburg: Great Out
doors Association.
Pierce, James
1825. Notices of the agriculture, scenery, geology, and
animal, vegetable and mineral productions of the
Floridas, and of the Indian tribes, made during a
recent tour in these countries. American Journal
of Science and Arts, [1st series], vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 119-136. New Haven.
. Porter, Kenneth Wiggins
1932. Relations between Negroes and Indians within the
present limits of the United States. Journal of
Negro History, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 287-367. Menasha.
1943a. Florida slaves and free Negroes in the Seminole War,
1835-1842. Journal of Negro History, vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 390-421. Washington.
- 48 -

Porter, Kenneth Wiggans
1943b. Three fighters for freedom. Journal of Negro
History. toI. 28, no. 1, pp. 51- 72. Washington.
1943c. Wild Cat's death and burial. Chronicles of Okla
homa, toI. 21, no. 1, pp. 41-43. Oklahoma City.
1944. Seminole flight from Fort Marion. Florida Histori
cal Quarterly. toI. 22, no. 3, pp. 112-133. St.
1945a. Negroes and the East Florida annezatioh plot, 1811-
1813. Journal of Negro History, rol. 30, no 1, pp.
9-29. Washington.
1945b. Notes on Seminole Negroes in the Bahamas. Florida
Historical Quarterly, yol. 24, no. 1, pp. 56-60.
St. Augustine.
1946a. The Hawkins' Negroes go to Mexico: a footnote fren
tradition. Chronicles of Oklahoma. yoI. 24, no. 13
pp. 55-58. Oklahoma City.
1946b. John Caesar: Seminole Negro partisan. Journal of
Negro History. yoI. 31, no. 2, pp. 190-207. Wash
1946c. A legend of the Biloxi. Journal of American Folk
lore. YOl. 59, no. 232, pp. 168-173. Menasha.
1946d. The Negro Abraham. Florida Historical Quarterly,
yoI. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-43. St. Augustine.
1946e. Tiger Tail. Florida Historical Quarterly. yoI. 24,
no. 3, pp. 216-217. St. Augustine.
1947. The episode of Osceola's wife; fact or fiction?
Florida Historical Quarterly. yoI. 26, no. 1, pp.
92-98. St. Augustine.
1949. The founder of the "Seminole Nation": Secoffee or
Cowkeeper. Florida Historical Quarterly. yoI. 27,
no. 4, pp. 362-384. Tallahassee.
1950. Negro guides and interpreters in the early stages
of the Seminole War, Dec. 28, 1835 Mar. 6, 1837.
Journal of Negro History. yoI. 35, no. 2, pp. 174-
182. Washington.
- 49 -

Porter, Kenneth Wiggans
1951a. Negroes and the Seminole War, 1817-1818. Journal
of Negro History, rol. 36, no. 3, pp. 249-280.
1951b. The Seminole in Mexico, 1850-1861. Hispanic Ameri
can Historical Review, rol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-36.
1951c. Seminole in Mexico, 1850-1861. Chronicles of Okla
homa, rol. 29, no. 2,.pp. 153-168. Oklahoma City.
1952a. The Cowkeeper dynasty of the Seminole Nation.
Florida Historical Quarterly, yol. 30, no. 4, pp.
341-349. Tallahassee.
1952b. Origins of the St. John's River Seminole: were they
Mikasuki? Florida Anthropologist, vol. 4, nos. 3-4,
pp. 39-45. Gainesville.
1952c. The Seminole Negro-lndian scouts, 1870-1881. South
western Historical Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 3, pp.
358-377. Austin.
1955. Osceola and the Negroes. Florida Historical
Quarterly. vol. 33, nos. 3-4, pp. 235-239.
J :well, J. W.
1883. Annual report of the Director of the Bureau of
Ethnology. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, pp. xv-xxxvii. Washington.
1887. Annual report of the Director of the Bureau of
Ethnology. Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, pp. xvii-liii. Washington.
Redfield, Robert
1939. Culture contact without conflict. American Anthro
pologist. n.s., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 514-517.
Ridaugbt, Horace G.
1957. Hell's branch office [Title on cover: Hell's branch
office, Florida's Choctaw Indians}. (Privately
printed;no place [Citra, Fla.}, no publisher.240pp.)
- 50 -

Romans, Bernard
1775. A concise natural history of East and West Florida
..vol. 1 Call published]. New York: The Author.
Rouse, Irving
1951. A survey of Indian River archeology, Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, no. 44.
New Haven.
Rouse, Irving and John M. Goggin, eds.
1947. An anthropological bibliography of the eastern sea
board. Eastern States Archeological Federation Re
search Publication no. 1. New Haven.
Schweitzer, Marianne A.
1945 MS. Ethnography of the modern Mikasuki Indians of
southern Florida*(101 p. MS. M.A. thesis, in the
Department of Anthropology, Yale University.)
tSimmons, William Hayne] "A Recent Traveller in the Province"
1822. Notices of East Florida, with an account of the Sem
inole Nation of Indians. Charleston: The Author.
Simmons, William Hayne
1908. Journal of Dr. W.H. Simmons, commissioner to locate
the seat of government of the Territory of Florida.
Florida Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 28-36. Jacksonville.
Skinner, Alanson
1911a. The Florida Seminles. Southern Workman, vol. 40,
no. 3, pp. 154-163. Hampton.
1911b. Through unknown Florida. Harvard Illustrated Mag
azine. vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 141-146. Cambridge.
1913. Notes on the Florida Seminole. American Anthropolo
gist. n.s., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 63-77. Lancaster.
1915. Across the Florida Everglades. Agwi Steamship News,
vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 5-11. New York.
Small, John Kunkel
1921a. Old trails and new discoveries. Journal of the New
York Botanical Garden, vol. 22, no. 255, pp. 49-64.
- 51 -

Snail, John Kunkel
1921b. Seminole bread the conti. A history of the genus
Zamia in Florida. Journal of the New York Botanical
Garden, rol. 22, no. 259, pp. 121-137. Lancaster.
1922. The botanical fountain of youth. A record of ex
ploration in Florida in April 1920. Journal of the
New York Botanical Garden, yol. 23, no. 274, pp.
139-155. Lancaster.
1923. Green deserts and dead gardens. A record of explor
ation in Florida in the spring of 1921. Journal of
the New York Botanical Garden, yol. 24, no. 286, pp.
193-247. Lancaster.
1933. Uanual of the southeastern flora. New York: The
Author. (Contains scattered data on Seminole ethno-
Smith, Buckingham
1945. [Commentary in footnotes first published in 1854.3
In Fontaneda 1945.
Spoehr, Alexander
1941. Camp, clan, and kin among the Cow Creek Seminole of
Florida. Field Museum of Natural History. Anthro
pological Series, yol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-27. Chicago.
1942. Kinship system of the Seminole. Ibid.. yol. 33, no.
2, pp. 28-113.
1944. The Florida Seminole camp. Ibid.. yol. 33, no. 3,
pp. 114-150.
1947. Changing kinship systems. A study in the accultur
ation of the Creeks, Cherokee, and Choctaw. Ibid.,
yol. 33, no. 4, pp. 151-235.
Sprague, John T.
1848. The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida
War. ... New York: Appleton.
Stirling, Gene H.
1936. Report on the Seminole Indians of Florida. No place:
Applied Anthropology Unit, Office of Indian Affairs,
(fiyi 9 pp., mimeographed.)
- 52 -

Stirling, Gene M.
[n.d.-1941?M£Q Preliminary report on the Mikisuki division
of the Seminole Indians of Florida. Part I, myths
and dictionary of the Mikisuki language. ( [983 pp.
typed MS. in library of Peabody Museum, Harvard
Sturtevant, William C.
1953. Chakaika and the "Spanish Indians": documentary
sources compared with Seminole tradition. Tequesta.
no. 13, pp. 35-73. [Coral Gables.3
1954a. The medicine bundles and busks of the Florida Semi
nole. Florida Anthropologist. vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
31-70. Gainesville.
1954b. The Mikasuki Seminole: medical beliefs and prac
tices, (MS.PhD dissertation, in Sterling Memorial
Library, Tale University.)
1955. Notes on modern Seminole traditions of Osceola.
Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 33, nos. 3-4, pp.
206-217. Tallahassee.
1956a. Osceola's coats? Florida Historical Quarterly, vol.
34, no. 4, pp. 315-328. Tallahassee.
1956b. R. H. Pratt's report on the Seminole in 1879.
Florida Anthropologist. vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
1956c. A Seminole personal document. Tequesta, no. 16, pp.
55-75. [Coral Gables.}
1958. Historical ethnobotany of Zamia. (MS. to be sub
mitted to Economic Botany..)
Swanton, John R.
1917. Unclassified languages of the Southeast. Interna
tional Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 1, no.
1, pp. 47-49. New York.
1922. Early history of the Creek Indians and their neigh
bors. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73.
- 53 -

Swanton, John R.
1928a. Social organization and social usages of the
Indians of the Creek Confederacy. Forty-second
Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,
pp. 23-472. Vashlngton.
1928b. Religions beliefs and medical practices of the
Creek Indians. Ibid.. pp. 473-672.
1929. The Tawasa language. American Anthropologist, rol.
31, no. 3, pp. 435-453. Menasha.
1932. Southeastern Indians of history. Conference on South-
era Pre-history. pp. 5-20. National Research Council,
Washington, D. C.
1945. [Commentary in footnotes.] In Fontaneda 1945.
1946. The Indians of the southeastern United States.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Washing
Tebeau, Charlton W.
1957. Florida's last frontier: the history of Collier
County. Coral Bares: Unir, of Miami Press.
Tozier, Morrill M.
1954. Report on the Florida Seminole. [Washington:
Bureau of Indian Affairs.] (Mimeographed, 25 pp.
plus map.)
Voegelin, C.F., and E.W. Yoegelin
[n.d.-1945] Map of North American Indian languages. Ameri
can Ethnological Society Publication 20. N.T.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.
1956a. New religions among the Delaware Indians, 1600-1900.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, rol. 12, no,
1, pp. 1-21. Albuquerque.
1956b. Revitalization movements. American Anthropologist.
n.s., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 264-281. Menasha.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949. Archeology of the Florida gulf coast. Smithson
ian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 113 (whole vol.).
- 54 -

Williams, John Lee
1837. The Territory of Florida: or sketches of the to
pography, dril and natural history, of the country,
the climate, and the Indian tribes, from the first
discovery to the present time. New York: Goodrich.
1908. Journal of John Lee Williams, commissioner to lo
cate the seat of government of the Territory of
Florida. Florida Historical Society Quarterly, vol,
1, no. 1, pp. 37-44; no. 2, pp. 18-29. Jacksonville.
Willoughby, Hugh L.
1898. Across the Everglades: a canoe journey of explora
tion. Philadelphia: Llppincott.
Willson, Minnie Moore-
1896. The Seminles of Florida. (1st. edition.)
Philadelphia: American Printing House.
Wilson, A. M.
1888. [Reports on his Florida Seminole investigations with
associated documents.] 50th Congress. 1st Session.
Senate Executive Document 139 [Serial 2513].
Witthoft, John
1956. Cherokee aoculturation and eastern woodlands com
munity typology. (Paper read at meeting of Section
H, A.A.A.S., New York, Dec. 26, 1956.)
W.P.A. Writers' Program
1941. The Seminole Indians in Florida. Florida State
Department of Agriculture [Bulletin] no. 107 [part
II]. Tallahassee.
Young, Hugh
1934-1935. A topographical memoir on East and West
Florida with itineraries of General Jackson's army,
1818. (Edited by Mark F. Boyd and Gerald M. Ponton.)
Florida Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 13, no.
I, pp. 16-50; no. 2, pp. 82-104; no. 3, pp. 129-
164. Tallahassee.
- 55 -

- 56 -

Its Background and the Florida Program
William H. Sears
The destruction of historic and prehistoric remains by the
necessarily ever-expanding program of highway construction in
this country has long been of concern to archaeologists, histo
rians, and citizens generally. Yet nothing was done about this,
except occasional on-the-spot jobs of salvaging specific remains
already disturbed by machinery, until 1954. In this year, Fred
Wendorf of the Museum of New Mexico and W. J. Keller of the U. S.
Bureau of Public Roads, got together and worked out a salvage
program for New Mexico. This program continues to operate suc
cessfully, and has served as a model for others.
In 1955, this successful program was brought to the atten
tion of Mr. C. D. Curtiss, then United States Commissioner of
Public Roads. Through his interest, and the activities of many
archaeologists, authority to use Federal Highway construction
funds for archaeology was written into the Federal Aid and High
way Revenue Acts of 1956. In October, 1956, Mr. Curtiss issued
Policy and Procedure Memorandum 20-7, which explains the Bureau
of Public Roads interpretation of the act. In states clearly
that salvage programs should be encouraged, the types of author
ities who should participate, and in what ways the Federal Aid
funds can be used in archaeological, palaeontological, and his
torical salvage. The 1956 act, and the interpretative memoran
dum, apply to all Federal and Federal aid construction, ranging
from secondary road systems to the brand new 4-lane divided high
way interstate system.
In eastern United States, this meant that the Federal funds
could be used to pay about one half of the cost of salvage on
- 57 -

ost federal aid projects in the same way that they pay for
about one half of the construction costs. The balance must be
paid by the states involved whether it be fifty percenit or, in
the case of the interstate system, only ten percent.
The memorandum states very specifically that, as basic
policy. Federal Funds could be used only for salvage of those
remains in the right of way. They cannot he used for survey to
locate remains. This means that survey costs must be met by the
budgets of local archaeological agencies.
Some discussions, and meetings were held in several states,
and some planning was done while the highway bill was going
through Congress. In the spring of 1956, the Society for Amer
ican Archaeology took note of the opportunities which were devel
oping and the responsibilities to be incurred. A permanent com
mittee for Highway Salvage Archaeology was appointed, with Fred
Tendorf as Chairman and six members, one for each of the regions
into which the Bureau of Public Roads divides the United States
for administrative purposes. This committee was intended to,
and has, functioned as an advisory and promotional group only.
Active salvage programs have to be worked out by and in the indi
vidual states.
Such a program has been developed in Florida, and is now
functioning. As has happened in every other state where a sal
vage program has been developed, our program has been worked out
in detail as we gained experience and made mistakes. There
have been some things done which we can now see were errors,
made through lack of experience in emergency archaeology and
lack of knowledge of highway construction policies and pro
cedures. Probably we will make more mistakes, but there is no
reason to doubt that the program will continue to function.
Arrangements were made for John Goggin, Charles Fairbanks
and myself to appear at a meeting of the State Road Board as a
self-appointed committee representing Florida Archaeology. We
there outlined the problems and the type of program we needed,
within the framework of the United States Bureau of Public Roads
policies. The program we suggested was carried a step further
-58 -

in that ve aeked that such a program, in Florida, be applied to
all State Highways construction. The State Road Board approved
the program and gave orders to the various department's of the
State Road Department to implement it. Some difficulties con
cerned with the use of labor paid with tax funds were noted, but
arrangements were made which it was felt would work to the satis
faction of both agencies. Sometime later, at the request of Mr.
Wilbur Jones, Chairman of the Road Roard, the Governor, with the
approval of the heads of the institutions involved, formally ap
pointed the Florida Highway Archaeological Salvage Cosanittee as
an official organization to co-operate with the State Road De
partment on matters of highway archaeological salvage.
At this meeting, we made two promises. First, that we
would not ever ask for more moneyor its labor equivalentthan
one-half of one percent of the total amount involved in a single
contract. Secondly, that we would not, under any circumstances,
do anything or ask for anything vhioh wouJd slow up or in any
way hinder or make more expensive the work of the contractors.
At the suggestion of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads, the
Highway Salvage Committee of the Society for American Archae
ology has asked that these two points be included in all state
programs. Their purposes are clear and, I think, it is obvious
that no program would work for long without them.
The Florida Program now functions as follows:
NOTIFICATION: When plans for highway construction are completed,
and funds for construction are available, the State Road Depart
ment sends mimeographed notices to contractors. These describe
the construction and specifications in general terms, and an
nounce the date of a State Road Board meeting at which bids will
be accepted. A copy of this, sent to us, gives us about a
month's notice of impending construction. Two to three weeks
later, we received a special list prepared by the office of the
engineer of specifications, consisting of those projects involv
ing right-of-way changes. Location maps for these projects ac
company the list.
- 59 -

SURVEY: Copies of the list, and the appropriate naps, go to
Florida State University for the Northwest Coast area. The
University of Florida and the Florida State Museun divide up and
farm out the remainder. Vithin two to six weeks, someone goes
over these new rights-of-way looking for archaeological remains.
EXCAVATION: Then a site is located, notes are made as to its
precise location in terms of Highway engineering co-ordinates
and the minimum amount of excavation required to salvage the con
tained data. This is translated into the number of laborers re
quired at a specific point for a specific number of days, within
a period during which a professional archaeologist can be pre
sent to conduct the excavations. This request is transmitted to
the State Road Department. They, in turn, when they can and from
whatever sources they wish, provide the requested labor. Thus
far this has been through district maintenance crews.
ANALYSIS AND DUPLICATION: After excavation, the records and
specimens collected remain the property of the institution pro
viding the professional supervision. That institution,and its
representative, then assume the responsibility for analysis of
the notes and collections and for the publication of this data
in proper form.
In conclusion, I would like to state, as Chairman of the
Florida Committee, that I have nothing but praise for the State
Road Department's handling of the problems we have presented to
them. They have been, from the level of the State Road Board
down to that of the individual laborer, completely, co-operative
and willing to comply just as far as they could with demands
which must often have seemed incomprehensible, perhaps at times
even unreasonable. I would like here, on behalf of the commit
tee, to extend our thanks to them for making possible the es
tablishment and functioning of a program which has saved, and
will save, a great deal of Florida's prehistory.
- 60 -

Charles H. Fairbanks
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the 1957 round table vas
the tremendous growth of Florida anthropology in the eight years
following the original Rollins conference. In 1957 there were
three institutions active in the state and seven professional
anthropologists were employed in various positions. The society
had grown to the point where two regional chapters were in ex-
istance at Tampa and Miami. The increased scope of anthropology
wan indicated by the possibility of including papers on ling-
guistlcs and ethnology which had not been given in 1949. In add
ition, a Committee on Highway Salvage Archeology was active in
the state. As a whole, Florida anthropology seemed to be much
more active and vigorous, receiving wide public support.
Granberry's paper on linguistics in Florida called attention
to new areas of research, not covered in the previous round table
and disoussed work in which he has been active in recent years.
He pointed to the need for further research in both the Timucua
and Muskhogean languages and to the fact that Swanton's previous
designation of Calusa and other Florida languages as belonging to
the Muskhogean stock might have been based on too scanty evidence.
In a recent paper Granberry (1956) has proposed a classification
of Timucua and indicated the areas where each dialect was spoken.
Further work is needed in the relatively large amount of Timuouan
dialectic materials dating from the Spanish dominion. Granberry
pointed out that both Timucua and modern Seminole languages need
good descriptive treatments.
In the linguistic situation, Haas' paper at the 1957 Amer
ican Anthropological Association annual meeting is of consider
able interest. Haas has established a relationship between the
- 61 -

Muskhogean and Algonkian stocks. The sound shifts are regular and
the relationship seems entirely sound. This should offer a number
of possibilities for further linguistic research in the Florida
languages and the possibility of coordinating linguistic changes
with archeologically identified population movements.
Sturtevant has appended a few remarks on modern Seminole
linguistics to his paper on ethnology. It might be added that two
summer Institute of Linguistics students are now engaged in re
search among the Seminole. The changes between the Oklahoma Creek
and Seminole on the one hand and the Florida Seminole on the
other offer a fertile field for linguistic research.
Goggin's paper on progress in Florida archeology pointed to
considerable advances in many areas but virtually no progress in
other areas. The bibliography given below will indicate the
range and number of publications in this field. The great bulk of
Florida anthropology has been in the field of archeology in the
state. The papers by Rouse on the Indian River area, Goggin on
the northern St. Johns, Griffin's general survey in "Archeology
of Eastern United States", Smith's "The European and the Indian"
might be singled out as especially notable contributions or syn
theses. Bullen's (1957) publication on radiocarbon dates for the
Northwest Gulf Coast ties down our previous speculations on the
dates of Florida archeological periods.
The Central and Southern Gulf Coasts became somewhat better
known with considerable survey work. The same survey work was
characteristic of the central Florida province where the Univer
sity of Florida has been very active. The northern St. Johns was
well covered by Goggin in the publication of his doctoral disser
tation (1949). Goggin seemed to feel that the Glades area requir
ed only filling out of details in the aroheologic picture. He
found little advance in other areas, except for Rouse's major
contribution in the Indian River area.
Turning to a discussion of cultural periods, rather than
geographical areas, Goggin said that there had been a consider
able amount of progress in the Orange Period but no major addi
tions to our knowledge of the Pre-ceramic Period. We might point
- 62 -

out that Wilfred T. Neill has excavated a fluted-point site near
Silver Springs which will he published in the Florida Anthropo
logist in the near future. The editor also has the feeling that
significant contributions may be expected in other aspects of the
pre-ceramic occupations. Florida definitely served as a refuge
for the large Pleistocene animals, and it seems reasonable to ex
pect satisfactory evidence of Early Man to show up eventually.
Only by constant vigilence by all interested persons can we hope
to find the sites where early man has left remains within the
state, if such sites do still exist.
Recently Lazarus (1958) has demonstrated the oocurance of
an apparantly non-ceramic complex including clay objects in the
western Gulf Coast area. These materials, which he has named the
Elliot's Point Complex, seem to be related, through the baked
clay objects, to Poverty Point in the Louisiana area. The editor
takes this as evidence of an early cultural movement along the
Gulf Coastal Plain. It probably spread in both directions, hut at
the present time seems largely to have moved from west to east.
Goggin also pointed out that the work of Sears and others
had definitely indicated a well-defined Deptford Period in Flor
ida. This amplifies the scanty evidence for this complex found by
Willey. On both the Northwest Gulf Coast and northeast coast,
Deptford sites are now known with seme degree of certainty. The
problems of the rise and fall of check stamped pottery styles are
still, however, far from solution.
Goggdn pointed out that little additional work since 1949
had been done in the middle periods of Florida prehistory. The
complexities of the complicated stamped tradition in the Santa
Rosa-Swift Creek and Weeden Island Periods, especially, has not
been materially investigated in the last eight years. Sears' in
vestigations at Kolomoki in southeast Georgia seem not to have
simplified the Florida problems as he worked at a marginal site.
Goggin felt that the most work had been done in the late'
prehistoric and early historic eras. This historic and protohist-
oric archeology has become quite frequent and popular in recent
years. Goggin, himself, has done much to advance the scientific
- 63 -

study of the historic periods. By careful selection of sites in
Florida and the Antilles he has been able to establish dateable
typologies for Spanish majolica and some other types of Spanish
artifacts. Goggin's excavations at Ft. Pupo(1951), Florida State
University's at San Luis, those at Nombre de Dios (as well as a
number of further mission excavations) have done much to shed
some light on the conditions existing during the Spanish-Indian
contact period. It is especially profitable to coordinate the
work of historians like Mark F. Boyd with these archeological in
vestigations. Hale G. Smith's preliminary statement of the relat
ionships between Indians and whites (1956) could now be consid
erably expanded.
It is tempting to see this recent resurgence of interest in
historic archeology as a re-birth of the direct historical appr
oach to archeology. We may also see it as a general trend in Ame
rican archeology as a whole (Harrington,1955). At any rate, rel
atively great strides have been made in the investigation of the
sites dating from the Spanish Dominion in Florida. Historic arch
eology, along with the early man problem, seems to have been a
major interest of Florida archeologists in the last eight years.
When Goggin turned to the latest Indian occupants of Florida,
the Seminole, he found a more discouraging picture. Hardly any
thing is known about Seminole archeology. Granberry had located a
single Seminole site in central Florida, and Goggin had been able
to define, in a preliminary way, some Seminole pottery types.
Fairbanks had briefly reported the location of the Forbes (Panton-
Leslie) store on the St. Harks (Anon.,1958). No we11-documented
Seminole site, however, had been excavated. (In early 1958 Goggin
was reported at work on such a site in the Old Town area.) This
lack of information reflects the same ignorance of the Seminole
that Sturtevant mentions in his paper on Florida ethnology. One
difficulty seems, to the editor, to lie in the fact that the Sem
inole from the American Revolution onward partook of frontier
American culture to such an extent that their material culture
cannot be distinguished from that of their white neighbors. The
site of the Forbes' store and of Hilis Hadjo's Town on the St.
- 64 -

Marks apparently contains central Alabama pottery types that are
distinguished from Ft. Walton period types with great difficulty.
White acculturation and the movement of Upper Creeks into Florida
following the fall of the prophets in 1815 complicate the Semi
nole archeological picture greatly.
When Goggin turned to a discussion of problems in Florida
archeology he was able to state seven areas in which he felt that
additional work was greatly needed.
1) A change in the concept of the area extending from the
Withlacoochee to Charlotte Harbor. This had been placed by Willey
in the Gulf Coast area. Goggin pointed out that the village mid
dens contain very few Weeden Island pottery types and a correspo
ndingly great amount of plain pottery. He suggested that it might
be considered a separate area.
2) The need for separating the pre-ceramic complexes into
culturally significant complexes. The Suwannee Point complex dis
cussed by Goggin is clearly different from the Wacissa complex
found by Allen. We may agree that any systematic attack on the
problem of early man in Florida must be preceded by a systematic
taxonomy of the materials concerned.
3) More work is needed, Goggin thought, in the earliest pot
tery complex, the Orange Period. He felt that the fiber-tempered
potteries of the southeast represent a regionally independent
tradition. The divisions within this tradition, as well as the
problem of the development of the tradition as a whole, need fur
ther investigation. The relationships of the Georgia types (Stal
ling's series. Bilbo types, and St. Simons types) with the Flor
ida Orange series have never been defined. In the western Gulf
Coast region the fiber-tempered pottery seems to be highly simi
lar to the Georgia coastal types such as St. Simons Plain. What
were the population or cultural relationships between the two
areas? What were the conditions that led to the isolation of the
complexes in the St. Johns basin and the consequent differentia
tion of the Orange Series? This problem would seem to concern
Florida but to extend far beyond her borders.
4) The definition of the movement of Georgia peoples into
- 65 -

Florida. Something of the situation on the fiber-tempered hor
izon has already been mentioned. Movement or cultural contact
is evident on the Deptford level also. In the middle periods
from Santa Rosa-Swift Creek through Weeden Island a very consi
derable mixture occurred. This is evidenced by the continued
existance, side by side, of the Georgia complicated stamped
pottery types along with the Gulf Tradition types. This situa
tion is by no means unique, but in the Florida area we do have
a chance to investigate an intrinsically interesting situation.
The middle period communities apparently existed with two sep
arate and distinct pottery-making traditions co-existing in
the same villages. What social situations formed the cultural
matrix for this technological phenomenon? Sears, on the basis
of his Kolomoki researches, has suggested that the situation
was one of cultural migration, conquest, and dominance. An al
ternative explanation would be that, through migration and
conquest, some sort of caste system was instituted. The result
ing cultural segmentation might have preserved pottery techni
ques for a considerable period in separation.
Later movements of Georgia groups into Florida seem to have
occurred on the historic level. The presence of central Geor
gia pottery types in the Leon-Jefferson Period of the Appal-
achee area is evidence of such cultural movements. The migra
tion of the Guale into the St. Augustine vicinity with their
characteristic pottery has been discussed by Larson (1958). If
Florida archeologists are to do more than just detailed site
reports, they must consider the answers to some of these pro
blems. Finally, the movement of Lower Creeks into Florida
where they became the Seminole needs more study.
5) Goggin also called attention to the need for additional
study of the Gulf Tradition. This ceramic complex, climaxing
in the Weeden Island Period, certainly spread along the Gulf
Coastal Plain. Its relationships with Louisiana and the lower
Mississippi Valley are not yet clear. More information on the
process, rates of spread, cultural influence, etc. is cert
ainly needed.
- 66 -

6) Goggin again made a plea for more historic archeology.
With the worthwhile start and the abundance of documentary
materials this would certainly seem a necessary field of study.
7) Finally, Goggin called for more work in the south-central
part of the state. Not only is this region poorly known, but
it is the area in which the Glades and St. Johns Traditions
come into contact with each other. More knowledge is needed
and interesting aspects will surely be discovered.
The present editor would like to point to a further and very
pressing problem in Florida Archeology. In spite of the pione
ering work already done from the days of Clarence B. Moore to
those of Gordon R. Willey, there are many archeological sites
that still need to be accurately located. Florida is a rapidly
growing state and building goes on at a tremendous rate. Due
to this rapid construction in many urban areas archeological
sites are being destroyed every day. It requires the dedicated
attention of every interested person to report these sites and
see that salvage is carried on. As a profession, we probably
know only 10£ of the actual sites in Florida. With every year,
the number of sites is decreasing. The problem is urgent.
Sears' paper on highway salvage of archeological sites
points up one solution to part of this problem. New roads do
destroy sites. We, as archeologists, cannot stand in the way
of road building progress. What we can do is to salvage the
sites when the road approaches. Most roads now being built are
simply widening and straightening of existing highways. The
interstate road program, however, will strike across new
lands with very wide rights-of-way. Sears' paper discusses
the cooperative framework that has been established to see
that as much is salvaged as possible. It does not indicate the
results that are already being achieved.
Rouse's paper discusses very adequately the problem that
continually arises of the relationships between Florida and
the Antilles. The increasingly accurate time perspective pos
sible with radiocarbon dating has done much to help solve the
problem. Rouse pointed out that there seems to be a general
- 67 -

parallelism between the two areas in many respects. He felt,
however, that this was a convergent evolution in many cases
and not evidence of diffusion. He further stated that the Cir-
cum-Caribbean level seemed to be earlier in the southeast than
in the Antilles. This, he felt, pointed to largely independent
evolution of the styles in the southeast. The detailed simil
arities are generally lacking. Since the reading of his paper,
Goggin and others (De Boyerie,et al,1957) have pointed out the
detailed parallelism between Zamia starch manufacture in Santo
Domingo and in Florida among the Seminole. The authors felt
that this was another case of convergent development without
any appreciable diffusion.
It might be pointed out that the current interest in his
toric archeology offers another opportunity for answers to
some of these problems. The contacts of southern Florida Ind
ians with Cuba are known to have been close during the later
Spanish years. Sane of the material similarities between Cuban
artifacts and Glades specimens may be due to this contact.With
documentary control we should investigate the effect of Span-
ish-Indian contact on cultural diffusion.
Sturtevant, in his paper on the results and opportunities
of Florida ethnology, illustrates more clearly than anyone
else the tremendous advances of our science in the last eight
years. The paper requires little further comment from the edi
tor. It simply remains for us to emphasise that the Florida
Seminole offer a prime field for research for those qualified
and willing to try. Sturtevant pointed especially to the need
of more information on the religious and political aspects of
Seminole organization. The recent changes in Seminole culture
make these studies urgent before the change proceeds too far.
In the year since the round table the editor has become
conscious of the need for further work in two minor areas of
Seminole ethnology not emphasised by Sturtevant.
1) With the approaching case of the Seminole claim before
the Indian Claims Commission, the Florida Seminole are making
efforts to formalize their political structure in a pattern
- 68 -

that is acceptable to the Federal government. Seemingly rival
tribal organizations among the reservation and non-reservation
groups have been established under the "leadership" of Federal
and State authorities respectively. This situation should be
studied while it is still going on. The relationship of these
political organizations to the earlier tribal cattle cooperat
ives and to the older tribal councils should prove very inter
esting for students of directed cultural change.
2) There is a very real need for popular literature of
good quality about the Seminole. Peithmann's recent book indi
cates the demand for such publications, although if falls far
short of a desireable treatment (Peithmann.1957). McReynolds
(1957), while purporting to be a complete discussion of the
Seminole, passes quickly and superficially over the entire
Florida period of the Seminole to concentrate on the Oklahoma
bands. What we need is not partly digested and garbled books
for general consumption but adequate cultural pictures of the
Seminole. Capron's (1956) article in the National Geographic
is the kind of thing that is necessary to properly inform the
public of our interesting state and its inhabitants.
Sturtevant has pointed to the need for additional infor
mation on the Florida Choctaw band. Another group of Indians,
or rather scattered families of Indians, exists in the western
part of Florida and southeastern Alabama. These may be the de
scendants of Upper Creeks who fled from central Alabama after
the Red Stick War of 1814. They are scattered in single famil
ies and virtually nothing is known about them. In the same
area predominantly Negro families claim some Indian genes and
are locally known as "White Hats". Both groups would repay
additional study.
Finally, the whole area of ethnohistory in Florida needs
more work. We have no readily available comprehensive study of
any Indian group. This work requires a combination of the tec
hniques of history and ethnology but amply repays the student
in the intrinsic interest of the material. The various ethnic
groups resident in Florida, often for a considerable time,
- 69 -

would also yield valuable results from this sort of treatment.
The descendants of Turnbull's colony have been studied to some
extent, but many other groups remain unknown.
In summary we may point with pride to the accomplishments
of Florida anthropology in the years following the Rollins
College conference on the Florida Indian and his neighbors.
Archeology has made definite strides and is in a position to
assess its problems in a realistic way. The study of linguist
ics has, at least, made a beginning. Ethnology has made signi
ficant strides since the days of MacCauley. While the problems
of rapid acculturation of the Florida Seminole and the destru
ction of sites by construction in a rapidly expanding society
focus our attention on the need for salvage types of ethnology
and archeology, we should not forget the deeper problems. The
sense of "problem" should always be paramount in the interests
of those who would do science, whether professional or non
professional. We need to direct our attention to collecting
information to fill gaps and to find answers to problems of
future, rather than simply salvaging that particular site be
cause it makes a convenient Sunday afternoon trip.
In a very real sense, anthropology is the science of Man.
A state that has launched man-made satlites into space front
her beaches should also contribute to our knowledge of how men
have behaved in the past, behave now in differing societies,
and thus can be presummed to behave in the future. In the
effort to make such contributions, Florida anthropology will
have come of age.
Florida State University
February, 1958
- 70

Below the editor has assembled the publications on Florida
archeology for the period from 1949 to the end of 1957. The list
also includes a few publications for the early months (January to
torch) of 1958. It is believed to be reasonably complete for the
subject during the time considered. It is intended as a suppli-
nent to the discussion of problems and accomplishments in the
summary sections. For this reason, ethnological subjects have not
been included. Sturtevant's bibliography contains all the relev
ant material in this field. The bibliography will serve as well
as any other means to indicate the range of interests of Florida
archeologists. It is obvious that most of the published materials
boncern site excavations or detailed excavation reports. Little
in the way of summary and generalization is available. In addit
ion to the formal published articles, American Antiquity for the
period covered has regularity included in its "Notes and News"
sections brief notices of work underway or contemplated. Unfor
tunately, much of this has been in the nature of plans that were
lever realized. It does, however, serve as a partial check of the
ircheological activities in the state.
The following abreviations have been used:
AA-American Anthropologist
AAn-American Antiquity
FA-Florida Anthropologist
FHQ-Florida Historical Quarterly
Ldams, Richard B.
1957. Investigation of a Northwest Florida Gulf Coast site.
FA, 10:3-4, 50-56, (Nov.)
iga-Oglu, Earner
1955. Late Ming and Early Ch'ing porcelain fragments from
archaeological sites in Florida. FA, 8:4 (Dec.), 91-110.
Vilen, Glen J.
1954. Archaeological excavations in central northwest Gulf
- 71 -

Allen, Glen J.
coast area. FSP Studies. No. 36, 61-86.
Armistead, William J.
1950. An Indian Stone Saw. FA, 2:3-4 (Nov., 1949), pp.47-8.
Benson, Carl A.
1956. Test results at the Paw Paw Mound, Brevard County, Fla.
FA, 9:2 (June), 61-5.
Boyd, Mark F,, Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin
1951. Here they once stood. The tragic end of the Apalachee
Missions. Gainesville, Univ. of Fla. Press.
Bullen, Adelaide K., and Ripley P. Bullen
1950. The Johns Island Site, Hernando County, Florida. AAn,
vol. 16,no. l,pp. 23-45.
1953. The Battery Point Site, Bayport, Hernando County,Fla.
FA, 6:3 (Sept.), pp. 85-92.
1954. Further Notes on the Battery Point Site, Hernando
County, Fla. FA, 7:3 (Sept.), 103-8.
1956. "Excavations on Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida" Florida
State Museum. Contributions. Social Sciences No. 1,
Bullen, Ripley P.
1949. Indian Sites at Florida Caverns State Park. FA, 2:1-2,
(May), pp. 1-9.
1950. An archeological survey of the Chattahoochee River
Valley in Florida. Jour, of Nash. Acad. Sci.. 40:4
(April 15), 102-25.
1950. The Woodward Site. FA, 2:3-4 (Nov.,1949), pp. 49-64.
1950. Tests at the Whittaker Site, Sarasota, Florida. FA,
3:1-2 (May), pp. 21-30.
1951. Perico Island:1950. FA, 3:3-4 (Nov., 1950) pp. 40-4.
1951.The enigmatic Crystal River Site. AAn, vol. 17, no.2,
pp. 142-3.
1951. The Gard Site, Homosassa Springs, Florida. FA, 4:1-2
(May), pp. 27-32.
1951. The Cerra Ceia Site, Manatee County, Florida Fla.An.
Soc. Pub., No. 3,
- 72 -

Bullen, Bipley P.
1952.Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Rept. of Investigations for Fla. Geol. Sur
vey, No. 8.
1952. De Soto's Ucita and the Terra Ceia Site. FHQ, 30:4
(April), 315-23.
1953. The Famous Crystal River Site. FA, 6:1 (March), pp.
1953. Excavations at Manatee Springs, Florida. FA, 6:2
(July), pp. 53-68.
1954. A unique St.Johns Punctated Vessel. FA, 7:2 (May),
pp. 73-4.
1954. The Davis Mound, Hardee County, Florida. FA, 7:3
(Sept.), 97-102.
1955. Archeology of the Tampa Bay Area. FHQ, 34:1 (July),
1955.Stratigraphic tests at Bluffton, Volusia County, Fla.
FA, 8:1 (March), 1-16.
1955. Carved Owl Totem, DeLand, Florida. FA, 8:3 (Sept.),
1956. Some Florida Radio Carbon dates and their significance.
FA, vol. 9:2 (June), Gainesville, pp. 31-36.
1957. The Barnhill Mound, Palm Beach County, Florida. FA,
vol. 10, nos. 1-2, (July), 23-36.
Bullen, Ripley R., and John W. Griffin
1952. An Archeological survey of Amelia Island, Florida.
FA, vol. 5, no. 3-4 (Dec.), pp. 37-64.
Bullen, Ripley R., and D. D. Laxson
1954. Some incised pottery from Cuba and Florida. FA, (March),
pp. 23-26.
Bullen, Ripley P., Graham R.Reeder, Bonnie Bell, and Blake Whisenaut
1952. The Harbor Key Site, Manatee County, Florida. FA,
vol. 5, no. 1-2 (May), pp. 21-3.
Brooks, Marvin J., Jr.
1956.Excavations at Grossman Hammock, Dade County, Florida.
FA, vol. 9, no. 2 (June), pp. 37-46.

Cateen, Paul and Grace
1955. The Horseshoe Island Site, Lake County, Florida.
FA., vol. 8, no. 2 (March), pp. 23-6.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1955. Investigations at Rood's Landing, Stewart Co., Ga.
Early Georgia, vol. 2, no. 1 (Summer), 22-47.
Coates, Gordon C.
1955. Recent tests at the Battery Point Site, Bayport,,Her
nando County, Florida. FA, vol. 8, no. 1 (March), pp.
Du Bois, Bessie Y/ilson
1957. Celt and Pendant from Jupiter Inlet Mound. FA, vol.
10, no. 3-4.(Nov.), pp. 15-16.
Dyson, Robert H., Jr., and Elizabeth Tooker
1949. The Palmer-Taylor Mound, Geneva, Florida. (Cambridge,
Ferguson, Vera Masius
1951. Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Yale
Dniv. Publ. in Anth., No. 45.
Ford, James A.
1952. Measurements of some prehistoric design developments
in the southeastern states. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.,
Anthrop. Papers, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 315-384.
Goggin, John M. and Frank H. Sommer, III
1949. Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale
Univ. Publ. in Anth., no. 41.
Goggin, John M.
1949. A Florida Indian trading post, circa 1763-1784.
Southern Indian Studies, vol. 1, no. 2 (Oct.), 35-8.
1949. A Southern Cult Specimen from Florida. FA, vol. 2,
no. 1-2 (May), 36-7.
1950. An early lithic complex from Central Florida. AAn,
vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46-49.
1950. A preliminary consideration of Spanish introduced
Majolica in Florida and the Southwest. Univ of Fla.,

Goggin, John H.
1950.The State-wide archeological site recording system.
Univ. Fla., Anthropological Laboratory, Laboratory
notes, 1 (Dec;). Mimeographed, Gainesville.
1950.Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida* FA,
vol. 2, no. 3-4 (Nov.,1949), pp. 65-91.
1950. Stratigraphic tests in the Everglades National Park.
AAn, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 228-246.
1950. Florida Archeology 1950. FA, vol. 3, no. 1-2 (May),
pp. 9-20.
1951. Fort Pupo a Spanish Frontier Outpost. FHQ, vol. 30,
pp. 139-92. St. Augustine.
1951. The Snapper Creek Site. FA, vol. 3, no. 3-4 (Nov.,1950),
pp. 50-64.
1952. Space and time perspective in Northern St. Johns Arch
eology, Florida. Yale Univ. Publ. in Anthrop., No. 47,
New Haven, Yale Univ. Press,
1952.Archeological sites in the Everglades National Park,
Florida. Laboratory Notes 2. Univ. Fla., Anthropology
Laboratory. (June). Mimeographed, Gainesville.
1952. Archeological Notes on Lower Fisheating Creek. FA,
vol. 4, no. 3-4 (Nov.,1951), pp. 50-66.
1952. Style areas in historic southeastern art. In. Indian
tribes of aboriginal America. Vol. Ill, Proc. 29th
Congress of Americanists, pp. 172-176. Chicago, Univ.
of Chicago Press.
1954. Are there De Soto Relics in Florida? FHQ, vol. 32,
pp. 151-62.
1954. Historic metal plummet pendants. FA, vol. 7, no. 1
(March), pp. 27-28.
1953. An introductory outline of Timucua Archeology. South
eastern Archeological Conference. Newsletter, vol. 3,
no. 3.
Goggin, John M., Mary E.Godwin, Earl Hester, David Frange, and
Robert Spangenberg
1949. An historic Indian Burial, Alachua County, Florida.
FA, vol. 2, no. 1-2 (May), pp. 10-25.

Griffin, John W.
1949. An Authenic glass artifact. AAn, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
1950. Notes on the Archeology of Useppa Island. FA, vol. 2,
no. 3-4 (nor., 1949), 92-3.
1950. Test excavations at the Lake Jackson Site. AAn, vol.
16, no. 2, pp. 99-112.
1952. The Addison Blockhouse. FHQ, vol. 30, no. 3, (Jan.),
pp. 276-93.
1952. Prehistoric Florida: A Review. In: Archeology of
Eastern United State, James B. Griffin, ed., Univ.
of Chicago Press, pp. 322-334.
1952. A stone spud from Florida. FA, vol,5, no. 3-4 (Dec.),
pp. 3d
Griffin, John W., and Ripley P. Bullen
1950. The Safety Harbor Site Pinellas County, Florida. Fla.
Anth. Soc. Publ., No. 2, Gainesville.
Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith
1954. The Cotton Site: an archaeological site of early ce
ramic times in Volusia County, Florida. FS Studies,
No. 16, pp. 27-60.
Gut, H. James, and Wilfred T. Neill
1953. Bone Artifacts, resembling projectile points, from pre
ceramic sites in Volusia County, Florida. FA, vol. 6,
no. 3, (Sept.), pp. 93-94.
Harrington, Jean C., Albert C. Manucy & John M. Goggin
1955. Archeological Excavations in the courtyard of Castillo
de San Marcos. J3t. Augustine Historical Society, Bull.
1. (1956) reprinted from: Fla. Hist. Soc., vol. 34, no.
2, Oct. 1955. pp. 99-141.
Jennings, Jesse D., Gordon R. Willey, & Marshall T. Newman.
1957. The Ormond Beach Mound East Central Florida. Anth.
Papers no. 49, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amer.
Ethnology, Bui., 164, pp. v-28.
Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
1955. Unusual figurine from the Georgia Coast. FA, vol.8, no.

Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
3 (Sept.), pp. 75-82.
1958. Cultural relationships between the Northern St.Johns
area and the Georgia coast. FA,, pp.11-22.
Laxson, D. D.
1953. Stratigraphy at a Hialeah Midden. FA, vol.6,no.1
(March), pp. 1-8.
1953. Further excavations at Hialeah, Florida. FA, vol.6,
no. 3 (Sept.), pp. 95-9.
1954. A small Hialeah Midden. FA.vol.7,no.3 (Sept.),pp.91-6.
1954. An Historic Seminole Burial in a Hialeah Midden. FA,
vol. 7, no. 4 (Dec.), pp. 111-8.
1957. The Madden Site. FA, vol.10,no.1-2 (July), pp. 1-16.
1957. Three Small Dade County Sites. FA, vol. 10, no. 1-2
(July, pp. 17-22.
1957. The Arch Creek Site. FA, vol. 10, no. 3-4, 1-10
Lazarus, William C.
1958. A Poverty Point Complex in Florida. FA, vol. 11, no.
1, pp. 20-32.
MacDonald, Robert
1951. A New Interpretation of the Carrabelle Site. FA,
vol. 3, no. 3-4 (Nov.,1950), pp. 45-9.
Miller, Carl F.
1950. Early cultural horizons in the southeastern United
States. AAn, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 273-288.
Neill, Wilfred T.
1952. The Manufacture of fluted points. FA, vol. 5, no.
1-2 (May), pp. 9-16.
1952. Unusual rattles from Silver Springs, Florida. FA,
vol. 5, no. 3-4 (Dec.), pp. 33-5.
1953. Notes on the Supposed association of artifacts and
extinct vertebrates in Flagler Comity, Florida. AAn,
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 170-171.
1954. Artifacts from the Bluffton Midden, Volusia County,
Florida. FA, vol. 7, no. 1 (March), pp. 11-18.

Neill, Wilfred T.
1957. The Rapid mineralization of organic remains in Fla.,
and its bearing on supposed Pleistocene Records.
Quart. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci.. vol. 20, no. 1 (March),
pp. 1-13.
Ms. A stratified early site at Silver Springs, Florida.
In press: FA.
1957. Historical Bibliography of present-day Florida.Bull.,
Fla. State Museum. Biological Sciences, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 175-220. Gainesville.
Neill, Wilfred T., H. -James Gut, and Pierce Brodkorb
1956. Animal remains from four preceramic sites in Florida.
AAn, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 383-395.
Plowden, William W., Jr.
1955. Archaeology on Rocky Point, Florida. FA, vol. 8, no.
1 (March), 17-22.
Porter, Rita Krestensen
1952. An analysis of Bell Glade Plain rim sherds from two
Fisheating Creek sites. FA, vol,4, no.3-4, (Nov.,
1951), pp. 67-75.
Rouse, Irving
1950. Vero and Melbourne Man: a cultural and chronological
interpretation. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, vol.
12, no. 7, pp. 220-4.
1951. A survey of Indian River archeology, Florida. Yale
Univ. Publ. in Anthrop.. no. 44, New Haven.
1952. The Age of the Melbourne Interval. Texas Arch, and
Paleo. Soe. Bull, vol. 23 (Oct.), pp. 293-9.
Sears, William H.
n.d.(1951). Excavations at Kolomoki.Season I 1948. Univ.
of Ga., Series in Anthropology, no. 2, Athens. Univ.
of Ga. Press.
1952. An archeological manifestation of a Natchez-type
burial ceremony. FA, vol. 5, no. 1-2 (May), pp. 1-7.
n.d.(1952). Excavations at Kolomoki.Season 11-1950. Mound E.
Univ. of Ga., Series in Anthropology, no.3, Athens,
Univ. of Ga. Press.

Sears, William H.
1952. Ceramic development in the South Appalachian Pro
vince. AAn, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 101-110.
1953. Excavations at Kolomoki: Season III and IV. Mound D.
Univ. of Ga. Series in Anthropology, no. 4, Athens,
Univ. of Ga. Press.
1953. Kolomoki Burial Mounds and the Weeden Island Mor
tuary Complex. AAn, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 223-230.
1954. The sociopolitical organization of Pre-Columbian
cultures on the Gulf Coastal Plain. AA, vol. 56,
no. 3, pp. 339-46.
1956.Settlement patterns in Eastern United States. In:
Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World.
Gordon R. Willey, ed. Viking Fund Publications in
Anthrop., no. 23, New York. pp. 45-51.
1956. Excavations at Kolomoki. Final Report. Univ. of Ga.,
Series in Anthrop., no. 5, Athens, Univ. of Ga.Press.
1956. The Turner River Site, Collier County, Florida. FA,
vol. 9, no. 2 (June), pp. 47-60.
1956. Melton Mound Number 3. FA, vol. 9, no. 3-4 (Dec.),
pp. 87-100.
1957. Excavations on Lower St. Johns River, Florida. Con
tributions of the Florida State Museum. Social Sci
ences, no. 2, Gainesville.
1958. Burial Mounds on the Gulf Coastal Plain. AA, vol.23,
no. 3 (Jan.), pp. 274-83.
1958. The Maximo Point Site. FA, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
Sherman, H. B.
1954. The Occurrence of Bison in Florida. Quart. Jour.Fla.
Acad. Sci., vol. 17, no. 4 (Dec.), pp. 228-32.
Sleight, Frederick
1949. Notes concerning an historic site of central Florida.
FA, vol. 2, no. 1-2 (May), pp. 26-30.
Smith, Hale G.
1949. Two Archeological Sites in Brevard County, Florida.
Fla. Anth. Soc. Publ.. no. I, Gainesville.

Smith, Hale G.,and William Watson
1951. Experiments with Taw materials utilized by the Flo
rida Indians in ceramic construction. FA, rol. 4,
no. 1-2 (May), pp. 18-26.
Smith, Hale G.
1951. Crystal River, Revisited, Revisited, Revisited. AAn,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 143-144.
1951. The ethnological and archeological significance of
Zamia. AA., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 238-244.
1955. Archaeological significance of Oriental porcelain in
Florida Sites. FA, vol. 8, no. 4 (Dec.), pp. 111-16.
1956. "The European and the Indian." Florida Anthropological
Society Publication, no. 4, Gainesville.
Voss, Gilbert L.
1949. An Indian Mound at Hypoluxo, Palm Beach County, FA,
vol. 2, no. 1-2 (May), pp. 31-3.
Willey, Gordon R.
1948a. Culture Sequence for the Manatee region of West
Florida. AAn, vol. 13, no. 4, pt. 1, pp. 325-8.
1949. "Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast." Smithson
ian Institutions Miscellaneous Collections, vol.
113 (whole volume), Washington, D.C. Pub. 3988.
1949. Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale Univ. Publ.
in Anth.. no. 42.
1949. Crystal River, Florida:A 1949 visit. FA, vol. 2,
no. 3-4 (Nov.), pp. 41-6.
1954. Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds,
Cape Canaveral, Florida. FA, vol.7,no.3(Sept.),
pp. 79-90.
Williams, Stephen, and John M. Goggin
1956. The Long Nosed God Mask in Eastern United States.
Missouri Archeologist, vol. 18, no. 3 (Oct.), pp.

Anonymous (Wm. H. Sears)
1958. Notes and News. Amer. Ant ip.. vol. 23, no. 3,p.341.
Capron, Louis
1956. Florida's "wild" Indians, The Seminole. Nat. Oeogr-
phic Mag., vol. 110, no. 6 (December),pp.819-40.
De Boyerie Moya,Emil Marguerita K. Krestensen, & Jolin M.Goggin.
1957. Zamia starch in Santo Domingo.Fla,. Anthrop.,vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 17-40.
Cranberry, Julian
1956. Timucua I: Prosodies and phonemics of the Mocara
dialect. Internat. Jour. Amer. Linguistics.vol.33,
no. 2 (April), pp. 97-105.
Harrington, J. C.
1955. Archeology as an auxiliary science to American His
tory. Amer. Anthrop.. vol. 57, no. l,pt.1,pp.1121-30
McReynolds, Edwin C.
1957. The Seminles. Univ. of Okla. Press, Norman.
Neill, Wilfred T.
Ms. A stratified early site at Silver Springs, Florida
In press: Fla. Anthrop.
Peithmann, Irving M.
1957. The unconquered Seminole Indians.Pictorial history
of the Seminole Indians. Great Outdoors Assoc.,St.
Petersbury, Fla.
The Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida

BLLLE glade municipal library



This is No. 1524
also carried in stock in the following sizes
9 inches
7 inches
% inch
inches 10
% inch

m 44
10 M 44

Other sizes made to order.